JW Insider

This sounds correct, and it's an excellent way to explain how the holy spirit would lead them into all truth, yet Paul said that still see incompletely and imperfectly, as if looking into a hazy mirror. This is why I was a bit disappointed at the implication by GJ that seems limiting when it says that holy spirt created the Bible for us (true) but it seems like the holy spirit is not described as playing a part in the process of helping the GB understand it. It's presented as if the HS has already done its work and congealed itself into the Bible, but reading and rationalizing and remembering how verses might apply is the way the holy spirit "acts." He did mention prayer but gave no connection to the process. It ends up sounding like the way people apply Dylan lyrics to their lives or Shakespeare quotes to describe an experience or a "moral" of a story. (The difference being that the Bible "contains" holy spirit.) His analogy to the Bible as a "constitution" was very appropriate for the legal setting, but it too is a bit disappointing in the context of how the Governing Body, in effect acts like a congress to pass new and improved bills (doctrines) based on a majority if not unanimous voting. And there's that historical problem. If holy spirit is needed to understand (and I thin it is) then what does this say about doctrines that are constantly changed, sometimes back and forth.

If you are looking for reasons not to believe these experiences, it's always easy to find such stories that are told in ways that make them unbelievable. I know there are several Mormon missionary stories that use the idea of two angels protecting someone on his left and right, which also matches a Mormon scripture. A story of 26 angels guarding someone (non-Mormon) was treated by snopes.com, a would-be fact checking site for all kinds of email stories and Internet rumors. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/26-guards/ “Potential victim’s attacker is scared off by guardian angels” is a common glurge theme. (Another widely-circulated tale about a girl who barely avoids becoming the victim of a rapist also draws upon this theme) In fact, that link to "rapist" is to another snopes debunkable which has been told in versions quite similar to the Witness version: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alley-oops/ Many non-Witnesses would be happy to believe that such an experience happened to a Witness, but many Witnesses would be troubled by the fact that non-Witnesses have claimed such experiences, too, and would probably doubt those claims. As you say, however, we cannot question that there may indeed be many cases of divine protection. An thought about why "some and not others" is found in the latter portion of the response to the second link above about the rapist. It's a bit off topic so I won't go into it further, but thought you might find it interesting

Perhaps it's misguided, but it's a view from "Witness" that I agree with 100 percent. Fred Franz was very intelligent, of course. But when I recorded two interviews with him for over an hour each, I was forced to come to my own conclusions about him based on the content of things he said, and certain expressions he used. I think most of what you need to know about him comes from his September 1975 Gilead Talk which I have already linked to in the past. I'm not talking about his argument against an active Governing Body that would form a committee, or ecclesiastical body of some kind, although even that says something that he would use that opportunity for a political speech directed at the other members of the Governing Body disguised only slightly by working in some awkward references to the Gilead students. (Like, 'And don't you get the idea that you need to form committees in the countries to which you have been assigned!') The Watchtower summarized his talk with only vague references to what it was really about: *** w75 11/1 p. 672 Graduates of Gilead’s 59th Class Urged to Stick to the Work *** Addressing the graduates, F. W. Franz showed why they were not being sent by any ecclesiastical body such as exists in the churches of Christendom. According to the Scriptures, neither Philip nor the apostle Paul, two outstanding evangelizers or missionaries in the first century C.E., received missionary assignments from the apostolic body at Jerusalem. Both men did their work under the direction of the real head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ. Paul had, in fact, been directly chosen by Jesus as an apostle to the nations. Later, at the direction of God’s spirit, Paul and his companion Barnabas were sent out from the Antioch congregation. Both men recognized their assignment as having come, not from men, but from Jesus Christ. I'm referring more to his comments about 1975 in that same talk. The typical anti-JW sites, usually cut off the talk before he gets to these comments because those sites are more concerned with his views against the Governing Body. But I'm sure you can find the whole talk somewhere. It's what he says after he pulls out his Jewish calendar to show how it was now the 2nd day of Tishri 1976, and therefore now, "the 2nd day of the 7th millennium of man's existence here on earth." That statement got what sounded like the biggest cheer of the talk. I don't know if he intended it, but it recalled the day that C.T.Russell came down to the dining room on October 1st, 1914 per the Watchtower of that time period (and later changed to October 4th, and currently stated as October 2nd) to announce that the 'Gentile Times have ended!' F.Franz then rambled on about some wonderful, "startling, surprising, happifying things" of numerical significance, since this was the 59th Class, meaning that the 60th was about to start later that year, and "60" should remind us that 6,000 years is 60 centuries. Isn't that amazing!?!?! That this class 59 was only one number away from 60, which somehow gave new significance to 1975. If you pay close attention to his books on Daniel's prophecy (and others) you will see some of the same types of unspiritual thinking. For me, F.Franz proved to be a prime example of why we should not put our trust in a man: (Psalm 146:3) . . . Do not put your trust in . . . a son of man, who cannot bring salvation.

LOL. Thanks. It wasn't by choice, and it's not the first time I have typed "every" for "ever." Among a lot of other mistakes I make is a common one for me where I type "Babylong" for "Babylon" and "imaging" for "imagine." Unfortunately the built in spell-check here will only flag the "Babylong" error. And for some reason I almost always type "it's" even when it's "its." Another one that rarely gets flagged, so I often neglect to change it.

