JW Insider

Actually, you might have hit on the exact reason that many Witnesses have read it secretly when you said: It's the fact that he purports to tell people what went on in the GB.

I can't really tell what you are trying to say. I imagine that the vast majority of people at Bethel never read any of the books by R.Franz, at least not while at Bethel. But they certainly wanted to talk about it, and to talk about things they had heard from others about the book. Don't know what you mean. Surely you don't think that R.Franz coined that phrase. And surely you don't think that R.Franz claimed to have coined that phrase. I don't really see that J.Butler would be benefited from reading the book. I think he already has his mind completely made up about the usefulness of the Organization long before any talk of this book. But if a person can understand from a book such as this that the leadership of the Organization has a human side, and can figure out why Jehovah could still work with (and bless the efforts of) such humans to accomplish something good, I don't see how the book should necessarily hurt. I have a feeling he would read it just for "ammunition." One benefit I see for true Christians, however, is that it should make us more humble, less presumptuous, and it helps us understand the difficult position of leadership of a the Organization when their is no direct inspiration, no signs, and no miracles. As more members of the Governing Body have explained, they see their role as trying to devote themselves to a study of the scriptures in order to guard the doctrine. They pray over the scriptures, and the best decisions, and best course to take, but there is no "magic wand." It's still a matter of trying to distinguish right from wrong by being spiritually minded persons who know that everything they decide should have a Biblical basis. For the most part, this produces excellent results. But certain traditions and strongly entrenched things will not necessarily be improved if you only see yourselves as "guardians" of existing doctrine. But in spite of this, a lot of good changes have also taken place. I have not seen a year go by, when improvements were not made. (Especially since about 2000 when the role of the GB became more focused on doctrinal matters and less on legal and bureaucratic matters.) And it's also quite possible to be critical of what we should be critical of, to learn from their mistakes. And it's also possible to be critical and come to a better appreciation of Jehovah's ways and his patience. Again, you make no sense. If this is another reference to Carl Olaf Jonsson per the argument that Allen Smith invariably brought up in this context, it is still a false argument. R.Franz discovered the problems with our chronology way back before 1969, while writing the Chronology entry in the Aid Book that came out in 1969. Jonsson had not even started his questioning of the chronology back then, had he? Brothers that I knew in Writing would not touch the Jonsson manuscript precisely because they already questioned the chronology and realized that they might get an assignment to rebut COJ if they took an interest. This is why it sat on a shelf, and was called the "hot potato" for at least a year, and no one dared touch it. Unfortunately, this is very true that much of what goes on in Bethel, especially within the GB, is not made public.

This book became a long, ongoing conversation for a few years among my former roommates at Bethel and another Bethelite who was a groomsman at my wedding, and a friend who had remained in the Writing Department for 30 years after my last Bethel assignment. (In 4 years at Bethel, I had 5 different roommates, and four of them have talked to me about the book.) This doesn't prove anything, but a former roommate (Service/Correspondence), and the brother in Writing, have both confirmed that copies of R.Franz books were kept in the Writing Dept "special" library since the early 1980's. Of course, he had bias. And I'm sure he would only choose or emphasize details that would lead one toward that same bias. We are all taught to do that, because there is nothing wrong with bias if it's a bias toward what's true. And, though I don't have proof yet, I also think he was wrong about a couple of things, too. But I tend to think he was factually accurate because I have found good corroboration for a couple of things I personally questioned. Also because it is much more important for someone in his position to pay more than the usual attention to all details claimed, for the same reasons that an outsider plaintiff must be extra careful in a "David v. Goliath" type of court case. One false claim and you get crushed. If you can recall any of those items you thought "twisted" that could be very important to the current discussion.

