JW Insider

I didn't say there was. And I never thought you were saying there was. I won't be quoting it for you. But why would you claim he said something in his book and then find it insulting when I show you that he said the opposite? Isn't it possible to simply acknowledge or even apologize for the error and move on without feeling insulted?

Another interesting belief. What you state would normally mean that you believe that seeing a 2/3 majority vote, is the same as seeing a sign from the Holy Spirit. Amazingly, that would mean that when Brother Lloyd Barry saw that the vote was a two-thirds majority in the vote on alternative service, he should have recognized it as a sign from the Holy Spirit. But, then why would he decide to change his vote. We know that he had just realized that only one vote would make this go against the vote of Fred Franz. Could that be why? Or, if you are right, then he deliberately fought against a sign given by the holy spirit. You have Brother Barry thinking something like the following: "Oh look, a sign from the Holy Spirit -- a two-thirds majority. I wonder if I should kick against the goads of the Holy Spirit and change my vote, or just accept the sign. Well, it doesn't have to be me does it? After all Fred Franz saw it, too, and we call him the 'Oracle.' So surely Fred will see that there was as sign from the Holy Spirit and he will change his vote accordingly. But then again, we all know that the voting goes pretty much like this (as taken from CoC, p.279) : If, for example, the hands of Milton Henschel, Fred Franz, Ted Jaracz and Lloyd Barry went up, one could generally be sure that the hands of Carey Barber, Martin Poetzinger, William Jackson, George Gangas, Grant Suiter and Jack Barr would go up as well. If the hands of the former stayed down, the hands of the latter would generally stay down also. Some others would likely vote with these but their vote was not as predictable. With rare exceptions, this pattern prevailed. The pattern held particularly true if any traditional policy or position was under discussion. One could know beforehand those members who would almost certainly vote in favor of maintaining that traditional policy and against any change therein. Even in the case of the “alternative service” issue, already discussed in a previous chapter, though here outnumbered, these members were still able to prevent a two-thirds majority vote from altering the position on that issue. But we know that Fred Franz almost never changes his vote, and Klein won't change unless Fred does. But we do have Jaracz going against his usual pattern and voting to change this thing, even though Franz is voting to leave it as it is. So really it should be be Jaracz who changes his vote. Maybe I can find some excuse, and then change my vote to be in line with Fred Franz again. I owe him after that GB vote where I begged him to join the rest of us to make it unanimous. As it happened, Barry was able to find an excuse to change his vote. So he did. Then the vote had to come up again to see if it would still pass. This time Barry stepped away so as not to be included. The first time it was F.Franz, Henschel, Jackson and Klein who opposed the change. If one more had taken his place, it would have passed with the two-thirds majority. But this time Carey Barber switched sides, too. And Jaracz, who had voted for it the first time, abstained from voting.

I see you are going to use my words against me. I find that insulting. I'm sorry about insulting you. I don't think I am. Perhaps you can explain how. I wish I knew a better way to say it. But it's still true that you are presenting something as if it is a fact, when it is clearly untrue. You indicated that R.Franz said that in 'Watchtower literature . . . [it states] unequivocally the world would end in 1975' That's the claim I was responding to. It's a false statement because R.Franz never said that in either of his books. In fact, you appear to have known this, or at least you know it by now. And you even offered a quote that shows that R.Franz understood exactly what the Watchtower literature was stating about 1975. Unfortunately, when you wish to show someone that their words are not true, it seems best to quote which words aren't true. It's not like everything you said is untrue, so I didn't wish to make a blanket statements and assumptions about your ideology as you have about mine. In fact the portion you quote from the chapter called "1975: 'The Appropriate Time for God to Act'" is quickly followed up with these words proving that R.Franz was being very accurate: Had the organization said “flat out” that 1975 would mark the start of the millennium? No. But the above paragraph was the climax to which all of the involved, carefully constructed argumentation of that chapter had been building. No outright, unqualified prediction was made about 1975. But the writer had been willing to declare it to be “appropriate” and “most fitting on God’s part” if God would start the millennium at that particular time. It would seem reasonable that for an imperfect man to say what is or what is not “fitting” for the Almighty God to do would call for quite a measure of certainty, surely not the mere ‘expression of an opinion.’ Discretion would require, rather, would demand that. Even stronger is the subsequent statement that “it 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,” which seventh millennium had already been stated as due to begin in 1975. I had noted that you listed 5 points supposedly about R.Franz, and you got all 5 of them completely wrong about R.Franz, so I speculated that you didn't really know as much as you thought about him. By the way, this matches what you said earlier in this same topic about me. I hope you didn't think you were insulting me. 😉 At any rate, I agree that we all have different opinions, and I think I can manage to avoid further speculation.