On this particular matter anyway. The next line after Prov 3:5,6 is verse 7: "Do not become wise in your own eyes." I think that the majority of witnesses back in the 1970's were already aware that any discussion of prophetic books or chronology was always written by him or was a repetition of ideas he had already written. This goes all the way back to discussions of every Bible book or passage that touched on prophecy since 1942. In the 1968 Watchtower he was actually arguing against points he himself had made in 1955. But books and articles on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelation, Daniel, Haggai, etc., along with obscure meanings of Jesus' parables were all from him, and except for his own changes, no one else dared "mess" with those explanations until he died. These interpretations of prophecy, also, were not written in such a way that they were open to questioning. There was one explanation and it was "the truth" until he changed it.

I'm saying that all the argumentation was put to use in order to counter the cautionary statements, even cautionary statements of Jesus himself. And look at the expressions and how carefully they were crafted to come as close as possible to saying what people were admittedly thinking. And they were encouraged to think that these conclusions were the ones that God would consider the most appropriate and most fitting and the one that would best fit his loving purpose. Note the question at the bottom of the page for this paragraph in "Life Everlasting:" 30 LIFE EVERLASTING-IN FREEDOM OF THE SONS OF GOD 43 HOW appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath for the proclaiming of liberty throughout the earth to all its inhabitants! This would be most timely for mankind. It would also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible speaks of as the reign of Jesus Christ over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ. Prophetically Jesus Christ, when on earth nineteen centuries ago, said concerning himself: "For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is." (Matthew 12:s) It would not be by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign of Jesus Christ, the "Lord of the sabbath," to run parallel with the seventh millennium of man's existence. -------- 43. What act on God's part would be most timely for mankind and most fitting in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose? The answer obviously is that it would be most fitting for God to make this upcoming 7th period of 1,000 years to be the start of the millennial reign of Christ. Is God going to do something that is NOT the most timely and most fitting thing for him to do? The paragraph started out saying how "appropriate" it would be for Jehovah to do this. Is Jehovah going to do something that is NOT appropriate, or LESS appropriate than what is appropriate for him to do? It's also pretty clear from this "hubris" why Frederick Franz was sometimes called "the Oracle." This is an expression I heard myself more than once.

You are asking how I could say that F.Franz was using deception to get people to think he was saying something he wasn't really saying. And you want to know how, if that was true, I could also say that: Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting -- In Freedom of the Sons of God.") Very simple. He did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world (or system of things) in 1975 by the fact that he never every claimed that that the end would happen in 1975. As I said, he got people to think he was saying one thing "while not quite saying it." This is exactly why I said what I did. He knew the assumption that was being made by his listeners. He was creating that assumption by coming as close to saying it without quite saying it. But he would never endorse that assumption. He was not dumb. Far from it. He heard how the audience was laughing and applauding, just as he had heard how the Service Department was responding with statements in the KM about how we might have only have a few short months left, and that it is heart-warming to hear of people selling their homes to spend the rest of this system in the pioneer work. He knew what District and Circuit Overseers were saying about how, if you read the Watchtower carefully, you know what they are really trying to say. "Stay Alive Until '75!" In fact, he knew that this was exactly what people were saying in the 1920s: "Stay Alive Until 1925!" He knew what people were thinking because he admitted he knew --in the same talk. So he gets the big laugh by talking about all the things that MIGHT happen in 1975, and then adding "but we're not saying." When he says 'and don't any of you go saying' he can tell by the laughter and applause that they are taking it as if they have some secret information that they know because they are entitled to know, but not the rest of the world. It actually would have been very easy to clarify, but he never did. And I realized that everything he was saying in that talk could be understood ambiguously, and I think this is the same "game" he was playing way back in 1968. For example, he knew that people would be saying: "But what about the scripture where Jesus said, no one knows the day or the hour." Circuit overseers would take this verse and comment, "Yes he said no one would know the day or the hour - but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" How had F.Franz handled it? He addressed that verse by saying that "now is not the time to be toying with that verse." What does that mean? Again, ambiguity: *** w68 8/15 p. 494 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? WHAT about all this talk concerning the year 1975? Lively discussions, some based on speculation, have burst into flame during recent months among serious students of the Bible. Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of 6,000 years of human history since Adam’s creation. The nearness of such an important date indeed fires the imagination and presents unlimited possibilities for discussion. . . . That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now. . . it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind! . . . Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. 1975! . . . AND FAR BEYOND! One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. Make no mistake, it is sufficient that the Father himself knows both the “day and hour”! 36 Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active? When you make one or two ambiguous expression in the midst of 10 clear ones, it's understandable and you still have clarity. But when 8 out of 10 are ambiguous and only 2 shows clarity (by mentioning speculation, or possibilities). It's easy to reinterpret the clearer expressions about possibility into the ambiguous ones that can be interpreted as expressing a higher level of certainty and confidence.