Next time I will wait and ask before moving anything. I see some of that here:

That's true. I have no proof that Fred Franz didn't. But if Fred Franz really had challenged the book in any way, that surely would have been huge news. Some Witness somewhere would surely have made a note of it. Interesting, however, that some Witnesses have said that they first heard about certain controversial issues (re: WTS history) in this book by R.Franz, and believed that some of these things could not really be true. But then Frederick Franz gave a talk in 1985, about two years after the book CoC came out, and confirmed many of the same controversial issues out of his own mouth. You can hear it here: https://archive.org/details/DecisionMyLifeStoryByFredFranz It's a 1 hour and 33 minute talk, but you can find about 10 minutes of excerpts from it in shorter versions on YouTube. Obviously, Fred Franz didn't mention the book, but he surely had a chance to challenge something in it, and instead he either purposely or inadvertently expresses agreement with many details that some Witnesses had first seen in R.Franz book, and had found difficult to believe. But the main point, of course, is that your "redirection" above sounds like evidence that you didn't have any specific examples after all. Until you offer any, I'll assume that you found no evidence of inaccurate details in the book. I'm not trying to promote the book. I don't know his motives for writing it. I only know what he claimed, and those claims might be true, and they might be untrue. If his claimed reasons are true, then it is very understandable why he felt it necessary to write the book. If they are false, then we can probably impute all kinds of wrong reasons for him to write such a book. Maybe he was. I don't know of anyone who had evidence that he was being overlooked or if even if he was actually being considered the prime choice after Fred Franz. I was handling assignments for Brother Albert Schroeder at the time Schroeder was involved in a kind of campaign against R.Franz, and I did get a very strong sense that Brother Schroeder did not want to be overlooked for the office of President. So it is possible that R.Franz was like him, too. I only knew R.Franz through reputation and his 15 minute comments when it was his weekly rotation at "morning worship." I can tell you that among many serious Bethelites, including many Bethel Elders in the late 1970's and up until 1980, there was a lot of talk that R.Franz would be the most likely candidate for next president after his uncle died. This was one of the reasons that news of his resignation from the Governing Body, and news of his leaving Bethel shocked so many brothers and sisters. There was even a lot of crying, and a line of people waiting at his door to say good-bye to him and his wife the day they left Bethel. But just because a person has a humble and loving reputation, you still don't know what is going on in their heart.

I moved 5 of your comments to the new thread noted above, and I left a couple of them here. All 5 of the ones I tried to move, seemed to move correctly. I see that The Librarian also moved 1 to the topic below, where I am leaving it alone.

So it appears that you don't have any evidence to give for your claim that the book was "challenged" by Fred Franz or others who knew him. You didn't even say what claims about the organization that you reject. You should at least be able to point to one inaccuracy. Or someone should.

What timing. We overlapped. I had already tried to pull these comments over to a new thread here. If you don't feel like moving all the other comments here, I think it's OK to split this into two topics, or I can move these ones over there, since that would be easier - just two posts.:

@The Librarian, @FelixCA, @JOHN BUTLER, @Witness, @Anna I started a new thread, taking most of these comments over to:

Getting back to the topic. I think R.Franz is a curious case in point. I do blame him for some of the child abuse problems because I think he was the person who would have invoked the two-witness rule into judicial matters that are too difficult to figure out through external knowledge and common sense alone. He seemed to have been the one assigned to most of the congregational judicial issues related to immorality. Didn't mean it was his decision, but he was the one assigned to find scriptural defenses for the way the rest of the GB had voted to handle things. He should have had the wherewithal to either speak up or leave the organization. Yet he stayed, and remained an elder, a JW in good standing, even after he was asked to resign from the Governing Body.