Many at Bethel, and even a non-Bethel elder in the local Brooklyn Heights Congregation saw him as the natural next "President" after F.Franz. But I also thought it was obvious that he would not have wanted it. I also thought it was obvious he would not get it. Schroeder, Henschel and Jaracz seemed to be the most politically active. R.Franz was always quiet and serious and sorry to say it, he just seemed like too nice a guy. The kind of guy that would always finish last. You could listen to morning comments by Schroeder and Jaracz and get an idea of great assignments they had in the past (Schroeder was the UK Branch Servant in London). Schroeder actually mentioned F.Franz' age and started a quick discussion about potential genetic influence on longevity. But almost no one at Bethel even seemed to know that R.Franz had been the coordinator and primary writer of the huge Aid Book. His experiences he related at morning worship were usually of the sort "I once knew a brother or sister who did [this or that]" and it was sometimes an amusing anecdote that made a specific point to highlight the meaning of a proverb or other scripture. But the decision to have a Governing Body actually came out the research that R.Franz produced for the Aid Book which discussed how the first-century congregations had the "Elder arrangement." Even here he decided to get "permission" from F.Franz to publish this because it would be obvious that if people read the entry under Elder that he completed in 1969, Witnesses would wonder why we didn't implement the elder arrangement today in our congregations. By 1971, the Society implemented the Elder arrangement in all congregations with a yearly rotation in place so no one would preside for too long as the "Presiding Elder" ("president" elder in some languages). And the Society's board was turned into a kind of Elder arrangement, too, with rotating committees, so that no one handled any one committee (like the Chairman's Committee, etc) for too long. This didn't have any effect on Society's decision-making however because the Society still had a President and Vice President and Treasurer, etc., and continued to make decisions as they always had. It was basically just another name for the board of directors at that time and it was expanding by three persons, including R.Franz. It sounds like R.Franz thought this was a scriptural arrangement, and he might have even accepted the Presidency had it been offered. I have no idea. But I don't think he would have wanted it, and he as good as admits that he wouldn't have wanted such a thing. I think you know that Henschel was given the Presidency after F.Franz. After 2000, the Presidency had nothing to do with the Governing Body any more and it was given to a person who did not claim to be of the "anointed."

Fred Franz definitely used a lot of Scriptures to criticize the idea of a Governing Body, but he was outvoted. When the "board" came to vote the actual creation of a Governing Body that could share in the decision-making votes of the Society, and thereby reduce the autocratic power of the office of the Society's President, Fred Franz was quite literally outvoted. But his Scriptural reasoning in his talk was still valid to show how the Bible does NOT support the creation of a Governing Body.

Again, you must be talking about a different Raymond Franz as you put it. Raymond Franz found a need to criticize the Governing Body, that's true. Perhaps he should not have. But the reason this makes people angry is not because it isn't true, but because it erases a fantasy many Witnesses have about them. Also, he decided to do this only after being slandered and spoken of abusively. Are you saying he should not have followed the counsel of 1 Pet 3:15? (1 Peter 3:14, 15) 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, do not fear what they fear, nor be disturbed. 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. Also you should remember that at the time there was no teaching that this group of men, the GB, amounted to the same body Jesus was dealing with. They only claimed to represent the rest of the remnant of the 144,000 which was, according to the teaching at the time, the same body Jesus was dealing with. And naturally, R.Franz never defied all authorities based solely on Christ's teaching. You might mean here that he thought one should defy authority when it conflicted with Christ's teaching, but we already know what he should have done in those cases. He spent most of his life acquiescing to the same authority the rest of us have recognized. When that became impossible to continue doing, according to his conscience, he wrote a book to explain why. I think the book was written in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15. No he didn't. It was exactly the opposite. This is a point that no one could miss if they read either of his books. I'm not sure how you could possibly have missed it accidentally. It was Frederick Franz who wanted it reinstated without any interference from a Governing Body. In fact, you can still listen to Fred Franz talk from 1975 where F.Franz sarcastically rails against the idea of a Governing Body, and goes to great lengths to prove that a Governing Body is not even scriptural. In that talk he repeatedly emphasizes that it was only one authority figure who made the decisions of the Watch Tower Society. You are speaking against Fred Franz, not Raymond Franz.

@TrueTomHarley I just looked up in Google "Who died first Cynthia Franz or Raymond Franz?", and it only returns the date of the death of Raymond Franz and says he is survived by his wife. No death date given, but I thought I read somewhere that she also died: Family-Placed Death Notice FRANZ, Raymond RAYMOND V. FRANZ On June 2nd, Raymond V. Franz (88) passed away peacefully due to the effects of a fall and subsequent brain hemorrhage suffered on May 30, 2010. Ray is survived by his wife, Cynthia. A minister, missionary and Biblical scholar for...

