Anna

Still, you did have to have some faith in the doctors, that they would make you feel better, otherwise you wouldn't have gone in to hospital in the first place surely. The same with the Police. You must have some faith in them otherwise why bother reporting the alleged child abuse to them? And why else would you think it was important for the elders of your congregation to report the matter?
Well all I can say to that is change is inevitable as no one gets everything right the first time. It's also good to put things into proper perspective and honestly evaluate whether the change has been for the better or for worse. Some change is logical. The FDS being only the members of the GB make practical sense as most of the other anointed are scattered all over the earth and are in different time zones, so to expect for them to sit in on, and contribute to the dispensing of spiritual food would be unrealistic. In any case, I don't think everyone of the other anointed, with a few exceptions, ever contributed to the dispensing of spiritual food (apart from their own preaching, just like all the other Witnesses), so it has always been symbolic anyway. The generation teaching obviously had to change because time ran out. You are right, we don't have to look far to find them. Here is a whole list of teachings that were revised or updated: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174
Do you think it would have been better to stick to the previous understanding and never change anything?
Well they obviously believe they are promoting God's thinking. Every reason or suggestion for anything is always backed up by a myriad scriptures. So I think you must be talking bout the interpretation of scripture. Wrong interpretation or misunderstanding of scripture is not a sin, it is  part of progressive understanding, making mistakes is a natural part of learning. But again, it's good to put this into perspective, have all the wrong interpretations caused harm? A few have caused some harm, but the vast majority have not. And none of these mistakes have been done in malice or for some personal gain. We need to be able to forgive our brothers. I am sure you would agree this is a Christlike attitude to have. So:
Do you have an example of a scripture that has been misused to rule over others?
I am not sue where the video is either, but I know that Br. Lett wasn't referring to the child abuse situation as lies from apostates. He said something to the effect that saying we deny or ignore child abuse are apostate lies. We do not deny or ignore child abuse.
I don't know what kind of ministry you were doing but any claim, whether spoken or pointed to in JW literature has to be substantiated by scripture. Everyone does it differently, but I always say regarding the magazines for example, that's its not what we say, it's what the Bible says and to make sure to check all the scriptures that are cited. The publication are merely Bible aids and not there to replace the Bible. That's the big difference.

Hence, if a government / ruler of a country offered Alternative Service that was not going against the will of God, then the people should obey it. - Romans 13.
The reasoning was that alternative service would be a substitute or "in place of"....which was perceived being "the same as" fighting in a war, in which case Acts 5:29 would apply  And the point was that as long as this service was commanded by the army, you couldn’t do it. But if it was commanded by any other institution it was ok. I think the problem starts when the brothers get bogged down with absolute detail in an effort to cover all bases. Unfortunately, it then becomes a pretzel of reasoning. It’s like Trinitarians trying to explain the Trinity. Someone on here posted an anecdotal example of this pretzel type reasoning with a mock WT article on why true Christians shouldn't own a cat. I have a suspicion that it was one certain brother who had a penchant for this type of reasoning......
All probably would have been well had this ambiguous situation been left to conscience in the first place, instead of trying to make rules where none existed......

Yes, that is truly sad. It helps me to think of a few scriptures, this one particularly with reference to to the conscientious objectors:
"For it is agreeable when someone endures hardship and suffers unjustly because of conscience toward God. For what merit is there if you are beaten for sinning and you endure it? But if you endure suffering because of doing good, this is an agreeable thing to God". (1Peter 2:19)
For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. (Hebrews 6:10)
And these in general:
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment". (James 3:1) and  
"But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him" Luke 12:48
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad". 2 Corinthians 5:10
"For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad". (Ecclesiastes 12:14)
"So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God" (Romans 14:12) etc...

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.

I disagree with that. There are many things that are not done at all the same way today (for example the 2/3 majority vote). In fact things are very different only by virtue of the fact that every single person on the GB at the time of Raymond is gone, replaced by a completely different body, and that many of those issue that were pointed to by Raymond have been addressed. (This makes me believe that even today's members of the GB have read Raymond's book).

I think when it comes to God, there are naturally many things we cannot, and NEVER will, comprehend about him. Like the the concept of him having no beginning. Everything he wants us to know about him, he has revealed in the Bible. And of course as Melinda mentioned, we know about his qualities through ourselves, because we were created in his image. When it comes to free will, it is a gift from God, and he never has taken that away from any of his intelligent creatures. It makes sense that Jehovah can 'predict' what a person will do, because even we can correctly predict what someone will do. Jehovah can do that so much better because he can read hearts. We can only go by what we see, hear and past experience.