Not only did I emphatically state just the opposite about Fred Franz, I happened to be one here who exposed the apostate recording as a manipulated "fake" recording. But the recording I linked to is not manipulated. The recording does not show Fred Franz endorsing the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. It shows how he speaks in such a way that he repeatedly elicits the most vocal response from those who see that he is endorsing the closeness of the end to the year 1975, and even a remaining possibility for the year 1975, but never endorsing the assumption. It does create a deception. But there really is a difference. Over time, I expect that all the emphasis on 1975 really did shift the focus away from that Adam-to-Even time gap, by minimizing it to a period of only weeks or months and not years. It must have been minimized almost into oblivion because before the year 1975 was even finished, there was suddenly a lot less talk about great urgency and heightened watchfulness. The convention talk titles show this. I just checked the Kingdom Ministry for the use of the word "urgency" for the decade of the 1970's. It was used ZERO times in 1976. You would think, that if anyone still "believed" in the 6,000 year rhetoric after 1975 commenced without evidence, that the word urgency would have doubled and tripled right up through 1978 or even a bit further. But it drops to nearly nothing, in fact completely disappearing between August 1975 and December 1977. Disappearing for 28 months, and just as sparse until the decade of the 1970s runs out.

Exact same thing that Allen Smith accused me of stating, too. It's still just as untrue. Fred Franz did not endorse the assumption of the end of the world in 1975. I've sometimes been the first to correct that false notion when naive opposers have made such a claim about Fred Franz on this very forum. For Fred Franz it was not about him endorsing 1975. Fred Franz considered it "an appropriate time for God to act" based on the unscriptural idea he held at the time that the creative days must have each been 7,000 years long, and that God's great rest day, should appropriately include the 1,000 year reign and still end end within a very short period of time after the year 2975. (The year 2975 was listed in the chart in the 1966 book, "Life Everlasting In the Freedom of the Sons of God.") The Watchtower that same year said: *** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. But it was always more about the closeness to 1975, since 1975 marked the 6,000th year of that 7,000 year period. You might be aware that I've been consistent about that point all along on this forum. 1975 got emphasized because of that available point of measurement, yet it was NEVER stated that the world would end in 1975, nor that Armageddon or the end of this system would occur in that year. The point was that it MIGHT, which was a very true statement; we had no reason to believe it couldn't. And we had every reason to be extra alert because we were given many reasons to believe that the end of the system must have been about to occur, not necessarily in 1975, but at least in the decade of the 1970's. From just before the 1970's started, right up until early in the year 1975, the year was emphasized because it was "Biblical" date in a sense, but no one ever said that the end could not come before 1975, or even a few years after 1975. Combined with our view of world events at the time, this made sense and many statements were made that would convince a normal person that Armageddon could come in 1975 or within a matter of months, not years, beyond 1975. *** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years. To a careful reader, this statement says that at the most we had about until October 1977 until we entered the last thousand years of that "rest period" which would (appropriately and lovingly and purposefully) run parallel with the thousand year reign of Christ. (Because after 1977 it would now no longer just be a measure of months, but years, in the plural, and we had just been told that it may be weeks or months, but NOT YEARS.) Then a small note in the same Watchtower reminded us that another factor might add or subtract 6 months to that limit. This could potentially have pushed that maximum limit out until April 1978. This explains why the talks, the Awake! and Watchtower magazine covers, Circuit Assembly lapel badge messages, and even Watchtower subscription campaigns (in the late 60s and early 70s) made several references to the "mid-70s," "the decade of the 1970's," "What will the 1970's bring?" "Who will conquer the world in the 1970's?" etc. *** w71 9/15 p. 561 pars. 10-12 Set Apart from the World *** With populations exploding all over the earth, many nations now stand at the brink of starvation, and disaster is predicted by experts for the mid-1970’s. Rather than fit in with political promises of a bright, materialistic tomorrow, this devastation on earth fits Jehovah’s prophecies on mankind’s waywardness in the “last days.” . . . And now, as we enter the 1970’s, an astonishing picture presents itself. *** w69 11/1 p. 668 How to Avoid Regrets *** Just as we looked back over the past five years, let us look five years into the future. That will be the year 1974. What will we be regretting then? What are we doing right now, or failing to do now, that years from now we will wish we had done or had done differently? Jehovah has provided sufficient information so that we can definitely know the trend of future events. His Word reveals that we are without question fast approaching the end of this entire wicked system of things. (Matt. 