The person he associated with was not disfellowshipped. Many persons in his congregation still associated with the same man, because he was related to them, and was in a position to help them out financially, running a business that had hired them. Besides 1 Corinthians 5 says the following: (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) . . .In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. Which one of these labels do you attach to this former member of the local congregation who was not even disfellowshipped? Was he greedy? Sexually immoral? An idolater? An extortioner? A reviler? A drunkard? Also, even if he was such a person --and I think you probably know he wasn't-- what did Paul mean when he said that we don't stop keeping company entirely with such people. Obviously, for purposes of employment, living in the world, we might need to associate with a person who is any one of these types.

You should have already bee aware that R.Franz never made any such claim like this either.

You misrepresent R.Franz by implying that he made a claim that Russell prophesied about the end of the world in 1914AD. R.Franz never made such a claim about Russell. Perhaps you were thinking of J.F.Rutherford's talk 3.3 years after October 1914: Back in January of 1918, in the very throes of World War I, the American president, Woodrow Wilson, proposed the League of Nations. The very next month Jehovah’s witnesses, as represented by the president of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, began preaching the startling message, “The World Has Ended—Millions Now Living May Never Die.” -- https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1958767

From here you go on to indicate that there were differences between the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz and what is found in Watchtower literature. But I get the feeling, now, that you probably did not read his books, or did not remember what you read. Either that, or you found it necessary for some unstated purpose to skew the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz into something he did not say. For example: He claims that 607 is a hugely relevant date to the Governing Body and to the Watchtower writers. And although he never mentions the date 587 or 586 in either book, I agree that his first book points to the fact that all the evidence he could find supports a date "twenty years later" than 607. His point here is that even though he found no evidence, he acquiesced. We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All historians pointed to a date twenty years later. Before preparing the Aid material on “Archaeology” I had not realized that the number of baked-clay cuneiform tablets found in the Mesopotamian area and dating back to the time of ancient Babylon numbered into the tens of thousands. In all of these there was nothing to indicate that the period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (in which period Nebuchadnezzar’s reign figured) was of the necessary length to fit our 607 B.C.E. date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published chronology claimed. Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe that our chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence, that such evidence was somehow in error. Thus, in preparing the material for the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence that would make erroneous our 607 B.C. E. date and give a different starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date different from 1914. Charles Ploeger and I made a trip to Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, to interview Professor Abraham Sachs, a specialist in ancient cuneiform texts, particularly those containing astronomical data. We wanted to see if we could obtain any information that would indicate any flaw or weakness whatsoever in the astronomical data presented in many of the texts, data that indicated our 607 B.C.E. date was incorrect. In the end, it became evident that it would have taken a virtual conspiracy on the part of the ancient scribes—with no conceivable motive for doing so—to misrepresent the facts if, indeed, our figure was to be the right one. Again, like an attorney faced with evidence he cannot overcome, my effort was to discredit or weaken confidence in the witnesses from ancient times who presented such evidence, the evidence of historical texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In themselves, the arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support. So, despite our heightened appreciation of certain principles, the Aid book nonetheless contained many examples of our efforts to be loyal to the Society’s teachings. In many respects, what we learned through our experience did more for us than it did for the publication.

The entire post of yours that begins with the words I just re-quoted could be taken as a defense of some of the positions taken by R.Franz. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but several of the examples show that you agree with him. The problem with this post is that the parts that are the most clear produce contradictions within your own post. Yes, the Bible says that the gifts are distributed throughout the entire congregation, the entire body of individuals, not just a special group of prophets, or a special group of teachers, or a special group of evangelizers. Then you mention that holy spirit was given to certain young individuals in the book of Daniel and not to the whole congregation (synagogue). Then you said that the apostles were given certain gifts that weren't given to others in the congregation. This is interesting. Can you name one of those gifts? I can't find any, nor do I believe this is a Biblical teaching. I'm afraid you don't either. You can't blame someone for misunderstanding a false statement and your misuse of Scripture. It looks like your main point of difference is that you are saying that R.Franz could not express a proper "faith" if he doesn't realize that "holy spirit" only works through a certain approved group of men. And it was not specifically the "approved group of men," but in a practical way holy spirit was supposed to work by moving at least two-thirds of this approved group of men to agree on an issue. Therefore the holy spirit worked by motivating a 66.666 percent majority or greater to agree on a vote. Of course, R.Franz no doubt watched dozens of times when this group would have reached that 66.666 percent majority, except that persons who had expressed to him that they believed their vote should go a certain way, would vote a different way if F.Franz had his up before their own, and they would merely follow his vote. R.Franz says a sizable percentage of the Governing Body would almost ALWAYS vote however F.Franz voted. A couple of these votes were most interesting in that they got the 66.666 percent majority to make the change saying that "alternative service" was now a matter of the individual's conscience, which would have changed the situation in South Korea and many other countries, but Brother Barry changed his vote back when he realized that just one vote had brought them over the 66.666 percent needed, and his vote had been different from that of F.Franz. At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine voted in favor of changing the traditional policy so that the decision to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, no change was made. On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven voted for changing the policy so that the Witness who conscientiously felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation. This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made? No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change, announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds majority. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present, showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention.14 Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and, when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight. So they had the two-thirds majority, and even without it, they had an actual majority voting for the change during six sessions where the vote was always more than 50 percent. More importantly, (to me) it was clear from the letters they were receiving from all over the world that several of the persons in prison were not there for their own conscience, but were asked to falsely claim that it was their own conscience, even though it was really based on a vote of the Governing Body not reaching two-thirds. If you believe that the current view of the Governing Body is correct, then you are indicating that the CORRECT view was not voted in until 1996. Which means that many brothers were being encouraged to be dishonest about their conscience, and go to prison unnecessarily for an extra 16 years. Of course, you could argue that it was Jehovah's holy spirit that allowed for an extra 16 years of holding on to an incorrect doctrine, and which led to brothers being asked to go against their own conscience. (Ask @Srecko Sostar what this means if you don't know.) That is the same as saying that Jehovah didn't want things set right on this matter during that period, or withheld his Spirit. I doubt that anyone claims that people actually bow down to the GB. I think your statement is generally accurate. And I don't think as John Butler has said, that the GB themselves think they are higher than Jesus Christ, nor do they act that way. They are really a lot like us in that they believe that, up to a point, they should respect the GB, too. But there really is a point when we could end up deferring to them too much, and forgetting that they admit that they sometimes make wrong decisions organizationally and sometimes teach us false doctrines. You seem to take the individual's Christian trained conscience out of the equation. I think the Governing Body has made a lot of wonderful decisions, and the quality of the "spiritual food" distributed is very good. But this doesn't mean that their own past mistakes should not be learned from. This doesn't mean we should stop thinking using our powers of reason. It doesn't mean that we personally should stop trying to distinguish right from wrong. We should not stop testing every utterance to see if these things are so. We need to make the "truth" our own.