I should mention that these comments I had made were never made to defend R.Franz. In fact, as I recall, these comments were made under a different topic, and someone apparently moved them here because I happened to mention R.Franz in my response. But back to your question that starts out with the words, "So if Raymond was a proven liar." I'm not sure what you are referring to. I've never heard anyone claim that R.Franz was a proven liar. If anyone ever said that, I'd be very interested in what they were referring to. It might be very useful to point to something inaccurate* in his book. I'm sure the average Witness who never knew him could easily get the idea he was "liar," but I have never heard anyone who knew him at Bethel ever say that anything in his book was inaccurate. Quite the opposite in fact. [I found a couple inaccuracies, by the way, such as when in CoC, he mentioned that the Pope and bishops can speak as if they are "infallible" in the minds of Catholics. He should not have said "and bishops" unless he was referring only to previous "bishops of Rome," which are the popes.] And by the way, R.Franz was an apostate. So if there was even one inaccuracy in any of his books, don't you think the Watchtower Society, or someone at least, should have pointed it out? What he exposed caused a lot of controversy. Pointing out even one inaccuracy would have helped quell the controversy and defend the Society. But the problem, as best as I can see it, was not that he said anything untrue, but that his motive was to expose the human side of the organization and its decisions. It was to show how the Governing Body worked together at that time, and examples of how decisions and changes were made. And it showed its very human side, with its faults, mistakes, and interactions of personality. If you worked inside Bethel at that time and worked closely with several of the people he speaks about, you'd already know that his descriptions made perfect sense as they matched everything you could know about these persons. What none of us could know about, however, was what it was like inside any of those meetings of the Governing Body. And it turns out that it, if he is correct in his descriptions, then this is exactly what we would have expected anyway, knowing the personalities of these brothers as we saw and heard them acting and speaking on a daily basis. He speaks very kindly and respectfully of many of them. You can tell they were friends, just as you already knew if you were at Bethel at this time. But it becomes easy to understand how key decisions could be delayed or swayed by more outspoken and stronger personalities on the GB. I don't know what you might mean here. No accounts were ever challenged, as far as I know. At least not by anyone who knew him. Especially not by Fred Franz, who knew him very well. If you have evidence to the contrary you should share it, especially because, as Witnesses, we don't want to be known for making false accusations. Not at all. I just share what I know and what I think. And you can share what you know and what you think. That's how we learn. That's how forums such as this work. I would never want someone to trust my words and my words only.

Sounds like you can only "Do-little" for now, but if you scream to get your doctor double-quick, maybe you'll be off a second later, and get yourself to the Kingdom Hall on time, tomorrow.

I used to think she was singing: "Is that all you blaggards can do?"

(Proverbs 10:19) . . .When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided, But whoever controls his lips acts discreetly. Better? Maybe this is as close as we can get to anything positive about many words, imitating the congregator. (Ecclesiastes 12:9, 10) . . .he pondered and made a thorough search in order to compile many proverbs. 10 The congregator sought to find delightful words and to record accurate words of truth. (Acts 2:40) 40 And with many other words he [Peter] gave a thorough witness . . .

Fair enough. I think it's true that we haven't yet gotten to much that is constructive on this particular topic. But, as there is a time to tear down and a time build up, it probably doesn't make much sense to offer an alternative yet, while so few have tried to explain what's wrong with the current teaching. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as they say. As far as "liking to talk" goes, guilty. But I would hope it's that way based on the scripture quoted earlier: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Still, I would hope that some would see all this talk as a labor of love and concern, and even see it for it truly is, in my mind, loyalty to our brotherhood. I could tell that going back to Russell's view on the signs in the sun, moon and stars seemed irrelevant to you. I'm guessing that you are seeing too many things tied together under a single topic and that many of the items you have seen as off-topic have made it difficult to deal with so many items at once. But it's really true that a misunderstanding of 1914, and a misunderstanding of the "sign" is the foundation issue that, when resolved, resolves the whole "overlapping generation" issue with it. The fact is that Russell understood Jesus point about NOT looking for a sign. Russell made it clear that wars, earthquakes, and famines were NO part of a sign. He understood this. And that understanding makes sense in the context of the rest of Matthew 24. You won't need a sign if it's going to come without any further warning, like a thief in the night, at an hour you do not think to be it. But the tendency to want a sign, in spite of Jesus counsel, overtook Russell and the Bible Students and they continued to believe in those heavenly signs, as if they were already progressing. The exact dates were not important, except to show that they fit the idea of "last days" at the time. But the idea that they could find dozens of secular quotes in support of these dates could be another lesson for us. What they missed, however, is that these quotes were not being collected in support of the Bible's warning about looking for a sign. I think we do the same thing today when we collect 1914 quotes. We are trying to overcome the Bible's clear warning not to look for a sign in things like wars, earthquakes, famines, etc. And we end up convincing ourselves.