24:3-14; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 1 John 2:17) . . . So when the end of this system of things soon comes, what will be our greatest need? But it was not even a new point about the end of the 6,000 years ending in the 1970's: *** w74 8/15 p. 507 No Spiritual “Energy Crisis” for Discreet Ones *** In 1943 the Watch Tower Society’s book “The Truth Shall Make You Free” did away with the nonexistent extra 100 years in the period of the Judges and placed the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence in the 1970’s. It also fixed the beginning of Christ’s presence, not in 1874, but in 1914 C.E. Back then (in 1943), the end of 6,000 years was not 1975, but 1976. And it was also not a new point to discuss the gap between Adam's creation and Eve's creation that could effect the expectation of the 1,000 year reign starting immediately that year. The only difference was that all the arguments were for a longer time gap between Adam and Even, and by 1968, all the arguments were for a shorter time gap between Adam and Eve. *** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers *** . . . six thousand years of God’s rest day would be ending in the fall of 1976. However, from our present chronology (which is admitted imperfect) at best the fall of the year 1976 would be the end of 6,000 years of human history for mankind, 6,000 years of man’s existence on the earth, not 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh seven-thousand-year period. Why not? Because Adam lived some time after his creation in the latter part of Jehovah’s sixth creative period, before the seventh period, Jehovah’s sabbath, began. Why, it must have taken Adam quite some time to name all the animals, as he was commissioned to do. Further, it appears from the New World Bible Translation that, even while Adam was naming the animals, other family kinds of living creatures were being created for Adam to designate by name. (Gen. 2:19 footnote d, NW) It was not until after Adam completed this assignment of work that his helpmate Eve was created. Since God created nothing new whatever on the seventh day, Eve must have been created on the sixth day; and this the divine record confirms in its account of the sixth day: “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.”—Gen. 1:27, NW. The very fact that, as part of Jehovah’s secret, no one today is able to find out how much time Adam and later Eve lived during the closing days of the sixth creative period, so no one can now determine when six thousand years of Jehovah’s present rest day come to an end. Obviously, whatever amount of Adam’s 930 years was lived before the beginning of that seventh-day rest of Jehovah, that unknown amount would have to be added to the 1976 date. This was the big difference in emphasis about 1975. Note, how every point of "delay" above is refuted just 13 years later: *** w68 8/15 pp. 499-500 pars. 30-33 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years. 31 In regard to Adam’s creation it is good to read carefully what the Bible says. Moses in compiling the book of Genesis referred to written records or “histories” that predated the Flood. The first of these begins with Genesis 1:1 and ends at Genesis 2:4 with the words, “This is the history of the heavens and the earth . . . ” The second historical document begins with Genesis 2:5 and ends with verse two of chapter five. Hence we have two separate accounts of creation from slightly different points of view. In the second of these accounts, in Genesis 2:19, the original Hebrew verb translated “was forming” is in the progressive imperfect form. This does not mean that the animals and birds were created after Adam was created. Genesis 1:20-28 shows it does not mean that. So, in order to avoid contradiction between chapter one and chapter two, Genesis 2:19, 20 must be only a parenthetical remark thrown in to explain the need for creating a “helper” for man. So the progressive Hebrew verb form could also be rendered as “had been forming.”—See Rotherham’s translation (Ro), also Leeser’s (Le). 32 These two creation accounts in the book of Genesis, though differing slightly in the treatment of the material, are in perfect agreement with each other on all points, including the fact that Eve was created after Adam. So not until after this event did the sixth creative day come to an end. Exactly how soon after Adam’s creation is not disclosed. “After that [Adam and Eve’s creation] God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Gen. 1:31) After the sixth creative day ends, the seventh one begins. 33 This time between Adam’s creation and the beginning of the seventh day, the day of rest, let it be noted, need not have been a long time. It could have been a rather short one. The naming of the animals by Adam, and his discovery that there was no complement for himself, required no great length of time. The animals were in subjection to Adam; they were peaceful; they came under God’s leading; they were not needing to be chased down and caught. It took Noah only seven days to get the same kinds of animals, male and female, into the Ark. (Gen. 7:1-4) Eve’s creation was quickly accomplished, ‘while Adam was sleeping.’ (Gen. 2:21) So the lapse of time between Adam’s creation and the end of the sixth creative day, though unknown, was a comparatively short period of time. The pronouncement at the end of the sixth day, “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good,” proves that the beginning of the great seventh day of the creative week did not wait until after Adam and Eve sinned and were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