I believe that R.Franz got a few things wrong. His facts were correct, but one can always come to a wrong conclusion based on true facts. But that still doesn't mean that we can judge his heart, of course. A person who disagrees with certain things but doesn't leave his faith over them is not included in the definition of an apostate. And besides, the things he thought we had wrong as an organization included issues he had every right, and even an assigned duty to consider, when he was a member of the Governing Body. So he thought we had the generation definition wrong and it would have to be changed within just a few years. It was. He thought the Watchtower Society should not be repressing the work of Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico. They stopped. He thought that it seemed Scriptural that homosexual or bestial relations should dissolve a marriage. This was changed. He thought that the Governing Body should complete the change on avoiding the military through alternative service. They did. Although he said there was nothing Scripturally wrong with door-to-door ministry, he thought the Society should also consider other methods of distributing its literature and not focus so much on hours and placements in just one form of ministry. Now it has (website, carts). Granted, he also thought that based on past historical experience, we should stop setting any kind of date or even a date range as a time limit for Armageddon to occur. This hasn't completely stopped per the new generation doctrine, but since 2010, time-setting is much more nebulous than it has ever been in the past. He also thought that the Greek Scriptures should not be so strictly applied only to the anointed who claim a heavenly hope. In recent years, the GB have come to see this issue in the same way, and specifically stated updates in our new understanding in those very terms used by R.Franz. For me, even if he was wrong on some matters, it shows the truth of the Bible verse: (1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. It's not a matter of R.Franz being right or wrong in a few things, or being wrong in more things than he was right about, or even if he was right about most things. But he was definitely right about some of the issues he brought up, or the Governing Body would not have changed over time toward his way of thinking.