Not necessarily. Remember that Jesus said the first would be last and the last first. He who would be your "leader" should be your servant. So who's to say that the order is not Jehovah teaching us, and then through some form of discussion and feedback, ALL of us feed the faithful slave, who then, have the "menial" slave-like duty of distributing whatever we have agreed upon. As in the book of Acts, there might be "no little dispute" about some matters. But those matters would really be few and far between. As persons have already pointed out, there would never be a need to make up a decisive explanation that everyone must believe on a specific point of interpretation. Just report on the most likely possibilities, and explain why they are possible or probable. There has never been a reason for the Watchtower to stick its neck out and say that something must mean a certain thing that later had to be changed. All those changes were unnecessarily brought upon ourselves by being presumptuous. Of course, this sounds terrible and awful and unworkable to most of us, but there is a Scriptural idea behind it. In Matthew 24, the faithful slave is not really a "position" at all in the Christian congregation, or the Bible would have mentioned it. It mentions elders and ministerial servants and evangelizers and prophets, etc. This is one reason we know that the illustration is merely an example of how, like house servants, all of us should do what we can for each other in an orderly manner even though the Master is delayed in returning. We need to keep the household running smoothly by continuing in our assignments without distraction, and without anyone deciding that they need to take over and create a special form of leadership. The lesson could very likely be the very opposite of the lesson that the Governing Body is currently taking form the parable. But even so, let's say that it really was a lesson about who is distributing the spiritual food to the household of faith. Fine. Then who is creating and preparing that food to be distributed, while the parousia seems delayed? Who is tentatively taking the place of the "master" of the house in deciding what things should be distributed? I quoted the scripture earlier: (Matthew 13:52) 52 Then he said to them: “That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” So it's everyone who is out there teaching about the Kingdom of God. You and me, and every "publisher," and elder, and ministerial servant, and pioneer. Every sister and brother in the congregation who teaches publicly and from house to house. These are the ones taking the place of the "master of the house" who can instruct the "faithful slave" in what to distribute as spiritual food.

*** w13 3/15 p. 23 par. 16 Jehovah—Our Place of Dwelling *** In what ways will Jehovah prove to be “a real dwelling” during that tumultuous time? We will have to wait and see. But of this we can be sure: Like the Israelites at the time of the Exodus, the “great crowd” will remain organized, ever alert to divine direction. (Rev. 7:9; read Exodus 13:18.) That direction will come theocratically, probably by means of the congregation arrangement. Indeed, the many thousands of congregations around the world appear to be linked to the protective “interior rooms” foretold at Isaiah 26:20. (Read.) Do you value the congregation meetings? Do you act promptly on the direction Jehovah provides through the congregation arrangement?—Heb. 13:17. *** w09 5/15 p. 8 Where Should You Be When the End Comes? *** Soon the end will come for Satan’s wicked world. How Jehovah will protect his people in the fear-inspiring ‘day of his anger,’ we do not yet know. (Zeph. 2:3) Regardless of where we are and what our situation is at that time, however, we can be sure that our survival will depend on our faith in Jehovah and our obedience to him. Meanwhile, we should cultivate a proper attitude toward what Isaiah’s prophecy refers to as our “interior rooms.” “Enter Into Your Interior Rooms” “Go, my people, enter into your interior rooms, and shut your doors behind you,” states Isaiah 26:20. “Hide yourself for but a moment until the denunciation passes over.” This prophecy may have had its first fulfillment in 539 B.C.E. when the Medes and the Persians conquered Babylon. Upon entering Babylon, Cyrus the Persian apparently commanded everyone to stay indoors because his soldiers were ordered to execute any found out-of-doors. In our day, the “interior rooms” of this prophecy could be closely associated with the more than 100,000 congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world. Such congregations play an important role in our lives. They will continue to do so through “the great tribulation.” (Rev. 7:14) God’s people are commanded to go into their “interior rooms” and hide themselves “until the denunciation passes over.” It is vital that we develop and maintain a wholesome attitude toward the congregation and be firmly resolved to stay in close association with it.

My point was to show the possibility and then some practical reasons that we are told NOT to search for the sign in our day.