We know he has free will. Were made in his image so the free will starts with Him. Gen 1:26. No discussion needed on that.  
 

He can foresee in detail if he chooses to like in the case of Cyrus - even before he was born.   But he is not the cause of the outcome.  It is only that he can see it.  Free will is the cause of the outcome. In the case of Esau he also saw the different genes and bent of the person.

I am assuming you no longer have faith your brother, but you still do have faith and trust in so many people. You have faith in the milkman that he will bring your milk everyday, (do they still do that?) you have faith in medical staff that they will administer treatment for your benefit, you have faith in the pilot that he will get you to your destination, you have faith in the police force, that they will  help people. Whether that faith is justified or not doesn't matter. The fact is us humans have a need to rely on other humans and put faith in them otherwise it would be impossible to live a normal life. 
Maybe that was a mistake, that you didn't ask any questions, but evidently you didn't feel you needed to, if everything made sense....
With the Org changing the meaning of scripture, and teachings, I am assuming you preferred the previous ones better? Or is it because you think there should never be any change?
From the examples I wrote about above it's unrealistic to think that JWs pretend they don't put their faith in men. I know in this case you mean the men on the GB. But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job, whether it be the milkman, doctor, pilot or policeman. Yes, Witnesses do put faith in the GB, it is logical they do so and there is scripturally absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as they keep in mind that if there is ever a conflict between what man says, and what God says, then what God says must always take precedent of course. You know the scripture (Acts 5:29). 
With regard to the wrongdoing you mention, I am assuming you mean the mishandling of Child abuse cases? Or were you thinking of some other specific wrongdoing?
Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that the Org. presents itself as God's only orgnisation. Most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. With the GB being the only spokesperson for God, then that is disputable and would be presumptuous in the words of G. Jackson. Every time  a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God. The Org. being the only means of salvation can be a tricky one. Of course it is Jehovah who is going to save, and every Witness believes that. The concept 'means' or 'by means of' can apply to the fact that the requirements for salvation as stated in the Bible have been proclaimed by that Organisation. If the stones were to cry out instead ( Luke 19:40) then it would be by means of the stones
Don't forget about this scripture: "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?  How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” (Romans 10:13-15)
 

I am assuming you no longer have faith your brother, but you still do have faith and trust in so many people. You have faith in the milkman that he will bring your milk everyday, (do they still do that?) you have faith in medical staff that they will administer treatment for your benefit, you have faith in the pilot that he will get you to your destination, you have faith in the police force, that they will  help people. Whether that faith is justified or not doesn't matter. The fact is us humans have a need to rely on other humans and put faith in them otherwise it would be impossible to live a normal life. 
Maybe that was a mistake, that you didn't ask any questions, but evidently you didn't feel you needed to, if everything made sense....
With the Org changing the meaning of scripture, and teachings, I am assuming you preferred the previous ones better? Or is it because you think there should never be any change?
From the examples I wrote about above it's unrealistic to think that JWs pretend they don't put their faith in men. I know in this case you mean the men on the GB. But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job, whether it be the milkman, doctor, pilot or policeman. Yes, Witnesses do put faith in the GB, it is logical they do so and there is scripturally absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as they keep in mind that if there is ever a conflict between what man says, and what God says, then what God says must always take precedent of course. You know the scripture (Acts 5:29). 
With regard to the wrongdoing you mention, I am assuming you mean the mishandling of Child abuse cases? Or were you thinking of some other specific wrongdoing?
Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that the Org. presents itself as God's only orgnisation. Most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. With the GB being the only spokesperson for God, then that is disputable and would be presumptuous in the words of G. Jackson. Every time  a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God. The Org. being the only means of salvation can be a tricky one. Of course it is Jehovah who is going to save, and every Witness believes that. The concept 'means' or 'by means of' can apply to the fact that the requirements for salvation as stated in the Bible have been proclaimed by that Organisation. If the stones were to cry out instead ( Luke 19:40) then it would be by means of the stones
Don't forget about this scripture: "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?  How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” (Romans 10:13-15)
 