It's true that most JWs put faith in the GB and in the assembly speakers and in their elders and even put faith in each other to some extent. Taking R.Franz just a bit out of context, he praises the Witnesses for how they have responded in difficult situations, and which often means putting faith (trust) in one another. Many religious affiliations could benefit from the example of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the area of racial integration, in their deemphasizing of class distinctions, their comparatively strong sense of commitment and obligation toward anyone, though otherwise a complete stranger to them, who is a member in good standing in the organization. Perhaps some of the most appealing—and dramatic— features in their history are those occasions when they have been faced with crisis situations, in times of intense persecution or natural disasters or war, when many of them have shown a will- ingness to risk their own safety, possessions or even their own lives in the interest, in one way or another, of fellow members. The accounts of the experiences of Witnesses during the Nazi regime in Germany, during the Duvalier premiership of Quebec, or during the period of mob violence in the United States in the 1940s, make absorbing reading. The sincerity of those who demonstrated a courageous and selfless concern for others rightly goes unquestioned, and I find their example both encouraging and laudable. -- R.Franz, "Christian Freedom" p.600 Of course, this comes from a person, R.Franz, who would never have been allowed back into the Organization even if he wanted to. Yet after giving it several years of thought, he still recognized areas where JWs excel. Elsewhere in the same book, he still recognized the value of core doctrines he learned through Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not one to claim that only JWs are good, or only JWs have the truth about many things. In fact, I have no doubt that we are absolutely wrong about certain things, but I consider them minor compared to more important things. But I do find that JWs have the best overall set of beliefs (for me) because I am a core anti-war, anti-Trinity, anti-Hellfire Christian. I could also list a lot of other things about Christian morality and cleanliness, and Christian activities including public preaching and proselytizing, and emphasis on a God who will accomplish his purpose toward the earth, etc., etc. All these things make the JW faith attractive and comfortable. Imperfect, with a lot of things wrong, but I still don't know of a religion with more "truth." I also think it does an excellent job attempting to put the first-century principles of Christianity into the twenty-first century -- and all over the world at that. I appreciate how this particular combination of beliefs sets us apart from the rest, almost by definition, and by doing so enhances the cohesiveness of our Christian brotherhood. We are therefore going to stand out as different from other denominations, a good thing, in my opinion. We take upon ourselves a "teaching" ministry. If you ever again want to be part of a "teaching" ministry, and you think that this is an important ministry for the times we live in, then I think there is every good reason to consider JWs again. I'm sure Jehovah looks with favor upon Christians and would-be Christians who take up some kind of charitable ministry, too, or any ministry where their goal is to help fellow humans in response what God has done for them, even if it's just what they perceive that God has done for them. Jehovah looks at motivations of the heart and our responses that are based on love for Him and love for neighbor. This is the great teaching of Jesus, and it matches the goal that the Mosaic Law could have transitioned a nation to do. And now, we can be a part of that nation. I don't believe that nation must be an organization, per se, even if it was a kind of organization under Israel and the Law. I think it's individuals. But under normal circumstances it will be individuals that join together under the same tenets of faith. And not all those individuals have to be JWs as far as I can see. But JWs set forth an attractive combination of teachings that do a great job reflecting the truth about Jehovah. I can't tell you that you will be very comfortable as a JW again, but it is good and healthy to try to trust people. And I know that it's always more difficult for people who have been through what you have. Even if JWs are just kind of a social club for now. You did say that you sometimes talked to other JWs about issues related to the organization. I think the organization needs more people who are willing to talk to others honestly about issues. And you will always have the balance of having seen right through those times when fellow JWs are too hooked on following men. It's also true that you might get pushed out again. But in the meantime, you will have given it a try, not just walking away. And you might find some comfort in associating again with your brother, the Elder, and explaining things to him. No doubt he is a true believer and was never trying to trick you. Summarizing, (I have to throw in that word to encourage myself to stop blabbing on and on) I know that you are referring to how some Witnesses will replace faith that should be in Jehovah and and letting faith in the GB supersede this. I admit that this happens. But it's easy to make this claim without understanding that all faith in Jehovah's ability to teach us will involve being taught by others. Jehovah does not teach us by putting complete understanding in our mind. The Bible tells us to expect teaching to come through others, and to hold fast to the teaching as handed down. We probably could get the basic things on our own, but we wouldn't have the encouragement that comes from a group of persons: some who will need our help and some who will be there to help us.

Regarding Venezuela, JW.ORG reported the following in August 2017 at :https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/venezuela/economic-crisis-jehovahs-witnesses-continue-bible-education/ International media outlets have been reporting on deteriorating conditions in Venezuela set off by economic troubles. The Venezuela Branch Committee reports that our brothers and sisters have also been affected by this crisis. The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is deeply concerned by these reports. Armed criminals have entered some Kingdom Halls during weekly meetings to steal electronic devices and other valuables. Additionally, in some cases, meetings are held in private homes because violent conflicts block access to Kingdom Halls. A number of our brothers and sisters are among those who have lost their jobs because their place of employment closed down. Some who own businesses have been targeted by criminals and gangs and, as a result, have been forced to sell their business and flee the country for their safety. Sadly, over the last few years, there have been at least 680 brothers and sisters kidnapped, over 13,146 have been victims of armed robbery, and 144 have even been victims of rape or attempted rape. Tragically, reports as of August 10, 2017, indicate that 47 of our brothers and sisters have been murdered. Some have also died because they could not obtain needed medical treatment. On November 5, 2018 a video was added. Venezuela—Love and Faith During Difficult Times. The November report also stated: The ongoing economic crisis in Venezuela continues to affect our brothers and sisters. Every week, the branch office in Venezuela receives reports of publishers who have been victims of crimes. Also, numerous Kingdom Halls in the country have been burglarized. Our brothers face hyperinflation as well as shortages of food, medicine, and other basic goods. Since 2013, over 20,000 publishers have fled to other countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Italy, Peru, Portugal, Spain, and the United States. * Despite these difficult circumstances, the approximately 140,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses who remain in Venezuela are active in their spiritual activities. The branch office in Venezuela continues to organize the ongoing relief work within the country. There are now 60 relief committees, which have primarily been tasked with distributing food to the brothers and sisters. To date, the Venezuela branch, with the assistance of the Brazil branch, has distributed hundreds of tons of donated food to over 64,000 publishers in 1,497 congregations. The Venezuela branch also continues to help care for the spiritual needs of the brothers and sisters. This summer, there were 122 “Be Courageous”! Regional Conventions held throughout the country, the last of which concluded on September 2, 2018. The conventions provided a vital spiritual boost to the brothers and sisters, many of whom had to overcome severe economic challenges to attend. The reports also contained more positive information about the work going on under these conditions, and the spiritual progress, and overall positive spirit of most. The articles also pointed out our neutrality and the fact that the Society makes no recommendation about whether Witnesses should stay or leave the country. The footnote originally linked to the asterisk above stated: In times of economic, social, or political crisis, each publisher must decide whether or not to flee their country of residence. The organization does not promote or encourage one’s decision to either leave or remain.—Galatians 6:5. And of course, Galatians 6:5 says "Each one will carry his own load." I have read that of the 3 million or so Venezuelans who have fled these past couple years, about 900,000 have already come back into the country due to lack of good work prospects and other dangers in many of the countries to which they have fled.