I believe you probably have seen such a list. But I never made such a list. I could try, but I'd probably only get about 14 of them right. Still, I imagine it would be difficult to track and manage all of these personas without a list of some kind. So I wouldn't doubt your claim.

You spelled sauna wrong. I won't marry you.

Makes sense to me. Back under another topic about 1914, specifically, "JR Ewing" and then "Guest JR Ewing" used the same expression: And also here: At that time I assumed that "doctoral" was being used as another word for "doctrinal" based on the context. That would have also fit the more recent context here. But if you say that here you meant "doctoral" to mean "ecclesiastical endorsement" that's fine.

Such a meeting could be for anointed persons to answer questions about what they have learned in previous years of independent Bible study. If everyone is sharing in a group, it's easier for some to speak up after others have spoken up. It could be led like a class with sets of specific questions, partially in the form of a survey. Or it might just sound like a Watchtower study that no one had studied for in advance. The conductor would have a paragraph read with a certain idea and then he would ask for comments on the material. The goal would be to find out what things that some of the anointed have learned in their own studies that they wish the GB might be able to share. Or an oft-questioned doctrine could then come up and persons who volunteer could offer their thoughts and questions about it. And there might be a segment on what some of them may have thought was another possibility when it comes to prophetic explanations. They would not have to reveal their current views if it makes them uncomfortable to admit a difference, but just a brainstorming of ideas that have gone through their heads in the past. Naturally not everyone would participate and not everyone invited would want to attend. There are a lot of JWs who always thought that something like this had gone on in the past anyway. And Brother Sydlik had made a comment on more than one occasion that we should just scrap a certain doctrine and "start over from scratch." You mentioned that anointed and independent Bible study has already been a goal for some. I think a lot of people have the idea those Bethel Bible studies led to the apostasy disfellowshippings at Bethel in 1980. But as far as I know, this type of independent study had been going on, at least for some, since the late 1960's. In fact, the anointed brother who opened up his room to one 2 hour session and one 1 hour session on another day of the week, had been doing this ever since the Aid Book research began, and it was an excellent way to share things learned that wouldn't fit in the Aid Book. (Part 1 was released on 1969) There were a few who just loved Bible Study, and it was kind of an overflowing excitement that the host usually had, and it would affect others. I think a lot of people have the idea that ALL of these were dangerous just because a couple members of the Writing Department who were also involved in such things were asked to leave Bethel. But this was because of their personal beliefs, extracted after an inquisition that offered a bit of amnesty for anyone who heard anything that sounded like apostasy from a "higher-up." But this was not a part of the Bible study groups. Even if the host didn't believe in 1914, for example, he wasn't about to bring that up in a Bible study where Bethelites of various ages and backgrounds might get upset, confused, turn him in, etc. (Although I understand that one small group actually did use their Bible study night as a cover for discussing views against 1914, the limited mediator doctrine, etc.) These types of studies were even hosted by F.Franz who would answer questions in the steam room for people who held him in high esteem. Then he would take a passage in Jeremiah, Ezekiel etc., and start expounding verse by verse. The one time that I went to see what it was all about, he was focusing on Jeremiah. I don't think it follows that independent Bible study results automatically in division. Besides, it would never be allowed unless the GB were looking for a different approach to our doctrines, and it would need to coincide with an approach that didn't claim to know the ONLY correct doctrine on some issues. As others have mentioned, you can simply propose the most likely version based on evidence, and humbly request anyone with additional evidence to come forward and share.

An interesting point, because we (some of us) tended to defend the idea (GB=FDS) by saying that it never made that much sense that all of the anointed would be both domestics and FDS. Yet here we are right back with one of the original problems with the doctrine that I, at first, thought had been overcome.

They very well could. I am not one of the anointed and I therefore don't know exactly how that particular expression of the holy spirit manifests itself. We say it has a lot to do with how sure such individuals are, in their heart, that they are "invited" to heaven. I expect it has a bit to do with "feeling" that they have long felt that the calling to eternal life in heaven is much more appealing and much more sure than the prospect of living forever in a paradise earth. Beyond that, I have never heard an anointed person express much. Although I expect (and have been told by longtime non-anointed brothers) that within themselves there is a certain inexplicable "joy" involved in that heavenly calling. I have never personally heard an anointed person describe it with that term. I'm positive that some would, however. I say this, because I think that there would be certain sense of "I just feel it! I know we have this one right!" when an issue that has come up to the Governing Body has been resolved in a positive way, perhaps by updating or completely changing a teaching or practice. It's hard to imaging that there wouldn't be something like that, because I'm sure all the rest of us have felt a kind of warm fatherly love when an issue we struggled with has been resolved through prayer and scripture, and sometimes through new circumstances that either highlight a proper direction, or resolve an issue by showing a way out of the problem. Or sometimes we just feel a certain kind of "pure joy" at reading a Bible passage for the 10th time and seeing something that is not only new but helps us appreciate Jehovah better, or will help us with our own or someone else's problems. This is why I think that Brother Jackson's testimony seemed a bit mundane. Perhaps there is more to the "sureness" or some kind of "sign" seen in the fact that others bring up the same scripture they were concerned with, but help them see it in a new way. Perhaps there is more to the way each of them personally feels that a prayer is personally answered with some unstated "connection" to the right answer. But in any case, Brother Jackson boiled it all down to what sounds like a prayer, followed by a scripture search to sort of see what pops out at them. It does sound more mental than heartfelt, more rationalized than motivating. And I understand that making a big deal about the difference in the words "heart" and "mind" can sometimes be artificial, but I think you know what I mean. It reminded me of comments such as these in 2016: *** ws16 January p. 22 pars. 6-8 “We Want to Go With You” *** So anointed ones do not think that they are better than others. They know that Jehovah does not necessarily give anointed ones more holy spirit than he gives his other servants. And they do not feel that they can understand Bible truths more deeply than anyone else. . . . They do not try to find other anointed ones so that they can talk about being anointed or meet in groups to study the Bible. (Galatians 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did this. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Read Romans 16:17, 18. Of course, I'd be just as happy if anointed ones did meet to study the Bible together, and send their suggestions to the GB for evaluation and distribution. Doesn't mean that they would split off from the congregations and be disunited. The Society gets missionaries together, pioneers together, elders, circuit overseers, branch overseers, doctors, lawyers, computer specialists, building specialists, orchestras, choirs . . . why not a meeting or two with those who claim to be anointed?

Could either one of you tell me what you mean by "doctoral" in these cases? A "doctoral" understanding is the understanding of someone who is a a doctor or who has a doctoral degree. But that wouldn't make any sense in any of these examples.

In the recent Annual Meeting there was an implication that the Governing Body might get special direction from the holy spirit possibly before others. But there have also been comments by the Governing Body stating that no person claiming to be anointed can claim to have more holy spirit than a person who claims to be a member of the great crowd. This explanation above is a bit mundane, but perhaps this is the reason. The Governing Body has enough experience now to realize that by prayer and using the Bible, they go through the scriptures and see if there was a Biblical principle at all that would influence their decision. Or they could have decided something in the past but a scripture comes up with respect to a subsequent discussion (not necessarily on the same topic?) and this scripture is recognized as one that they might have missed in the earlier decision. It's "THAT" which is viewed as God's holy spirit motivating them, not because anyone feels anything special about a decision but apparently strictly because of noticing any Biblical principle that might apply to the decision after praying and going through the scriptures.