Here is my few cents on the Crisis of Conscience. (It’s been a few years since I have last read it though). This book must be unique to any other ex-Witness publication (I have no desire to read any others) just by virtue of the fact that the author was in a truly unique position to be able to write about something that none of the others could.
 If I was going to read only one book on Jehovah’s Witnesses (besides our publications of course) it would be this one. I say this with a bit of a heavy heart, because this book has been the cause of a multitude ‘falling away’. Perhaps I should rephrase that, it has given the impetus to those who were already on a wavering course for one reason or another. It’s difficult for me to explain this well, but I think those who have seen the ‘Truth’  transform lives for the better, and have experienced and seen this within themselves as well, and have experienced the liberation from Christendom’s false teachings (and other religions) and have seen the puzzle pieces of pure teachings of the Bible become a clear picture, and those who’s faith is grounded  in Jehovah and not mere man, for those people I do not think that reading this book poses a danger to that faith at all.  Perhaps not even a danger to the relative faith in the Governing Body for that matter. And it shouldn’t.  It’s not that kind of a book. It’s not some kind of ‘expose’ on par with Leah Remini’s whistle-blowing on her former faith. It will surprise some, especially those who have had unrealistic opinions of the Governing Body.  But for those who have had more of a pragmatic and scriptural (!) approach, they will find that the element of surprise is not that great, and that in fact they begin to understand some of the things they have wondered about in the past. They will understand the human struggle and imperfections about those whom it has been said that they were the ‘mouthpiece’ of God (Russell etc.). They will understand better  the dilemmas regarding end time calculations. They will also find that naturally the book is written with bias (as JW Insider pointed out), but if one can overlook  RF’s obvious (and expected) emotional involvement in places, and just concentrate on the facts presented, then one can glean quite a good picture of behind the scenes of the Organization. (I still have to find the places where I thought RF was being unfair and less than honest, but I need time for that. One area where I remember RF was being unfair was in his descriptions of potentially life changing decisions being made in an arbitrarily frivolous manner, devoid of scriptural basis. He seems to omit crucial information and detail where discussion of scriptures and their application must have occurred, and he only talks about HIS input where he used scripture. I find that hard to believe since absolutely any idea put forward in WT publications have always provided an array of scriptural reasons to go with it,  even if sometimes wrongly applied. On the other hand he is tries to be fair by admitting that problems were rarely just over looked or ignored. I suppose it was easy for RF to point out failings that became obvious in hindsight.)
All in all the book shouldn’t undermine ones belief; in that if you are going to be part of a faith based organization, then Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only way to go. I think the scripture here could be loosely applied, (although in this case it obviously applied to Jesus, and I am here not trying to compare the GB with Jesus) “.....whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” . The disciples had just learned something ‘shocking’ and many left and did not wait for the resolution of the matter, despite the fact that Jesus demonstrated that he had the sayings of everlasting life.  In the same way, if you have recognized the ‘sayings’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses as something valuable, then it would be a shame if you let the various failings of mere humans cloud that overall picture.
The shortest way to describe the book? It’s like drawing back the curtain on the old man in the Wizard of OZ.
P.S When reading the book one has to bear in mind that here RF is writing about what was the current GB of his time, and that not one of those people make up the GB today. Also, it is the opinion of quite a few, including mine, that if RF hadn’t been made to resign from the GB he would have served on it until his death.
 

This actually this isn't as crazy as it sounds. The reasoning was based on (if I remember correctly) that in order for fornication (which was the only grounds for divorce, according to what Jesus said) to occur, the partner had to "become one" with another person, and that could only happen if the other person was of the opposite sex. That is Biblical.  In Jehovah's eyes you cannot become one with anyone but the opposite sex, and you cannot become one with another creature either for that matter.  The problem was, that the word 'fornication' was understood to be the same as 'adultery'. However, fornication (porneia) is different. It covers any kind of sexual relations whether with a human or animal. It should have been clear from the start because the scripture in Matthew doesn't say "whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of 'adultery', and marries another commits adultery." It says on the ground of 'fornication'.
But we were not the only ones who understood it this way:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/divorce-adultery-law-rules-gay-lesbian-same-sex-affairs-why-dont-they-count-a7533766.html
 

I am not sure what your argument is here. I believe the scriptures are clear on proselytizing. Wasn't Raymond questioning the motivation/desire, or rather the lack of  motivation/desire on the part of the Witness community? I guess I will have to read the whole chapter to get the context...

I think his point was, (if he was being genuine) that it wasn't about the failing necessarily, but about how it affected the lives of others (in a bad way) who were completely reliant, and were told to be reliant, on that information, and on those giving that information. 
 