For anyone who would like to read some coverage of another side of the issues in Venezuela I would recommend the following. If I get a chance, I'll also review the earlier video I posted. The first three links are more videos from the same person linked through TeleSUR. There are many more besides these that include multiple interviews of people in Venezuela. They give a better explanation of all sides of the issue. It's not as complex as some would think. Venezuela Economy Minister—Sabotage, Not Socialism, is the Problem What You’re Not Being Told About Venezuela Crisis. w/Abby Martin Head of Venezuela National Guard on Insurgency & US Threats News UPDATED: Venezuelan Opposition Leader Guaido Declares Himself President, Recognized by US and Allies International Jan 23rd 2019 US VP Pence Urges Venezuelans to Oust Maduro, Caracas Says ‘Yankee Go Home’ Military Jan 21st 2019 Venezuela: Dozens Arrested in Short-Lived National Guard Mutiny International Jan 21st 2019 Venezuela Rejects Xenophobic 'Incitement' in Ecuador Following Femicide Opposition Jan 17th 2019 Venezuela: Trump Considers ‘Recognizing’ Opposition Leader as President, Government Denounces ‘Coup Attempt’ Bolivarian Project Jan 16th 2019 Venezuela’s Maduro Raises Wages, Promises a ‘Shake Up’ in Annual Address Opinion & Analysis Bolivarian Project Jan 23rd 2019 The U.S. Has Venezuela in Its Crosshairs International Jan 22nd 2019 Commentary: OAS Dangerously in Disarray vis‐a‐vis Venezuela International Jan 21st 2019 Jorge Arreaza: Is There a Coup in Progress? International Jan 21st 2019 US Administrations Have Been Intervening in Venezuela Since at Least the Early 2000s Audio More audios Repeated History, US Backs Another Coup in Venezuela Trump & Allies Launch Coup Effort Against Venezuelan Government Loud and Clear: Venezuela Municipal Elections Video More videos Coup in Progress in Venezuela? Trump Sanctions Against Venezuela Have Decimated Oil Production Temporary Arrest of Venezuelan Opposition Leader was "Unauthorized" In Images More images In Images: Venezuelan People Mobilize In Support of Maduro Venezuela Concludes International Book Fair 2018 in Caracas Venezuelans March to Commemorate Allende, Oppose Coup Threat