Great answer!

That's one way to look at it. It would go against my own conscience. What might a nation or government ever ask you to do that might go against your conscience, if I may ask?

True. That had a lot to do with the original practice, which appeared to leave conscience out of it. (Of course, other scriptures said the same thing as Romans 13). But by 1962 that should not have got in the way any longer. Still, once something gets stuck, it's hard to get it unstuck.

It might look that way. But I think many of the GB (more than one-third) could have believed that voluntarily submitting in support of a military organization was breaking integrity to God. Surely if the Bible says be no part of the world, and love your enemy, etc., anyone could easily interpret this to mean that support of the military is support of the "enemy" which is Satan's world and it's machinations. The Pharasaic, legalistic issues come into play when someone questions, then, why we would submit at all after imprisonment (because the typical sentence in most countries was often to just do 2 to 5 years of the same thing the brother just refused to do voluntarily, and the instruction from the Society was to follow orders of the court in that case. (Romans 13 could be invoked as "the sword" of the authorities -- paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, etc.) That's always a tendency, but it is not the case that they are corrupt, just human. I think the problem took 50 years to fix because it had a long tradition. It had become one of those "strongly entrenched things" as the Bible calls them. Perhaps it was seen as possibly going against something that Rutherford had received through one of those "flashes of light" that he claimed to get, perhaps received at a time when Jehovah needed to influence him more directly than he influences the GB today. Remember, that if we "rank and file" publishers have trouble understanding the workings of the holy spirit and inspiration, it must be an even touchier subject for those who claim they have no more holy spirit than a member of the great crowd, but who also know that their decisions will effect thousands or millions. How do they know if Rutherford might have been right when he claimed, for a while, that angels, not holy spirit, brought "flashes" of insight "directly" to the earthly part of God's "temple?" By changing a doctrine, even if it seems wrong, the current GB might feel they are "standing on holy ground." That time period when military service and alternative service questions started was the same period that brought Jehovah's Witnesses victoriously through persecution, Hitler and WWII. And now the GB are going to question that past and say that a big part of it was wrong all along? It's always so much easier to just let things go as they always have until the issue reaches a crisis or boiling point.

I think so. I think they are much better, and I think that discussions of doctrinal issues go beyond the GB circle now. That was true up until about 1978, when there were very open discussions of doctrinal issues, and any Bethel Elder might talk to a table of Bethelites with a new idea. Then they cracked down on that from 1979 until F.Franz died, and then tightened those kinds of discussions into the GB "inner rooms" only, according to a brother from Writing (who had too many of his own ideas anyway). But in the last 10 years or so, even some of the helpers have researchers. When I was at Bethel, I was in the Art Department but was also doing research. Brother Schroeder (GB) gave me my first of many research projects in early 1977 and it was to do a survey/report on all the Greek words and expressions that can translate the expression "house to house" and report on Bible dictionaries, Bible translations, and uses from the LXX, Josephus, Philo, etc. His own Greek was pretty good, much better than mine in fact, but at least I knew how to use a dictionary and could do some leg work for him. I don't know who else used researchers back then, because all the brothers in the Writing Department did their own research, as far as I could tell. (There were no sisters in Writing then as there are now.) F. Franz died more than a quarter-century ago. I think it's much different now. I don't really know any of them personally but we can see a pattern in the types of talks and topics each of them gets assigned. I don't get the impression that any of them are trying to outdo one another these days. Politics was rampant when I was working at Bethel from 1976 to 1982. I doubt that anyone can know, but there are a lot more talks at Gilead Graduations and Annual Meetings that give you a good idea what has been talked about in terms of updates to doctrines. Also, you can learn to listen in a certain way to how some doctrines are brought up to know if it's under discussion. The "Peace and Security" issue came up recently, for example. I was at a WT study about a month ago where a member of the GB was in the audience and I thought it odd that he brought up the scripture and then without any reason I could think of decided to defend the idea that the Peace and Security issue might be a bigger thing than just a general condition. Bringing it up in a defensive way would make one think that maybe it had needed defending recently. I made a note of it on my iPhone at the time, but didn't think much of it until I just noticed that it was under discussion at the annual meeting, which means that if a new doctrine were to come out of this, it was also very likely discussed in a GB meeting. Would be wonderful if it were recorded and made public. But that would probably change the whole tenor of the meeting if they knew outsiders might know what goes on. I have heard that things go very smoothly among the GB at their meetings, but that a lot of "we can hear you through the wall" arguing goes on among the GB Helpers. Again that was just one man's report, and he is not one of the Helpers, just a brother in Writing, who might even be jealous. (Just kidding!)