I'm more concerned that it is un-Christian, not just unwise. Actually, evidence has already been presented in the past, here on this forum and many other places, showing that 1914 was not predicted. Not biblically, not historically, not even by the Watch Tower Society. I'd say the evidence against 1914 is overwhelming, but this is of course just an opinion. I don't think I have a "more correct" definition than the ones that the Watch Tower publications, and every Greek language resource, and all Bible dictionaries, and other scholarsly resources, already consistently give. So I am basing this "complaint" on the Watchtower's own definition of a generation. And yes it can be established Biblically. However, we are still discussing point #4 first, which is the one I started with. And, as you can see, a few other side topics have arisen out of that discussion. We haven't got to this point #3 yet. It's imminent, though. No need to concern ourselves about what apostates and skeptics do. The Bible gives plenty and perfect solutions and alternatives. Perhaps it isn't based on any belief that people had at any time, but for some reason the Watchtower says that it is. It states that the persons in group one had to have readily discerned the sign they were seeing in 1914. We can easily show that they did not, which shows that there is a crack in the reasoning, or that the teaching was not thought through very carefully before presenting it in public (as Brother Splane has done on JW Broadcasting). In fact, Rutherford published in a later Watchtower, explicitly admitting that they "did not discern" the sign at the time, using his own word "discern." We have already discussed that portion of the issue in a discussion here over a year ago. Perhaps I'll dig out that discussion and see if it adds anything to point #4 before moving on to point #3. That's quite all right. I'm always anxious to read well thought out responses to anything I say here. I don't reject that these are the last days, and I don't reject that the changes in the world, especially since 1914, are of utmost concern. These concerns can and should be used in our ministry to help people see that God's Kingdom is the only real solution to mankind's problems.

Of course, Daniel says the meaning is sealed up until the time of the end. Revelation makes reference to this and says it was now (in the late first century) the time for the sealed meanings to be revealed, and the sealed books to be opened up. This could mean that Revelation is now revealing them, per the name of the book. Or it could mean that they are revealed in a later "time of the end" thousands of years later when Jehovah reveals the meanings again to a faithful and discreet slave class. Although, as Witnesses, we generally prefer that last interpretation, it seems meaningless if, as you say, we are still hitting dead ends and not worried about being ridiculed for it. I'm more concerned that our speculation about the "times and seasons" is what indicates a lack of faith in God's Word. Always needing something tangible to hang onto rather than walking by faith is what Jesus and the other Bible writers were warning us about when they said things like: (1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. This is an unfortunate set of circumstances to bring upon ourselves so unnecessarily. I talked to an elder in 2004 who started saying that he just knows the end has to happen within 10 years, and if it doesn't happen in 10 years he'll go from door to door telling people we were wrong. That 10 years has passed, and he's a bit "shaken" in his faith. (Reminded me of my own grandmother who once said: "If 1914 is wrong, then we're in the wrong religion.") The real problem is that the religion need not be tied so closely to a specific range of time. This is the problem I put in the #1 problem with the "generation" doctrine in the very first post here.

