Well I started reading this thread and then gave up................. My opinion on Ray F is.............
Goodness, leave the man alone!
The qwerty duth spreaketh!
The Real Truth About Raymond V. Franz Revealed!
by bjc2012 108 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
deddaisy
bjc, I see what you're trying to point out, really. That some should see that Mr. Franz is not a saint to be worshipped. But is any man? And do you think he is worshipped, or just admired for ultimately doing what he did. Does it matter more where he was in 1978, or where he is now? I mean mentally and spiritually. Why are we all so fast to criticize any other man for being anything else than a human being.
Yes, RV Franz had NO INTENTION, and that's no intention, to WRITE NO WONDERFUL BOOKS...
and some women have no intention of getting pregnant, but they do, and they end up being wonderful mothers..... what is your point? that this somehow makes him evil?
If the G.B. would have left him alone, that would have been the end of it, and many of us, as the hapless "uninformed" would still be in the JW Organization, CALLING COJ an apostate.
aaahh, maybe this is your point, he should've tried to save COJ, and tried to save you and tried to save everyone else. So you think if he would've said something earlier, maybe defended COJ, the course of JWism would have changed ? All the JWs would've studied the chronology and had a mass exodus? So it is Franz's fault that you would call another an apostate without questioning why?
The truth is, JWs are uninformed because they choose to be uninformed. Those who are not uninformed, either do not become part of a cult, or figure it out eventually. Noone would read C of C if they were not in doubt to begin with. Neither Franz, nor COJ, nor you, nor I, are responsible for those that choose to blindly follow.
-
Englishman
From my own experience, I know that years in the WT society does mess up normal reasoning processes. Sure Ray may well have acted inadvisedly, but at this time all he had going for him was a life that had been totally immersed in WT teachings. It's only when one has been out for many, many years that a genuine morality fully emerges from within. At the time, Ray would have had many conflicts, so many in fact that some would not have been dealt with as well as he might do now.
We've all been there.
Englishman.
-
scholar
bjc2012
I have never read such rubbish concerning your extravagant claims that COJ's hypothesis albeit Treatise had such consequences for the Society as you describe. Your fanatical belief in the Jonsson hypothesis is misguided. Such chronology is merely opinion and simply represents an attempt to interpret biblical history. The Society's chronology gives an adequate framework for a plausible reconstruction of biblical history. The fact of the matter is that there are varying chronologies and each one has its own merits..COJ's hypothesis is simply one amongst many and is no more factual than the rest. The Society would have had other competing chronologies on their bookshelves.
scholar
BA, MA Studies in Relogion, University of Sydney
-
hurt
Scholar,
what discipline is Relogion?
-
link
Something bothers me!
treatise
| trits, -z | n. & v. LME . [AN tretis, f. OFr. traitier TREAT v.: see -ISE 1.] A n. 1 A written work dealing formally and methodically with a subject. Formerly also gen., a literary work, a book. LME . b A spoken or written story or narrative. LME-E17 . c A description or account (of something). L16-L17 . 2 a Negotiation, discussion or arrangement of terms. LME-M17 . b A treaty. LME-M16 .fact
| fakt | n. Also (repr. dial. pronunc., now US) fack | fak | . L15 . [L factum use as n. of neut. pa. pple of facere do, make.] Truth; reality. L16 . 4 A thing known for certain to have occurred or to be true; a datum of experience. & in pl. Events or circumstances as distinct from their legal interpretation. E18 .I have read COJs treatise as contained in his book The Gentile Times Revisited and I found it to be (IMHO) an excellent work. It was well researched, well thought through and presented a logical case based on all of the information that was known to the author at the time.
My question is this; at what point in time does bjc2012 claim that this treatise passed into the realms of fact. Surely it is at this point that, not only RF and BB et.al. but every Witness should have departed from the organisation.
(sorry if this tends to repeat the above post from scholar)
link
-
Englishman
BA, MA Studies in Relogion, University of Sydney
Irrisistable!
"Bruce here teaches classical philosophy, Bruce there teaches Haegelian
philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism. And is also
in charge of the sheep dip.
What's New-Bruce going to teach?
New-Bruce will be teaching political science, Machiavelli, Benton,
Lockholm, Sackly, Millbo, Hasset, and Bernerd.
Those are all cricketers!
Aww, spit!
Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!
