And since no official account was ever written of what happened at bethel during the great apostasy, in years to come, when the bethelites who can still remember it die out, the only written accounts that will remain will be those by Ray Franz, Rany Watters and others who left.
Will we ever see another Ray Franz?
by Emery 43 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Phizzy
Which is exactly want the WT wants, then any lies and smears they wish to tell will go unchallenged, as they largely do today, apart from places like JWN.
-
King Solomon
Bill,
Yup. He slyly rationalized his deceptive writing by using the oldest excuse ever, the same one used in Nuremburg War Crimes trial: I was just following orders, just doing what I was expected to do. I KNEW it was wrong, but I did it anyway.
Apparently the crisis of conscience didn't lead to an attempt to mitigate the damage until AFTER it perfectly clear that he'd never be allowed back, as a child who destroys his toy saying, "if I can't have it, then NO ONE can!" (Not that anyone would act differently; like I said, his action DOES have the silver lining of pointing out the LIES of the WTBTS)
His story SHOULD serve as a cautionary tale to those who squander the most productive years of their life in volunteer preaching work: unless you're a trust fund baby (independently wealthy, and don't give it to the Society), you should be building up your Earthly assets, preparing for your later years (I know, how silly is THAT idea, when YHWH will ALWAYS PROVIDE! Wouldn't you rather be like Franz, doing manual labor as a gardener, at 65? Or the older brother he mentioned in his book, with a sick wife at home, doing manual labor in his 80's?)
Balaamsass (nice pix, BTW: that ass is getting a lesson about the physics of leverage, whether he wanted to or not!) said,
BUT.... I KNOW some in the legal department are sickened by what they have seen. HOWEVER if they go public..they will be disbarred...WTBTS is the "Client". Some speak quiety and go softly into the night. They do lurk here. Many have joined the Legal Department as "True Believers", unlike most JWs they have been educated to THINK, they understand US law and.... MOSAIC and Christian legal concepts. (Can you imagine what is going through the mind of an educated idealist SISTER in the legal Department when she has to take crap during a depo from a high school drop-out elder?) I know some were working for change behind the scenes, but power corrupts. Will change happen, I doubt it. Will someone else write like Ray, I doubt it. Will more leave and perhaps post some juicy tidbits here......perhaps...but it would cost them a career.....so I doubt it. They will fade...... perhaps throw a case or two.........an ending like in the movie "The Firm" would be too much to dream..... :) Only time will tell.
I've gotta wonder if ANYONE in "JW Legal Dept" has even reflected that the name of the dep't itself is the ultimate misnomer (eg like "Military Intelligence"), based on Jesus' words at Matt 5:38 (AND their hypocrisy in ignoring them):
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. ...
Granted, Jesus is offering absolutely FOOLISH advise, which must be taken as literally (this is no metaphor, but he's over-riding the "old eye for an eye" priniciple which was not just "heard somewhere": it's IN the torah, said as LAW!). But wait, didn't he also say, "I didn't come to change the law (torah), but to fulfill it (that is, it's prophecies). I smell a rat....
On a related note, I was surprised to read on the jwfacts site that the Legal Dept had filed amicus curae briefs on the "Swaggert vs CA State Board of Equalization" case (a taxation matter which Swaggert lost). For any non-lawyers reading, 'amicus curae' is a Latin phrase which ANY lawyer knows means, "friend of the court".
Such briefs are filed when parties not directly involved in the matter (ie not a party named in the matter as either the defendent or plaintiff) MAY voluntarily file THEIR OPINIONS of how the case should be decided. It's basically an opportunity for 3rd parties to offer relevant case law and/or legal theories that the court may have overlooked, so that the court doesn't make a bad decision which would effect them indirectly.
Now, JWs are NOT named as defendents to the action, but are VOLUNTARILY meddling in the courts, even identifying themselves as "friends of the court" to do so? Aren't JWs SUPPOSED to remain neutral in ALL Worldly judicial and political matters?
Can you imagine Jesus sitting on the steps outside the Roman courts, scribbling little notes offering his legal opinions on them, just so he can share his unsoliticed legal opinions with his Roman "friends" inside? Does the Bible not really mean what it says, at James 4?
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
It seems filing unsolicited amicus curae briefs is the VERY DEFINITION of seeking friendship with the World's judicial system, sending little Valentine's Day notes to the courts, wanting to be their "friends"....
Of course, the average rank-and-file JW publisher is completely unaware of the actions of the Legal Dept (which is controlled by the GB), let alone understands Latin to know what amicus curae means (and represents). So there's very little risk of creating a PR problem, and perhaps a good argument for why JWs are encouraged NOT to learn secular knowledge, or to do independent research on ANYTHING: it's always safer to keep sheep in the "darkness" to calm them (and WTBTS ironically refers to their path as "the light" in the topsy-turvy world of WTBTS). The darkness of ignorance means they don't ask pesky, bothersome questions.
