There was no bigger boy than Fred Franz, who could say anything he pleased, and often did to the consternation of others. On "known Biblical information" he was ultimate authority. Who would/could have taken "corrective measures" if he deviated?
Not a writer, Knorr composed none of his own talks and made no pretense of being a theologian; he had to rely on his Oracle, FWF. Fred felt it his bounden duty and solemn obligation to support the man with the mantle, Knorr, as he had Rutherford and Russell in the past.
Above all, Fred was ever the pragmatist. Like a good attorney, he could argue both sides of an issue but always took the expedient or the "loyal" in the final analysis. It is not at all inconsistent for him to have expressed his own personal thoughts and then turn right around and lay out the "theology" of a governing body, as he did in the Watchtower later. Maddening to those around him sometimes.
I know for a fact he did not agree with the "theological" rationale for Beth-Sarim, but laid it out when he had to; then corrected it in 1950 with the electifying talk at Yankee Stadium identifying the "princes" or "ancient worthies" in attendance that day. A shocker to those who had nodded off during the exposition.
RW is absolutely correct. I've posted him privately on his question above. And thanks, Venice, for your great post.
Max