What do you mean by meaningless understandings? And what do you mean by "what the world doesn't already know? Please explain a little. Perhaps give examples of the 'meaningless understandings' you have in mind. And what is the 'knowledge' you are talking about that the world ready knows?

God gave his intelligent creation freedom of choice. Jehovah made a beautiful angel in heaven along with myriads of others, he decided to become a resister of Jehovah's purpose later on and is called Satan. Jesus picked Judas, Judas changed afterwards. Governing body picked Raymond Franz, etc etc  Everyone intelligent creation can change.

Jesus at some point knew it was Judas.  It was prophesied that someone close would do it. Jesus would have discerned that it was Judas as he showed up his deviousness surrounding greed for money, among other things written and not written. However, Jesus prayed all night  before choosing Judas and the others.  He was a good person at that point.

It is evident in Raymond's case, that he only wrote what the Societies' understanding of those dates were at the time. He added nothing of his own understanding or interpretation to these dates. He quotes nobody else but the Societies' literature concerning these dates. It had nothing to do with anyone else's perception but only of the perception of those who mentioned these dates in the first place ( Barbour, Russell, Rutherford, Franz...)
These dates are only a common theme for ex-JW books because most of them derived this information from Raymond's books
I think they understood these dates, but most of these dates failed in their expectations and had to be revised, several times. I think it is up to each individual person to asses whether this is meaningless for them or not.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But assuming I understand what you mean then again, I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion if you quote (in context) the other party. I think it became quite clear how certain things were supposed to be understood. Many times it was crystal clear.
I am assuming you mean that Raymond put too much faith in his own research of the society? If that's what you mean then it doesn't make any difference whether Raymond put faith in his research or not because research, or the evidence provided, should be able to stand on it's own, and it should be up to each individual to decide how much faith they will put in the evidence shown. It's what we do with our Bible studies, we show them evidence, and on the basis of that evidence the student decides whether they will accept it or not, or reach a different conclusion. It doesn't matter how much faith in that evidence we have ourselves.
If you mean that Raymond did separate parallel research on the same subject as the organization, then I do not see that in his first book (I didn't read his second book). From what I've seen, Raymond merely reports on beliefs already held, and how those beliefs had to change due to inaccuracies. I do not see him espousing his own ideas.
Well he 'only' quoted the organizations own literature and or/letters from branch offices.  So you decide by whose standards are they correct.
I don't think that this late in the stream of time it is difficult at all for anyone to see that the organization has had wrong expectations and understanding. Time itself has has proved this. No one has to try very hard at all.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/#?insight[search_id]=2d58f3a4-a39b-4bab-8385-d3b8065094d5&insight[search_result_index]=1
What Raymond does focus on though is how some of these misunderstandings have had detrimental results in the lives of some friends.
Distorted information has no benefit of course. Did you have something in mind in Raymond's book that would be considered distorted information? There are some things I remember that I did not agree on, but it has been a while since I read the book and I cannot remember what they were. Perhaps you can be quicker in giving an example.

It is evident in Raymond's case, that he only wrote what the Societies' understanding of those dates were at the time. He added nothing of his own understanding or interpretation to these dates. He quotes nobody else but the Societies' literature concerning these dates. It had nothing to do with anyone else's perception but only of the perception of those who mentioned these dates in the first place ( Barbour, Russell, Rutherford, Franz...)
These dates are only a common theme for ex-JW books because most of them derived this information from Raymond's books
I think they understood these dates, but most of these dates failed in their expectations and had to be revised, several times. I think it is up to each individual person to asses whether this is meaningless for them or not.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But assuming I understand what you mean then again, I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion if you quote (in context) the other party. I think it became quite clear how certain things were supposed to be understood. Many times it was crystal clear.
I am assuming you mean that Raymond put too much faith in his own research of the society? If that's what you mean then it doesn't make any difference whether Raymond put faith in his research or not because research, or the evidence provided, should be able to stand on it's own, and it should be up to each individual to decide how much faith they will put in the evidence shown. It's what we do with our Bible studies, we show them evidence, and on the basis of that evidence the student decides whether they will accept it or not, or reach a different conclusion. It doesn't matter how much faith in that evidence we have ourselves.
If you mean that Raymond did separate parallel research on the same subject as the organization, then I do not see that in his first book (I didn't read his second book). From what I've seen, Raymond merely reports on beliefs already held, and how those beliefs had to change due to inaccuracies. I do not see him espousing his own ideas.
Well he 'only' quoted the organizations own literature and or/letters from branch offices.  So you decide by whose standards are they correct.
I don't think that this late in the stream of time it is difficult at all for anyone to see that the organization has had wrong expectations and understanding. Time itself has has proved this. No one has to try very hard at all.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/#?insight[search_id]=2d58f3a4-a39b-4bab-8385-d3b8065094d5&insight[search_result_index]=1
What Raymond does focus on though is how some of these misunderstandings have had detrimental results in the lives of some friends.
Distorted information has no benefit of course. Did you have something in mind in Raymond's book that would be considered distorted information? There are some things I remember that I did not agree on, but it has been a while since I read the book and I cannot remember what they were. Perhaps you can be quicker in giving an example.