-
Quendi
I met Ray Franz a few weeks after he had been dismissed from Bethel. He gave the Public Talk at my old congregation in Tuscaloosa, Alabama which was warm, friendly and well delivered. I found him a kind, open-handed man whom I probably would have liked. At the same time, while I don't agree with everything King Solomon has written, I think his main thrust is correct. Ray Franz went along with the program until it was no longer feasible for him to do so.
Of course, it is easy to say what I would have done in his place since I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. However, when I read Crisis of Conscience, I was also struck with how Ray could justify taking part in discussions with other Governing Body members about issues that clearly were nobody's business, especially those matters concerning divorce, remarriage and the private sexual life of married couples. I suppose if there is a lesson to his experience it is that old one we've heard many times: "Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
At the same time, to be fair, Ray may well have pondered over his options if he were to leave on his own. He had given his entire life to the WTS. Where else could he go? What would he do for a livelihood? How could he lead a productive life away from Brooklyn? As others have pointed out, he was not alone. As it was, when Ray was dismissed, he had a parachute that, while not golden, still enabled him and his wife to make a relatively soft landing in Alabama; and even though he had to undergo further trials and tribulations including being disfellowshipped, he still did better than many others. I wonder how many serving in Brooklyn feel trapped, isolated, cut off and without resources. That might well include Governing Body members. That is why I don't believe we'll ever see another reformer like Ray Franz on the Governing Body or Ed Dunlap in the Writing Department. Better to never get into those positions and situations in the first place than to do so and find that you have lost control over your own life and choices.
Quendi
-
Ding
The GB made an example of Ray in order to dissuade any more high ranking JWs from taking action on their own crises of conscience.
-
slimboyfat
While Carl Olof Jonsson was arguing against Watchtower chronology from a principled position on the outside Ray Franz was dishonestly defending it from the inside. If anyone had cause to doubt Ray Franz's motives it was Jonsson. Yet he apparently held no grudges and even published his book Gentile Times Reconsidered through Ray Franz's Commentary Press.
-
Bungi Bill
There was, of course, always this unshakeable belief (or desperate hope, perhaps?) that "The Society will correct itself - given time":
- accompanied by stern warnings and dire threats about "Moving ahead of the Society!"
Around about the same time period that Ray Franz spoke about, I heard others rationalize their actions on those grounds. To an extent, this attitude probably had a hold on him, too.
However ........ the reality is that - as they say down here in this part of the world - there is "Buckley's Chance" of that ever happening!
Bill.
-
Phizzy
When I look back at myself, as a born in, and what I went along with at the time, hoping for reform, I cannot blame Ray for his writing the article the way he did.
I am pretty sure I did similar stuff whilst giving talks/items from the platform, I would cringe to hear myself now, and would ask, "How did my conscience let me do that?"
It just demonstrates the power the cult had over us.
As to the thread title, I do hope we see a Big Gun coming over to the side of the real Truth and spilling all on the Net, it would be so helpful to the young JW's, and the WT could not suppress it easily, if at all.
-
jeremiah18:5-10
In my opening post when joining this site, I mentioned how disappointing it is for one's to stay in the "truth" when they know it is not "truth" and pleaded with them to take a stand.
The responses I received were to the effect that I should be grateful for having one's still in to lurk and provide updates and info to sites like this. Also that I should realize that some are unable to leave at present due to family ties, etc.
How could anyone then fault or attack Ray Franz for remaining and attempting to make change from within for as long as possible. Even after his ouster, he said that he attempted just to comment on scriptures and to provide accurate understanding. He demonstrated through his actions (associating with DF'd person) that he didn't recognize the authority of the GB. He attempted to set an example in living by conscience instead of blind loyalty to an unfaithful and misguided organization.
I'm appalled to hear such criticism of him in light of the present view voiced on this site toward those still in. Be appreciative of the efforts he did make and cut him the same slack you do others today.
I imagine if RF would've had access to the all-powerful internet and sites like this, he would've been a major contributor.
-
Emery
I agree with Jeremiah.
Ray Franz did not see how blind he was and made decisions based on a faith he felt was true for over 50 years. He may have been dishonest while developing the bible chronology of 1914 for the Aid book but weren't we all somewhat dishonest as witnesses? When we preached from door-to-door didn't we use deceptive recruiting tactics? Like, "Oh we're just here to encourage bible study. We're not here to covert you." and in the end we said and did things because we felt it was the true path regardless of the mistakes during the process.