(Everyone) Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you
amen!"
-
hillbilly
You make some good points. But they beg the question; What, if anything, did you do IMMEDIATLEY after leaving the WT? 3 years after? Or 5 years after?
Ray says right in COC that he did not have an ax to grind, and most of us, all bitching aside, really don't proactivley grind ours either. The 'bottom line' is that Ray F (and Bill Bowen, plus mumerous others) stepped up to the plate and did the proactive right thing.
So cut the guy some slack. Or get yourself and sandwich board and stroll in front of your local hall, protesting the WT evils. Quit wasting your time fretting about what an "insider" should have done upon exiting the mother he knew so long.
Ray F and Bill Bowen are both American heros.
Hillbilly
-
expatbrit
Farkel:
A "cult" can be defined as a system of devotion to a person or thing. (Yes, that's from the Oxford dictionary). A person does not have to be actively requiring obedience or action for a cult to exist. I would submit that exercising double standards in favour of a person is showing a cultlike system of devotion.
I do believe that there is a lack of objectivity when considering Mr. Franz. Nevertheless, I recognise that the common definition of "cult" is as you have described, therefore with the benefit of a night's sleep I retract my ill-stated sentence on the "Cult of Saint Raymond" and apologise for offense caused by it.
For other matters: I have no evidence that Mr. Franz is lying when he says that he never had occasion to deal with child-abuse while in the Watchtower. Neither do I have any evidence that he is telling the truth. This therefore remains "alleged".
Since NO one has found a single lie in either of his books,
Um...either of his books? I do believe Mr. Franz wrote more material than just two books. Most of the other material was published by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. Was everything in that material completely truthful as well? Mr. Franz was kicked out of the Watchtower, and thereafter repudiated a lot of its teachings, but simply doing that does not wipe out his past as if it never existed. Life isn't that simple.
Unless you can PROVE that Ray Franz knew about and helped cover up the WTS's complicity in child-rape/abuse, I suggest you tone down your accusations or put them where the sun don't shine.
Again, double standard. There has been no definite proof that any Governing Body member (including Theodore Jaracz) has done what you state above. Yet accusations run unfettered and with great relish. A hint of non-belief in Mr. Franz' alleged ignorance of child abuse, and we must "tone down our accusations" (read: "shutup and don't rock the boat").
I freely admit that I am no fan of Mr. Franz. He enjoyed the power of the upper echelons of a cult that absorbed most of the first thirty years of my life, and continues to do so with my wife and family. The Watchtower's treatment of child abuse is a big problem, and he was a big part of the Watchtower Society. As Jehovah's Witnesses, we were all part of the problem, whether we knew of the child abuse situation or not. Being part of the problem confers a duty of responsibility to be a part of the solution. This does not mean dropping everything and dedicating all of life and resources to Silentlambs Inc. It does not necessarily mean having to have anything to do with Silentlambs or Mr. Bowen.
In the case of a former governing body member, it might just be spending an hour of time giving a public statement to the press saying that he understands their struggle to be heard and the problems they are encountering, and wishes them well. Such a statement from a former governing body member would have tremendous validation power for child abuse victims.
In any case, the majority of my previous post was not actually about Mr. Franz, but about what I've seen occuring on the discussion board recently. If Mr. Franz chooses not to support JW child abuse victims, that is entirely up to him. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the two men who passed by broke no law. Whether or not they helped was entirely their choice. They simply chose to do nothing.
Expatbrit
-
gumby
bj2013 (or whatever the hell your name is),....
Have you got a hair up your ass for Ray? What the hell is your point for this thread? Heres the facts jack....your a frickin Moron!
Why can't you see what has been accomplished by this man? Thousands upon thousands have been realeased from a cult from the works of this man. More FACTS about this Organisation has been revealed by Ray, than by all these other men combined, yet you want to take away from him and put Carl on the pedestal and hide Ray under the carpet. What a dipwad!
Why not just thank ALL of these fine and couragous men for what they have done and quit trying to play the game "let's give credit where credit is due". Ray sells Carl's book at commentary press which is Ray's.
How the hell would Carl himself feel about this assnine work of yours. Ray didn't have the balls is your assumption when he should have. Why didn't you write this piece of shit when you knew of this? Why did YOU wait so long?
"Go sell trouble some where else, we're all sold out here" ( as quoted by Jack Nicholson)