Ray Franz's book , just a pack of lies?

by sleepy 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • sleepy

    My wife is very sceptical of Ray Franz's book COC.

    What I want to know is this , has the society ever shown that the events described in that book are false and the letters or statments quoted are false?

    I feel their silence on the matter speaks for itself.

    Has the society ever sued any so called apostate writer for lies in their books?

    I personaly dont agree with all the critacism about Jehovahs witnesses and understand that Ray's slant on matters may not always be unbiased (who ever is?)but I feel that the facts presented sound true.
    I just can't prove that to my wife, other than saying he has the documents and names of people and as far as I know the society has not refuted his book.
    Any help please?

  • MegaDude

    My ex-father-in-law and myself talked with a longtime high-ranking Bethel official about COC. This official claimed just about everybody at Bethel read COC when it first came out. His only gripes about the book were he said Ray should never have told what he knew about the double standard, i.e. the Mexican cartilla card/Malawi politcal party card scandal; and he claimed Ray didn't have as much to do with the Aid book as he claimed. That's it.

  • MacHislopp

    Hello Sleepy,

    thanks for your question.

    Many have questioned the facts, and the things written

    in R. Franz ' book. Hundreds here in this forum, may

    thousands, counting others all over the world can

    testify that the things written ARE true.

    Still, if one wants to call them LIES...well most

    of us leave in a FREE, DEMOCRATIC society which,

    contrary to some ORGANISATIONS, allows the use

    of free choice - without interference or intolerance.

    Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

    " One who has an accurate knowledge
    of God's Word will have no problem
    in refuting false religious ideas".

  • Escargot

    Your wife needs to read his second book, In search of Christian freedom. This was what really opened my eyes to the doctrines side of the Jws.

    Also, Brother Franz backs up is views with memos, names and dates. His 607 BC research is very convincing. And lastly, I knew Brother Trask who he mentions in his book and have met others in the book, can attest that what his memos show is what happened.

    Erasmus (1520 AD): "If we want truth, every person ought to be free to speak what they think without fear."

  • Seeker

    This is a common tactic used by closed-minded JWs: just claim it is all lies, whatever that might be. Claims stated here? "Lies!" Something negative in the newspaper? "Lies!" Ray Franz's books? "Lies!"

    My response is simple, to the point, and has never yet been answered:

    Name one specific lie.

    They can't. No the Society never responded to Ray Franz. They couldn't. He had the actual memos and they are photocopied into his books.

  • Scorpion


    I remember saying the same thing back in 1989 when COC was handed to me, of course I had not read it before making the comment about it being a pack of lies. I was just parroting what the Society wanted every good rank and file JW to say when confronted with information exposing the WT.

    Proverbs 18:13 When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears [it], that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.

    As far as someone being sued for writing anything factual exposing the WT, I am not aware of any cases.

    Ray did quote many lies and deceptions in COC from the WT though, so your wife is right in this regard.

  • garybuss

    Hi Sleepy

    If your wife is a believing Jehovah’s Witness, you might want to take a break from hammering her with Ray Franz and do your own research in Watch Tower Corporation publications on the subject of “absolute spiritual endangerment”.

    I’d like to hear what you think of that doctrine and it’s history of application.


  • sleepy

    Thanks for the replies .

    Anyone here ever meet Ray Franz or any other GB memmber?
    What did you think of them?

  • Steven

    Hi Sleepy & Garybuss,

    Sleepy I am just starting to read Ray Franz's book. I wasn't sure what to expect but it does appear to me in the first 70-odd pages that I have read that his book is really trying to be truthful & show the facts as he saw them. Perhaps your wife might want to read it herself to make her own judgements on it? However obviously she may not want to since she is presumably still a practising witness?

    You say that she is sceptical of Franz's book & scepticism is a healthy thing but as I have recently discovered you really have to be sceptical of many things & one of those is believing something is the truth before you have checked all facts.

    If something is the truth then it will show through. It shocks me how much the WTBTS has changed things over the years - surely this wouldn't be necessary if it really was the complete truth - & as for the arguement that the light is getting brighter well that is true literally every morning - the light does get brighter but if it was like the WTBTS's light then one morning the light would be yellow, the next it would be red & tomorrow's perhaps purple - they haven't decided yet!

    Seriously though it must be a very difficult thing to have doubts about something but for your wife not to be able to see it necessarily the same way as you do. However I believe that each of us must come to our own understanding of what is true so you may just have to let her have some time to think - however only you know your situation - I certainly don't, so best of luck - I hope it all works out.

    However a final point to Garybuss. I was curious about your mention of “absolute spiritual endangerment” & so thought I would look it up using the 1997 WT CD. The only thing I could find was this...

    WT 1988 11/1 "When Marital Peace Is Threatened"...
    [12. Absolute endangerment of spirituality also provides a basis for separation. The believer in a religiously divided home should do everything possible to take advantage of God's spiritual provisions. But separation is allowable if an unbelieving mate's opposition (perhaps including physical restraint) makes it genuinely impossible to pursue true worship and actually imperils the believer's spirituality. Yet, what if a very unhealthy spiritual state exists where both mates are believers? The elders should render assistance, but especially should the baptized husband work diligently to remedy the situation. Of course, if a baptized marriage partner acts like an apostate and tries to prevent his mate from serving Jehovah, the elders should handle matters according to the Scriptures. If disfellowshipping takes place in a case involving absolute endangerment of spirituality, willful nonsupport, or extreme physical abuse, the faithful Christian who seeks a legal separation would not be going against Paul's counsel about taking a believer to court.-1 Corinthians 6:1-8.]

    Perhaps I am reading your intentions wrong. However if you are trying to suggest that Sleepy is endangering his wife's spiritually then I think that you should consider if you have ANY RIGHT to say anything like that.

    Considering all of the facts & looking at all the evidence is being open-minded - are you?

    Now if I mis-interpreted your mentioning of this then fine - ignore what I have just said, but if I read your meaning right then don't you think you are going a bit far?


  • garybuss

    Hi Steven,

    My point is this. By authority of the Watch Tower Corporation the elders use the doctrine of “absolute spiritual endangerment” as their grounds to require spouses to separate from their mates. I am aware of hundreds of cases where a spouse tries to influence a mate to think critically about the Watch Tower Corporation (let alone introducing Ray Franz) and the mate goes to the elders with the information to resolve it and bam! The mate is advised and many times required to separate from the spouse providing the perceived endangerment.

    It is tantamount to waving a red flag in front of a bull.

    If a person wants a separation from a Witness, a frontal attack with COC is a proven right move.

    This is the application of the doctrine of “absolute endangerment of spirituality”.


Share this