I have no problem understanding that these are the last days. Paul warned Timothy that Timothy that (because he was in the last days) he would have to deal with critical times, people who only loved themselves, people who were disloyal, people with no natural affection, etc., and this helped Timothy realize the times he was living in, and what to expect. I have no problem with the idea that many things have gone from bad to worse since that first century, and that this system doesn't seem like it can go on any longer. And all these evidences of the last days make us hope and pray for a new system that ever so much closer. By the way, when you mention the question "how do we know he is near at the door?" you might realize that you are inadvertently exposing one of the inconsistencies of our interpretation of Matthew 24. In our interpretation, Jesus is already present, and THEN the signs supposedly arrive over the next 104-plus years. The topic of the "sign" is another one for another discussion. Many persons, including Russell himself, read Matthew 24 to prove that Jesus was warning the disciples that they should NOT look for any advance signs on earth because none would be given. Jesus said that wars and earthquakes, and famine, and pestilence and persecution etc., would continue to go on just as it always had (for the last 18 centuries, per Russell), but that these are NOT signs of the end, and not to be quickly shaken by such things. Russell seemed to ignore, however, that the warning also included not to start listening to people who look at these as signs and will therefore say that Jesus is here or there, but just not visible to them right now. Because when the parousia occurs, it will actually be without any extra warning; it will come as a thief in the night, and it won't be invisible, but suddenly and brightly, as visible as lightning that shines from side of the heavens all the way to the other side. In other words, Matthew 24 is the opposite of a "composite sign." The actual sign, would appear in the heavens when it was too late to escape. Here is where Russell and Second Adventists, especially, went wrong. They thought that they could already see those signs in the heavens. They saw them in 1780 and 1833, which perfectly fit the belief that the last days had begun in 1799. The rest of this post will be excerpts from Studies in the Scriptures, Vol 4, to show how easy it is to lock in on "signs" and how strongly entrenched these beliefs were, so that the WTS was promoting these specific teachings even until the 1930's. I have skipped about a dozen secular references that Russell quotes to show just how widely recognized these "signs" were from other authorities, much like our more current references to how secular authorities recognize how the world changed in 1914: And they were given into her power, and she wore out the saints of the Most High for a time, times and a half time--1260 years--until A.D. 1799. And this long persecution, in which "many were purified and made white and tried," and in which the Mother of Harlots was "drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus" (Rev. 17:6) ended as we have already shown, practically in 1776 and actually in 1799 when the Pope and his authority were humiliated before the World.* Understanding clearly, then, that it is signs that will follow the tribulation "of those days" that our Lord refers to, we inquire respecting the very definitely described signs--the darkening of the sun and moon, and the falling of the stars. . . . On May 19, 1780 (still "in those days," the 1260 years of Papal power, but after that power had begun to wane and the brunt of the tribulation had passed) a phenomenal darkening of the sun occurred, for which scientists of that time and since have never been able to account. That this was no ordinary occurrence is sufficiently established by the following competent testimony-- The noted astronomer Herschel, says: "The dark day in Northern America was one of those wonderful phenomena of nature which will always be read of with interest, but which philosophy is at a loss to explain." Webster's Dictionary, 1869 edition, under the head of Vocabulary of Noted Names, says: "The dark day, May 19, 1780--so called on account of a remarkable darkness on that day extending over all New England. In some places, persons could not see to read common print in the open air for several hours together. Birds sang their evening songs, disappeared, and became silent; fowls went to roost; cattle sought the barn-yard; and candles were lighted in the houses. The obscuration began about ten o'clock in the morning, and continued till the middle of the next night, but with differences of degree of duration in different places." . . . The Falling Stars Half a century passed before the next sign appeared, the falling of the stars from heaven, as when a fig tree casteth her unripe fruit when shaken of a mighty wind. Our Lord's words found a fulfilment (though not their complete and only fulfilment, as we shall see later) in the wonderful meteoric showers of the early morning of Nov. 13, 1833. Those inclined to quibble by urging that "the fixed stars did not fall" are reminded that our Lord said nothing about fixed stars falling, and that fixed stars could not fall: their falling would prove that they were not fixed. The Scriptures do not distinguish between stars and meteors as is commonly done in our day. Shooting stars, and even meteoric showers are not uncommon every year, and some years more than others. It is computed that 400,000 small meteors fall to our earth annually. But these are nothing in comparison to the great shower of Nov. 13, 1833, in which millions on millions fell.

I agree that this would be a much more humble and discreet, much less presumptuous than proposing a specific belief without real scriptural support, and then just asking everyone to accept it as the solution. The brothers don't actually focus on "this generation," they focus on the correctness of 1914 and then just keep changing, stretching and twisting the interpretation of "this generation" so that it doesn't interfere with the correctness of 1914. But we actually have no problem at all understanding the actual meaning of Jesus' words. They meant exactly what Jesus said, that the group of people he was speaking to would actually see this "parousia" (visitation) or "synteleia" (destruction) on Jerusalem. It would happen within the lifetimes of at least some of them. There are many scriptures, and even history itself, that bears out this fact. It's only a modern-day interpretation of these words, when attached to Jesus world-wide parousia, that we have difficulty with. That's another topic of course. I don't know what you already know about the 1914 doctrine, but if you can see reasons to question our understanding of "this generation" I'm guessing you would see at least ten times as many scriptural reasons to question the 1914 doctrine. I absolutely agree that the world changed in 1914. But what does that have to do with the Bible? What does that have to do with Russell's or the Watch Tower's predictions about 1914? Let's say that I had seen the Brooklyn Bridge construction start in 1869 and then predicted that in 14 years (1883) all that construction would finally be abandoned as a complete failure and it would be crushed into oblivion within a matter of months. But 14 years later it was completed and opened for traffic and has been in use for well over 100 years now. Does this mean I can claim that I predicted 1883 just because SOMETHING happened with the Brooklyn Bridge that year? I guess it's true that, if I were very dishonest, I could claim I was correct all along because it "started" to deteriorate in 1883. What happened in 1914 was very close to the opposite of what Russell predicted. And, besides, there is nothing Biblical about the date 1914.