There is going to be wickedness and dictators in many nations and we should pray that our brothers and sisters in the faith are safe and that all persons of all races and classes are safe. I'm sure that Maduro carries blame for a lot of the crime and corruption that goes on in Venezuela. I am concerned that a lot of JWs, even here where I live, do not realize that they tend to support their own "class" more often than they think. They tend, in this way, to have a much more political view of the world than they think. I know that this is not a part of the forum where religion is discussed, but before any of us start taking sides with a regime change, it is worthwhile to get a bigger picture. What James says about the how the rich treat the poor, how they dishonor the poor, oppress them, and drag them before law courts, is true of how they treat all people, not just those of our faith. (James 2:4-9) 4 If so, do you not have class distinctions among yourselves, and have you not become judges rendering wicked decisions? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers. Did not God choose those who are poor from the world’s standpoint to be rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom, which he promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you and drag you before law courts? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fine name by which you were called? 8 If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 9 But if you continue showing favoritism, you are committing sin, and you are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 4:4-6) . . .Adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is making himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that for no reason the scripture says: “The spirit that has taken up residence within us keeps enviously longing”? 6 However, the undeserved kindness that He gives is greater. So it says: “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.” If we are to avoid showing favoritism, even to the point of condemning a political figure, the we should be sure we have seen all sides of an issue. You have expressed one side of an issue and I am expressing another possible side of the issue. Unfortunately, that's how forums work. I could be wrong, in which case, you or others, if you wish, can bring counter-evidence. Or you can simply dismiss what I say as worthless. None of us need to get too riled up over any person who takes a different side of an issue. I can tell from some of the things you have said, that you are focused on the issues as they affect you and many others personally, and this is fine. But I can also tell from things you have said, that you do probably are not ready to address the possibility that this issue encompasses a much bigger picture. Perhaps this comes across as a "conspiracy theory" to you. I'm simply going to express my opinion about that "bigger picture" and why I -- and thousands of other people -- believe that this "bigger picture" explains the issue in a more complete way, and resolves many of the odd facts about Venezuela that would otherwise go unexplained. I've been discussing it over the past several months. I know a brother from a very wealthy family who lives in the United States but who who is from Colombia. His brother worked for a newspaper there. His primary job is to draw political cartoons, and lately his primary job has been to draw anti-Maduro political cartoons. Colombia and Latin American countries just love the anti-Maduro cartoons, and they are found in right-wing newspapers and websites. His parents who are not Witnesses, of course, cheered when it appeared that Maduro would be ousted. They were celebrating with champagne that Maduro would finally be assassinated like they "always" wanted. So yes, I was anxious to see a post about Maduro so I didn't have to start one. I'm sorry it was yours. I will be happy to start a new one, but I hate to end up expressing an opinion that doesn't have someone who will participate to defend the other side of the issue. It's too one-sided, this way. I'm sorry you felt attacked. I didn't see where but I apologize. I probably came across as too aggressive.

This is an excellent place to start, I agree. I listened to his inauguration speech and see that he tried to set price controls on the worst of the inflationary items. Just like Nixon did here in the US. Of course, this sets a direction and points out that he knows how certain items were being controlled by oligarchies, while other items were not. Toilet paper is a case in point. People have wondered why the stores in the country are so well stocked with many hundreds of paper products like napkins, tissues, paper plates, wrapping paper, writing paper, etc. These are not in short supply and are not spiraling in cost in the same way that toilet paper does along with a list of other items. The answer is actually fairly simple, and you'll find it here on TeleSUR: It's from someone who visited Venezuela several times to interview persons on both sides of the issues, but she interviews a couple people (in Spanish, but with subtitles) whose answer explains both the general conditions AND all the anomalies. I think it's 22 minutes, but I think everyone who has anything to say about the economic conditions should definitely see this first:

Everything on a forum is partially opinion. But this is based primarily on the opinion of a person who spent 10 years in the Service Dept and nearly 30 years in the Writing Department. It was also the opinion of one of my roommates even after he became an elder and left Bethel. And it is my opinion, of course. I'm sure that many others who were at Bethel during these same years would agree.

I hope some of our thoughts are the same, but it doesn't matter. Each one stands on his own before the judgment seat of God. I appreciate especially his last thoughts about the topic, just above. I'm not trying to win any converts to my own conscience, though. And I think he (TTH) has made it clear that he disagrees with much of what I say. I think it's fine to disagree. We should be able to hash out our own concerns and issues on a forum such as this, without being disagreeable in person with brothers and sisters who have not subscribed to a discussion of issues as we have here. Hopefully, we can learn from our experiences, and learn from each other. Many things in this life won't matter in the long run.

The majority of people in every country want a change for the better. They don't want high inflation. They don't want interference from outside countries. But only a very few want the kind of sabotage that hurts the majority of their population. They are often all for regime change when they can see it might benefit themselves, but they forget about the plight of the actual majority. But they just completed a count of the number of people who want these particular leaders. It might have been skewed by propaganda or even election fraud. But that isn't even the point. The majority might not have wanted Caesar Augustus, or Tiberius, or Nero in Bible times. But the Proverbs mentioned not meddling with those who were for a change. I couldn't tell you whether this will always apply, but it should surely at least be considered as good advice. The early Christians were told to pray for their god-awful leaders who murdered Christians in the name of their own gods. (1 Timothy 2:1, 2) 2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. (Proverbs 24:21, 22) 21 My son, fear Jehovah and the king. With those who are for a change, do not intermeddle. 22 For their disaster will arise so suddenly, that who is aware of the extinction of those who are for a change?