That is why I spelled Truth with a capital letter and in  quotation marks. I am talking about what most Witnesses understand to be the tenets,  based on the Bible, that Jehovah's Witnesses live by.
What attracted you to what Jehovah's Witnesses taught'? Why did you become one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Surely there must have been something that you recognized as valuable?
I am sorry you had put your faith only in man. It's not funny at all, it's sad.
If you are implying that this is wrong, then you have misunderstood the meaning of faith in this case. All of us need to have some faith in fellow human beings, some more than others, and in different circumstances of course. I am sure you have faith in your wife, in your children and others? Faith in this case is synonymous with trust, belief, confidence, reliance. The difference is that faith in God is always completely justified, because He can never fail us, everyone else can.
  You must have posted this after I went back and clarified that I was not trying to compare the GB with Jesus. The thought did cross my mind that someone might think that this is what I was saying. I was trying to compare the situation. Did you know that a very large majority who leave Jehovah's Witnesses sooner or later become Atheists? They realise that there really is 'no other religion to go away to'.
Then you know more than anyone else

It is evident in Raymond's case, that he only wrote what the Societies' understanding of those dates were at the time. He added nothing of his own understanding or interpretation to these dates. He quotes nobody else but the Societies' literature concerning these dates. It had nothing to do with anyone else's perception but only of the perception of those who mentioned these dates in the first place ( Barbour, Russell, Rutherford, Franz...)
These dates are only a common theme for ex-JW books because most of them derived this information from Raymond's books
I think they understood these dates, but most of these dates failed in their expectations and had to be revised, several times. I think it is up to each individual person to asses whether this is meaningless for them or not.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But assuming I understand what you mean then again, I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion if you quote (in context) the other party. I think it became quite clear how certain things were supposed to be understood. Many times it was crystal clear.
I am assuming you mean that Raymond put too much faith in his own research of the society? If that's what you mean then it doesn't make any difference whether Raymond put faith in his research or not because research, or the evidence provided, should be able to stand on it's own, and it should be up to each individual to decide how much faith they will put in the evidence shown. It's what we do with our Bible studies, we show them evidence, and on the basis of that evidence the student decides whether they will accept it or not, or reach a different conclusion. It doesn't matter how much faith in that evidence we have ourselves.
If you mean that Raymond did separate parallel research on the same subject as the organization, then I do not see that in his first book (I didn't read his second book). From what I've seen, Raymond merely reports on beliefs already held, and how those beliefs had to change due to inaccuracies. I do not see him espousing his own ideas.
Well he 'only' quoted the organizations own literature and or/letters from branch offices.  So you decide by whose standards are they correct.
I don't think that this late in the stream of time it is difficult at all for anyone to see that the organization has had wrong expectations and understanding. Time itself has has proved this. No one has to try very hard at all.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/#?insight[search_id]=2d58f3a4-a39b-4bab-8385-d3b8065094d5&insight[search_result_index]=1
What Raymond does focus on though is how some of these misunderstandings have had detrimental results in the lives of some friends.
Distorted information has no benefit of course. Did you have something in mind in Raymond's book that would be considered distorted information? There are some things I remember that I did not agree on, but it has been a while since I read the book and I cannot remember what they were. Perhaps you can be quicker in giving an example.