I appreciate that. And I held the same view for many years. But we should all share our opinions if our intent in sharing is right. "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." And, as Witnesses, we have put ourselves under a certain obligation to share publicly and not hold back, willing to defend our beliefs to anyone who asks. (Matthew 13:51, 52) . . .” 52 Then he said to them: “That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.” I do see a problem in trying to share our concerns in the congregational setting, where it could cause division, but the Internet is already full of comments from all angles on this topic, and adding my own opinion here merely allows someone to evaluate it without the need to concern themselves about whether the opinion need to be given a second thought, unless they are also concerned. For all anyone really knows, this opinion of mine could have come from an opposer, an elder, an apostate, a Bible study, the wife of a GB member, a complete outsider, a newspaper researcher, a "Russian" trying to interfere with a US election, or a concerned publisher. If anyone wishes, my opinions can be challenged, as they ought to be. If they are worthless, someone can point that out. If they are only partially worthwhile, and partially worthless, someone (like you) can help filter it. To me, if an answer to these objections is obvious from anyone, then any other person's opinion about it is welcome. (Proverbs 27:17) 17 As iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens his friend. The public forum of course is as old as elders and judges who were found discussing issues and concerns at the city gates, or the Areopagus in ancient Greece. Having found a public forum here, it doesn't mean I think that a Christian should just publicly expose the sins of others, or constantly tear down. All matters such as these doctrinal issues should be made a matter of serious prayer first, even on a forum such as this. (Ecclesiastes 3:2-7) A time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted; 3 ... A time to tear down and a time to build up; 4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; ... 5 A time to throw stones away and a time to gather stones together;... 6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away; 7 A time to rip apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak;

I think that Jesus understood well that Leaders would naturally appear in all religious organizations and some would position themselves as "high council" "Pope" "Archbishop" "governing bodies" "leadership of the synod" "president of the Sanhedrin" etc. The point of Jesus' illustration of the faithful and unfaithful slaves in the household was a warning about how some of these would begin to "lord it over" the household of faith, trying to actually be "governors of their faith." I find that the letters of Peter provide an excellent commentary on Matthew 24, and it serves well on this illustration, too. Just after the point about faithful stewards, quoted above from 1 Pet 4:11, there is another point at the start of the next chapter that perfectly explains the Matthew 24:45 parable, including the "reward" for setting the right example, just as in Matthew 24: (1 Peter 5:1-4) . . .Therefore, as a fellow elder, a witness of the sufferings of the Christ and a sharer of the glory that is to be revealed, I make this appeal to the elders among you: 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief shepherd has been made manifest, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Still, in the case of the Governing Body, they might not be as averse to questioning as you think, if it is done in a useful and upbuilding way. What they are probably more afraid of is the chaos that a forum like this would dump on them, and the chaos trying to control such ideas from being accepted willy-nilly and randomly. It would be difficult for them to keep up with all the crazy ideas that might be spreading if people were encouraged to speak up.