I agree, and this verse was probably the reason for changing the rules in 1996. (Also the fact that F.Franz had died.) Of course, there is still that caveat about "going against the will of God." That left some flexibility in why a group might think one way and not another. Another reason had been that Witnesses had already been disfellowshipped for choosing according to their conscience. There is a rarely repeated doctrine that for many years had declared that if Armageddon comes and you are disfellowshipped you will die at Armageddon. Some Circuit Overseers even taught that if you died in this system and were disfellowshipped and had not been making progress toward repentance that you would not be resurrected into the new system. It's our little version of the "hellfire" doctrine, but without the "hellfire." Another aside, but I learned recently that the brother who wrote most of the expert opinions and consulted with the service department on all issues regarding blood transfusion has (or had) completely changed his mind on the blood doctrine. (For people who might think I mean the previous brother in this position, this was not Brother F...R..., but Brother G...S......) When I first heard about it I thought it was based only on the fractions issue, but I have confirmed that it was about the entire blood transfusion doctrine. He was not a member of the Governing Body, but had been one of the GB "Helpers" and a long-time member of the Writing Department. I'm not saying he is/was correct or not about this view, but the point is that in discussing whether or not the Society would ever change its stance, the response was that we couldn't because it would cause trauma to all the people who lost loved ones. Those who had been disfellowshipped over the blood doctrine may not have come up, I don't know. I only heard this from a long-time friend of mine in the Writing Department who spoke with this other brother. Last year, I tried, unsuccessfully, to speak with this "blood" brother. Interesting that you picked that scripture in Romans. Evidently there had been several different "bills before congress" in the sense that a few different members of the Governing Body had tried different proposals that might offer versions of "wording" to define the actual change. The first one that ever passed with the two-thirds majority required for actually making the change happened to be the proposed wording that R.Franz wrote. This was the one that Brother Lloyd Barry changed his vote over. There had been no procedure in place for such a vote change after something passed, which likely was the reason that Brother Barry made use of a mistake in the wording, according to R.Franz. R.Franz explains his mistake in the 2nd book where he accidentally referenced 1 Cor 13:1-7 instead of Romans 13:1-7. When this was pointed out, and R.Franz was correcting the mistake, Lloyd Barry used that as the reason to change his vote: he didn't want Romans 13 used in the presentation. When it was then offered to remove it altogether, he said No to that too. Basically, he just needed to change his vote. You'll find it on page 269 and 270 of the PDF of the book "In Search of Christian Freedom." Like "Crisis of Conscience," it's floating around on the 'net somewhere. That's quite beside the main point however, and I thought the following points were more interesting. A point I never knew about at all until reading this book. (I had read "Crisis of Conscience," first edition only, but still had only done a quick skim of "Christian Freedom" carefully reading only a couple of the chapters.) I thought the best summary of the problem did not appear until a later version of "Crisis of Conscience," which I only just read because I had never re-read the entire updated version: The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance. One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural position, imposed by organizational authority. Had there been a frank acknowledgment of error, not merely doctrinal error, but error in wrongfully invading the right of conscience of others, and of regret over the harmful consequences of that intrusion, one might find reason for sincere commendation, even reason for hope of some measure of fundamental reform. Regrettably, the May 1, 1996 Watchtower nowhere deals with these factors and contains not even a hint of regret for the effects of the wrong position enforced for over half a century. It does not even offer any explanation as to why the mistaken policy was rigidly insisted upon for over fifty years. In a couple of sentences it makes the change, doing so as if by edict, one that in effect says, “Your conscience may now be operative in this area.” In place of apology, the organization instead seems to feel it deserves applause for having made changes it should have had the good sense (and humility) to have made decades earlier, changes that were resisted in the face of ample evidence presented from the Scriptures, both from within the Body and from Branch Office committees. Some of these Branch committees presented not only all the Scriptural evidence found in the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, but even more extensive and more carefully reasoned Scriptural evidence. They did this back in 1978 but what they wrote was, in effect, shrugged off or discounted by those of the Governing Body who held out for maintaining the traditional policy then in place. In the second book, I think R.Franz was "spot on" in his pointing out that the real problem is "legalism." This was clear from an update of "In Search of Christian Freedom" in the chapter "Legalism: Opponent of Christian Freedom." But yet another technicality was introduced. The organization even took the position that if, previous to the actual sentence being passed, the Witness was asked by the judge if his conscience would allow him to accept an assignment from the court to do hospital work or similar service, he could not answer in the affirmative but must say, “that is for the court to decide.” If he answered, “Yes” (which would have been a truthful answer), he was considered to have “compromised,” having made a “deal” with the judge, and thus had broken his integrity. But if he gave the prescribed, approved response already quoted, and then the judge in sentencing him assigned him to do hospital work or similar service, he could comply. He was now not guilty of violating the apostolic exhortation to “stop becoming the slaves of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23) Surely such technicalities are truly casuistic and the application of the term “Pharisaical” does not seem too harsh. This is no light matter. During World War II, in the United States alone some 4,300 young Jehovah’s Witnesses went to prison, with sentences ranging as high as 5 years, not simply because of conscientious objection to war, but primarily because, in adhering to the Society’s policy, they refused governmental provisions allowing them to perform other service of a non-military nature provided for conscientious objectors. In England, there were 1,593 convictions, including those of 334 women. Though the policy was rescinded in 1996, there still remained hundreds in pris- ons in various lands, the imprisonment resulting from their obeying the Society’s policy. In 1988, in just the countries of France and Italy there were some 1,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison for this reason.