Here is my few cents on the Crisis of Conscience. (It’s been a few years since I have last read it though). This book must be unique to any other ex-Witness publication (I have no desire to read any others) just by virtue of the fact that the author was in a truly unique position to be able to write about something that none of the others could.
 If I was going to read only one book on Jehovah’s Witnesses (besides our publications of course) it would be this one. I say this with a bit of a heavy heart, because this book has been the cause of a multitude ‘falling away’. Perhaps I should rephrase that, it has given the impetus to those who were already on a wavering course for one reason or another. It’s difficult for me to explain this well, but I think those who have seen the ‘Truth’  transform lives for the better, and have experienced and seen this within themselves as well, and have experienced the liberation from Christendom’s false teachings (and other religions) and have seen the puzzle pieces of pure teachings of the Bible become a clear picture, and those who’s faith is grounded  in Jehovah and not mere man, for those people I do not think that reading this book poses a danger to that faith at all.  Perhaps not even a danger to the relative faith in the Governing Body for that matter. And it shouldn’t.  It’s not that kind of a book. It’s not some kind of ‘expose’ on par with Leah Remini’s whistle-blowing on her former faith. It will surprise some, especially those who have had unrealistic opinions of the Governing Body.  But for those who have had more of a pragmatic and scriptural (!) approach, they will find that the element of surprise is not that great, and that in fact they begin to understand some of the things they have wondered about in the past. They will understand the human struggle and imperfections about those whom it has been said that they were the ‘mouthpiece’ of God (Russell etc.). They will understand better  the dilemmas regarding end time calculations. They will also find that naturally the book is written with bias (as JW Insider pointed out), but if one can overlook  RF’s obvious (and expected) emotional involvement in places, and just concentrate on the facts presented, then one can glean quite a good picture of behind the scenes of the Organization. (I still have to find the places where I thought RF was being unfair and less than honest, but I need time for that. One area where I remember RF was being unfair was in his descriptions of potentially life changing decisions being made in an arbitrarily frivolous manner, devoid of scriptural basis. He seems to omit crucial information and detail where discussion of scriptures and their application must have occurred, and he only talks about HIS input where he used scripture. I find that hard to believe since absolutely any idea put forward in WT publications have always provided an array of scriptural reasons to go with it,  even if sometimes wrongly applied. On the other hand he is tries to be fair by admitting that problems were rarely just over looked or ignored. I suppose it was easy for RF to point out failings that became obvious in hindsight.)
All in all the book shouldn’t undermine ones belief; in that if you are going to be part of a faith based organization, then Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only way to go. I think the scripture here could be loosely applied, (although in this case it obviously applied to Jesus, and I am here not trying to compare the GB with Jesus) “.....whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” . The disciples had just learned something ‘shocking’ and many left and did not wait for the resolution of the matter, despite the fact that Jesus demonstrated that he had the sayings of everlasting life.  In the same way, if you have recognized the ‘sayings’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses as something valuable, then it would be a shame if you let the various failings of mere humans cloud that overall picture.
The shortest way to describe the book? It’s like drawing back the curtain on the old man in the Wizard of OZ.
P.S When reading the book one has to bear in mind that here RF is writing about what was the current GB of his time, and that not one of those people make up the GB today. Also, it is the opinion of quite a few, including mine, that if RF hadn’t been made to resign from the GB he would have served on it until his death.
 

I’d only do it for Anna and JWI. And even for them there would be height limitations.