I don't think it makes the GB look like perverts. But it does support the claim that R.Franz made in his book, that there was too much concern over legalistic rules without as much concern about the overall "spirit" of Christianity. First of all, the idea that consenting oral sex within marriage is a disfellowshipping offense comes from the Watchtower, 12/1/1972 p. 735, 2/15/1976 p.122, 11/15/1974 p.704. The idea that homosexuality and bestiality on the part of a spouse in marriage will not qualify a marriage mate for a scriptural divorce comes from the Watchtower, 1/1/1972 p. 32. In both cases it was due to a definition that F.Franz gave to the Greek word "porneia." Since at least the time of Rutherford's death, Fred Franz was always considered the only one who could come up with a change in scriptural doctrine, or "new truth" as we called it. Creating the Governing Body in about 1971 didn't change this. In fact, when a few people started speaking up with questions about doctrine, the GB was expanded with a lot more " F.Franz loyalists" who would never dare vote against F.Franz. For a while Schroeder was about the only one who would dare to test this deference to F.Franz and try promoting new scriptural teachings on his own by putting them in assembly talks or Gilead lectures. But he got shot down on anything major. Many of his ideas really were crazy, but he had one major good idea that finally got approved, about a decade after he died. It was not an idea that could have been changed during F.Franz lifetime. (Brother Splane admits that Schroeder had been a source of the idea in one of the JW Broadcasts. I'll explain elsewhere.) At any rate, these practices are considered wrong and one still could be disfellowshipped for oral sex within marriage, but it will be a much more rare occurrence, because elders are instructed not to go out of their way to investigate allegations or follow up even on confessions, except to give counsel. If the person had a title (elder, ms, pioneer) they would likely lose the title for a time, and only be disfellowshipped if they said they would defy the counsel and continue the practice. Also, bestiality and homosexuality are now included in the definition of the Greek word porneia and can now constitute scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage. (A couple could always separate, although it was optional, but now they can remarry after a scriptural divorce.)

For those in the US, this process going on in the Venezuela, with the full support of US and allies, would be the analogous to the Democrats declaring themselves tomorrow that Nancy Pelosi is the President of the United States.

For the sake of completeness. I should mention that this particular article above is not from the editors of venezualanalysis although it was promoted there in total from truthdig. I will also post the rest of the article here: ---------------sourced from venezualanalysis.com--------- It Begins Maduro was not permitted to take his oath in the National Assembly. He was blocked by Juan Guaidó, leader of the opposition. That is why Maduro took his oath in the Supreme Court, a procedure that is validated by the Constitution. Strikingly, the head of the Organization of American States—the Uruguayan politician Luis Almagro—sent out a tweet that welcomed Juan Guaidó as the president. Guaidó, to his credit, had not claimed the presidency. It was, instead, a foreign official from a regional body that has superseded the Venezuelan people and attempted to install a new president in Caracas. More chilling has been the words from the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his department. Pompeo, in a tweet, wrote, “The time is NOW for a return to democracy in Venezuela.” The word “now”—in capitals—suggests that Pompeo is clear that there needs to be no procedures, only a coup. The day after this tweet, Pompeo’s department said, “It’s time to begin the orderly transition to a new government.” One does not need to read between the lines to know that this is a call for regime change, for a coup, and that it comes from Washington, D.C. Trump’s national security adviser—John Bolton—coined the phrase “troika of tyranny” that includes Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. It is plain as day that the United States wants to overthrow the governments in each of these countries, and perhaps Bolivia as well. These are dangerous portents. Those troops that Trump is withdrawing from Syria might not be going home anytime soon. They might find themselves deployed soon enough on the beaches of Punto Fijo, facing a Bay of Pigs style resistance from the Chavistas. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

You probably don't realize why an imperialist country promotes sanctions, and probably don't realize that the very point of sanctions is to create violence so that the the bullying country has even more leverage. Here is a little more about Imperialism and the Lima Group from the same article quoted above: -------------------the rest of this post is a quote from venezualanalysis.com----------------------------------- Imperialism Imperialism is a word that is rarely used these days. It is relegated to histories of colonialism in the distant past. There is little understanding of the suffocating way that financial firms and multinational businesses drive their agenda against the development aspirations of the poorer nations. There is even less understanding about the muscular attitude of countries such as the United States, Canada and the Europeans against states that they deem to be a problem. The gunsights were once firmly on West Asia and North Africa—on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran—but now they are focused on Latin America—on Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. These countries face economic sanctions and embargoes, threats of annihilation, covert operations and war. The definition of imperialism is simple: if you don’t do what we tell you to do, we’ll destroy you. Pressure on Venezuela has been intense. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for the overthrow of the Bolivarian government, led by Maduro. Sanctions have been ratcheted up. Economic warfare has become normal. Threats of a military invasion are in the air. Lima Group On January 4, the Lima Group of 13 Latin American governments and Canada said that it would not recognize Maduro as the president of Venezuela. Behind them sits the U.S. State Department, which has put pressure along the hemisphere for the isolation of Venezuela as well as Cuba and Nicaragua. The U.S. State Department characterized the inauguration of the new president as “Maduro’s illegitimate usurpation of power.” Diplomatic language has dissolved into this kind of crudity. The Lima Group was set up for one reason: to overthrow the current government of Venezuela. It has no other purpose. Sanctions and diplomatic withdrawals are part of the Lima Group’s arsenal. Buoyed by the election of far right-wing politicians such as Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and enthused by the fulminations of Trump, the Lima Group has tightened the pressure.