I meant that they cannot be exclusively God's mouthpiece, because if Jehovah can bring draw praise from a child ("Out of the mouths of babes" Mt 21:16 quoting Ps 8:2) then that child is also God's mouthpiece. The Psalm 19 says: (Psalm 19:1-4) 19 The heavens are declaring the glory of God; The skies above proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day their speech bubbles forth, And night after night they reveal knowledge. 3 There is no speech, and there are no words; Their voice is not heard. 4 But into all the earth their sound has gone out, And to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.. . . So even the heavenly and earthly creations cry out as God's mouthpiece. And therefore all who preach God's good news of his Kingdom are also his mouthpiece. (Compare Romans 10:18 with Psalm 19:4.) Even "rocks" can become Jehovah's mouthpiece if necessary (Luke 19:40). So I can't see a direct connection between the "mouthpiece" and the "anointed" from this. I should add that In Isaiah 43, Israel representing their God Jehovah against the gods of the nations, became Jehovah's mouthpiece by their actions and avoidance of idolatry. This applied to a nation that was "anointed" but not in the sense in Romans 8/Galatians 4. Notice too that the verse in 1 Peter 4:11 that said that we should speak as if a mouthpiece for God, actually said "if anyone speaks" without a specific sense of limiting it to the anointed. Of course, I can't say that you are wrong. I don't know. Perhaps the Greek Scriptures were written just for the anointed. But when Peter speaks of "a new heavens and a new earth which we are awaiting," he seems to include two groups with the word we. When Jesus tells meek people that they shall inherit the earth, we get a sense Jesus is inclusive of more than just the anointed in all his parables and teachings. My sense is that there really are two groups of persons who hope for life in paradise, and some of these will be in heaven and some on earth. But I get the sense that the Bible is written for the edification of all of us -- every statement, including those about the spirit bearing witness with our spirit. The Bible never says that only an anointed class become "sons" and only "sons" go to heaven, but not "brothers." (Matthew 23:8-12) 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (At least the verse didn't say, "Neither should any of you be called Governing Body.") But, of course, there is an even more explicitly clear scripture that includes the "brothers" in the "heavenly calling." (Hebrews 2:11-3:1) 11 For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you with song.” 13 And again: “I will put my trust in him.” And again: “Look! I and the young children, whom Jehovah gave me.” 14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, . . . 17 Consequently, he had to become like his “brothers” in all respects, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 18 Since he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test. 3 Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling,. . . So, again, I think creating a distinction between brothers, sons, children, etc., is false. All of us call out to our Father, Jehovah, and all of us should call out "Abba," in the sense of a fatherly relationship, because we see Jehovah as "near and dear" to us. (Acts 17:27-29) . . .so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us. 28 For by him we have life and move and exist, even as some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his children.’ 29 “Therefore, since we are the children of God, . . . [Remember that Paul was speaking to persons here, who were not even convinced of Christianity. ] (Matthew 22:37) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ That is the reason we ALL should think of God in loving endearing terms like "Abba, Father." But even here the distinction between "Abba" and "Father" has been carried further than the Scriptures actually state. In fact, there are several times in the Greek Scriptures when Aramaic terms are spelled out, and spelling out "Abba, Father" is just one more (actually, it's done 3 times). But in Aramaic it doesn't really just mean "papa" as is a common idea. It really means "father" or "the father." It's the same in Aramaic as when Jesus prayed a model prayer: "Our Abba, who art in heaven." There is no reason to think that "Abba" is supposed to have a special meaning JUST for the anointed. In Galatians when the point about sonship is made it is compared with slavery to the fleshly world. Our anointing of the SPIRIT is reflected by our own production of the FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT. (Galatians 5:19, etc) This is not just for the heavenly class, ALL of us should produce the fruits of the spirit because of the outpouring of the spirit. Romans, also, in context, if you read the entire chapter (Romans 8 ), is about the difference between the SPIRIT and condemnation of the flesh. Notice that ANYONE who does not live in harmony with the spirit is condemned. So this context is for those who need Jehovah's spirit (Christ's spirit is mentioned here, too), and it includes ALL persons who set their mind on spiritual things instead of fleshly things. (Romans 8:5-9) . . .For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit, on the things of the spirit. 6 For setting the mind on the flesh means death, but setting the mind on the spirit means life and peace; 7 because setting the mind on the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not in subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. 8 So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in you. But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this person does not belong to him. Anyway, these are just my thoughts on it. There are many possible ways to look at this.