Here is my few cents on the Crisis of Conscience. (It’s been a few years since I have last read it though). This book must be unique to any other ex-Witness publication (I have no desire to read any others) just by virtue of the fact that the author was in a truly unique position to be able to write about something that none of the others could.
 If I was going to read only one book on Jehovah’s Witnesses (besides our publications of course) it would be this one. I say this with a bit of a heavy heart, because this book has been the cause of a multitude ‘falling away’. Perhaps I should rephrase that, it has given the impetus to those who were already on a wavering course for one reason or another. It’s difficult for me to explain this well, but I think those who have seen the ‘Truth’  transform lives for the better, and have experienced and seen this within themselves as well, and have experienced the liberation from Christendom’s false teachings (and other religions) and have seen the puzzle pieces of pure teachings of the Bible become a clear picture, and those who’s faith is grounded  in Jehovah and not mere man, for those people I do not think that reading this book poses a danger to that faith at all.  Perhaps not even a danger to the relative faith in the Governing Body for that matter. And it shouldn’t.  It’s not that kind of a book. It’s not some kind of ‘expose’ on par with Leah Remini’s whistle-blowing on her former faith. It will surprise some, especially those who have had unrealistic opinions of the Governing Body.  But for those who have had more of a pragmatic and scriptural (!) approach, they will find that the element of surprise is not that great, and that in fact they begin to understand some of the things they have wondered about in the past. They will understand the human struggle and imperfections about those whom it has been said that they were the ‘mouthpiece’ of God (Russell etc.). They will understand better  the dilemmas regarding end time calculations. They will also find that naturally the book is written with bias (as JW Insider pointed out), but if one can overlook  RF’s obvious (and expected) emotional involvement in places, and just concentrate on the facts presented, then one can glean quite a good picture of behind the scenes of the Organization. (I still have to find the places where I thought RF was being unfair and less than honest, but I need time for that. One area where I remember RF was being unfair was in his descriptions of potentially life changing decisions being made in an arbitrarily frivolous manner, devoid of scriptural basis. He seems to omit crucial information and detail where discussion of scriptures and their application must have occurred, and he only talks about HIS input where he used scripture. I find that hard to believe since absolutely any idea put forward in WT publications have always provided an array of scriptural reasons to go with it,  even if sometimes wrongly applied. On the other hand he is tries to be fair by admitting that problems were rarely just over looked or ignored. I suppose it was easy for RF to point out failings that became obvious in hindsight.)
All in all the book shouldn’t undermine ones belief; in that if you are going to be part of a faith based organization, then Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only way to go. I think the scripture here could be loosely applied, (although in this case it obviously applied to Jesus, and I am here not trying to compare the GB with Jesus) “.....whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” . The disciples had just learned something ‘shocking’ and many left and did not wait for the resolution of the matter, despite the fact that Jesus demonstrated that he had the sayings of everlasting life.  In the same way, if you have recognized the ‘sayings’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses as something valuable, then it would be a shame if you let the various failings of mere humans cloud that overall picture.
The shortest way to describe the book? It’s like drawing back the curtain on the old man in the Wizard of OZ.
P.S When reading the book one has to bear in mind that here RF is writing about what was the current GB of his time, and that not one of those people make up the GB today. Also, it is the opinion of quite a few, including mine, that if RF hadn’t been made to resign from the GB he would have served on it until his death.
 

You seem to correctly anticipate that I have still not read his book. Though I read all the time, I have read very little of this sort of material, which might seem surprising since I have written four books in support of Witnesses and their organization  I could spin this as being  'obedient,' I guess, and it is that in part. But in greater part it is that I look at such material almost as red herrings that distract. Everyone has a history. Everyone has had experiences. Everyone has acted or not acted upon them. It's not people that count, ultimately, but God, and having been around long enough, you can pick up on and originate words that adhere to the 'pattern of healthful teachings' that Paul spoke about. The doings of others just distract, as they pursue their own service and relationship to God. As long as you do not become obstinate with regard to the earthly organization, you do fine (usually). If you do not, you take your licks, dust yourself off, pay whatever price you must, and get back into the mix. Maybe that will be your fate someday. Maybe (gasp!) it will be mine. But I think not in either case. If it should prove to be, the 'damage' is repairable.
Almost everything on every thread here (at least the ones I frequent) are advancing or defending against an attempt to undermine the earthly organization. The appeal of undermining it is irresistible. That way, if you don't like something, you simply 'interpret it away' and there is no one to call you on it. No harm done.
For once I will do a Butler and say that I am looking at things that are too great for me. What is the interplay of the divine/human interface? It's not anything that I am willing to say "this is" and "this isn't." Become minute enough and one might say that there is no interplay at all - that it is all but human politics, but then how does one account for the truly monumental building work that JWs have accomplished in worldwide support of the good news, a coordinated 'shout of praise' that nobody else manages to get off the launching pad? No, I think "too great for me" is where I will hold.
'Acquiescing' appears to be where it is at. For many decades now the emphasis has been on elder bodies reaching unanimous agreement, an almost impossible feat for humans to manage, and then, the 'losing' side to refrain from criticizing the 'winners,' with unity being the important consideration. It wasn't something that I was much good at, and if some 'blockheaded' brother won the day, I was hard-pressed to not carry on about it afterwards. Still,  I managed to do it to a reasonable degree. 
Furious. The little creep.
I don't have it in for him for writing his book, nor even his title. After a lifetime at Bethel, leaving with but a suitcase, what else is he going to do? I am even reasonably charitable towards a former Witness turned movie-maker that I write about in my book. He must be given credit, if only begrudgingly, for redefining the game. It is still winnable--how can it not be with Jehovah?--but it may call for a new approach in dealing with the malcontents.