You are wrong, but it's easy to see where the mistake comes from. You apparently didn't realize that it was not Raymond Franz who became President on June 7 1977, but it was Frederick Franz, and that it was Frederick Franz, not Raymond Franz, who explained to a large gathering* that 1975 didn't happen because it was the fault of Witnesses in the audience for expecting it. You can still get the audio recording of Fred Franz making this outrageous accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses. Your quote is from The Re-Enchantment of the West, Vol 2, p.295, by Christopher Partridge. Yes, it's true that Partridge claims that "Raymond Franz conceded that there had been a prophecy" and that it had failed. The book makes it appear that, as you said, Raymond Franz "conceded to a wide erroneous assumption that he ended admitting to." As you said: The actual talk by F. W. Franz is one for which I have never heard a recording. It was at a new Assembly Hall in Canada. The talk has been described in several places. I just found the following from a Google search that pointed to a book by Edmund C. Gruss: I just listened again to the talk that F.W.Franz gave on February 10, 1975 in Los Angeles. I had heard it right after my grandmother recorded it. She was all excited about it. And I was too at the time. But I remember my father still downplaying the date, and saying to listen very closely to what he is NOT saying. I listened again this morning and got a slightly different opinion of it. I realize that Frederick W Franz was actually using deception, pure and simple, to get people to think he was saying one thing while not quite saying it, saying something only slightly different. And it was working very well. He had a good part of the audience "reading between the lines" as you can tell by their applause. It's a little off topic, but I listened to it from this YouTube video that follows along in the same book that Franz is asking the audience to take note of. The assembly lapel ID badge shown is not actually related directly to the same talk. It's just what was attached to the video. The actual context of the badge is from 1970 and early 1971. Note the Our Kingdom Ministry that year: *** km 7/70 p. 3 Announcements *** A new circuit assembly program is scheduled to begin in September. We believe you will find it most informative and upbuilding. The public talk will be “Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970’s?”

I know you asked for a response, but you have sometimes indicated that you feel insulted by my responses, so this response is directed only to others who might have also wondered what I meant. I was referring to the 16 years between late 1979, the last time when R.Franz was involved in the last vote on this issue, and 1996, when the Society finally was able to get a large enough majority for the second time, and the change was finally made. Many brothers who would not have gone to prison by being allowed to act upon their own conscience during those extra 16 years, actually did serve prison time during those years. Anyone who wishes can probably see that this is a point that R.Franz made in his book, here: The twothirds majority was gone. After further discussion, when another vote was taken it read: Nine in favor, five against, one abstention. Though still a definite majority it was no longer a two-thirds majority. Though only a minority of the Governing Body favored the continuance of the existing policy and the sanctions it applied toward any who accepted alternative service (unless sentenced thereto), that policy remained in effect. Year after year, hundreds of men, submitting to that policy although neither understanding it nor being convinced of its rightness, would continue to be arrested, tried, and imprisoned—because one individual on a religious council changed his mind. Witness men could exercise their conscientious choice of accepting alternative service only at the cost of being cut off from the congregations of which they were a part, being viewed as unfaithful to God and Christ. Surely such instances make clear why no Christian should ever be expected to mortgage his conscience to any religious organization or to any body of men exercising virtually unlimited authority over people’s lives. I found the whole affair disheartening, tragic. Yet I felt that I learned more clearly just to what ends the very nature of an authority structure can lead men, how it can cause them to take rigid positions they would not normally take. This case illustrated the way in which the power of tradition, coupled with a technical legalism and a mistrust of people’s motives, can prevent one from taking a compassionate stand. The matter came up on one other occasion and the vote was evenly split. Thereafter it was dropped and for most members it seemed to become a non-issue. The organization, following its voting rules, had spoken. The Branch Committees’ arguments need not be answered—they could simply be informed that “nothing had changed” and they would proceed accordingly. The men in prison would never know that the matter had even been discussed and that, consistently, half or more of the Governing Body did not believe they needed to be where they were. ... If the published statements in the Watchtower and Awake! magazines have any validity at all, then, when compared with the statements of these Branch Committee members, they clearly identify these young Witness men as either very vulnerable to brainwashing or as already victims of indoctrination and mass persuasion. In 1996, when the organization reversed its policy on alternative service, many hundreds, even thousands, of these young men were right then in prison, like thousands before them, but they really did not know why the position they took, which led to their imprisonment, should have been taken. They accepted a policy without seeing a sound basis for it, they allowed their decisions to be governed, not by solid evidence from God’s Word, but by “group loyalty,” and “organizational loyalty.” These are the same forces that give such potency to indoctrination on the part of what Witnesses call “worldly” organizations. It is a case of doing what one’s associates do and what the authority (the organization) says, even though one finds the reasons given to be insubstantial, even “artificial.” The view of alternative service these persons accepted was clearly a “borrowed” one, not their own. Concern over what others in their religious community would think, concern over reprisals by the organization in the form of excommunication, certainly must have weighed heavily in their thinking, causing them to shut out any questions from their minds and simply submit. These young Witness men stood before government tribunals and declared themselves bound to an uncompromising position of rejecting alternative service unless first arrested and tried and sentenced to perform it by a judge, and they perhaps thought that such was their own conviction. But their inability to explain the reason for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for them. Recall the Watchtower statements earlier quoted: