i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
... and the Catholic Church is any different?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtME4bQczdo
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wtME4bQczdo?si=CFGytK1cLaAyFSxj&controls=0" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
i was completely out by 1991 and 1989 would have been the last time i had to attend regularly.
that over the top franz writing style was still there in the 1980's although i've heard he wasn't actually doing much writing by then.
but his style was definitely picked up and imitated for many years beyond its wacky, outlandish peak of the the 50's - 70's.
Franz 'recycled' Rutherford's writing too. All those prophetic drama articles from the 1960s and 70s are rewrites of Rutherford's articles from the 1930s, with slight changes.
Worst Franz books were The New World, a commentary on Job as a prophetic foreshadowing and The Nations Shall Know That I am Jehovah - how? Probably The Nations book was the worst for obtuse, over writing. When I read it, I mentally edited it for clarity. All of his books suffer from convoluted grammar. Also, in the first edition of NWT he tried to present the "flavor" of Hebrew by using reflexive pronouns. Even in the 1960s that was questionable grammar. I can't count all of the "He himself" bits in the early NWT.
Franz never stopped being a Russellite, and he practically worshipped Rutherford. That shows best in Let Your Name be Sanctified, where he saw the transition from Rutherford to Knorr as a prophetic fulfilment. I never met him, of course. But I'm fairly certain I would not have liked him.
most people on the planet have heard of the pope.. most people on the planet have never heard of the governing body..
Dear Aqw,
Yawn.
most people on the planet have heard of the pope.. most people on the planet have never heard of the governing body..
Slim,
You can follow that chain yourself. Franz wasn't the ghostwriter for Rutherford. JFR's legalese marked a distinctive writing style. Though the name Jehovah is used in the Russell era, Russell himself almost always used Lord or God.
Starting with the first edition of Harp of God [Not the revised edition of 1928] Rutherford emphasized God's name. A searchable edition is online somewhere. But any pdf will do. Go to page 12 starting with the subheading "Who is God." Rutherford emphasized the name Jehovah: Starting with page 14, he identifies God as Jehovah, his distinctive name. Though one can find "Jehovah" in Watch Tower articles between 1917 and 1921, this marked the start of its regular use in articles we can identify as Rutherford's through his legalistic style. ('to wit' and similar usages.) This is true of Rutherford's books as well. You can trace it book by book. And in the booklet Who is God? Also, note the 1934 book "Jehovah."
I suspect, but cannot prove, that Rutherford was influenced by the American Standard Version Bible.
The adoption of the name "Jehovah's witnesses" (no capital on the W until much later) was prompted by Rutherford's insistence on using the name. And the resolution adopting the 'new name' is in Rutherford's style.
I don't want to emulate our neighborhood Catholic troll and write an essay, and this is hijacking this thread.. I'll leave the rest to your personal research.
most people on the planet have heard of the pope.. most people on the planet have never heard of the governing body..
Slim,
Best evidence is that emphasis on Jehovah's name came from Rutherford. And yes, Franz was responsible for the New World Translation in its initial form. Mom, not a Witness as you know, was impressed with it, even while hating the abuse of English grammar. But, these things came BEFORE the emphasis on 1975. He probably was not solely responsible for the writing department's idiocy that followed. But whoever else contributed to the false hopes he was the prime mover.
Even in the 1970s, if a private individual promoted something like the 1975 fiasco, they'd have been hauled before a committee. That Franz was allowed to maintain his position and was still held in awe was hypocritical.
The newly deceased Pope is said by those who should know to have held heretical views of death and the afterlife. Some of the higher level Catholic clergy considered him a "false pope." How was he different from Franz? There is always a large measure of hypocrisy in religion organizations. Even in those who take the Bible seriously, which the Catholic sect does not, replacing it with "the fathers." Even then, the Catholic sect is not consistent, choosing quotations selectively.
most people on the planet have heard of the pope.. most people on the planet have never heard of the governing body..
I'm sympathetic to anyone who suffers health issues, even if I don't otherwise know them or even like them.
To me, Jorge Bergoglio was a socialist politician wearing the cloak of religion. I know most, though not all, Catholics saw him differently.
I do not mourn his death. And I do not celebrate it. I view him the same way I view Fred Franz. Witnesses come close to worship when he's mentioned. But he led the Witness faith into false expectations. If not a member of the Governing Body, he'd have been brought before a committee and left in disgrace. The popes are much the same.
recent to b's history blog, an article explaining that n. pierson, a russell associate, built cottages for his soon to be resurrected relatives.
fascinating.
he hated rutherford, but still .... https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.
Recent to B's history blog, an article explaining that N. Pierson, a Russell associate, built cottages for his soon to be resurrected relatives. Fascinating. He hated Rutherford, but still ...
https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to the entry of April 14, 2025.
enjoy.
Annie
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
in other words, you're afraid of the bible's plain words.
rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?
as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.
that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.
"The Church Fathers firmly rejected the idea that God physically “rested” out of fatigue. "
This is what I meant in an earlier post. Your rely on extra-Biblical sources. They are interesting, sometimes correct as in this case, but they aren't inspired scripture. When are you going to rely on the Bible alone? And when are you going to take the Bible at face value with out the eyeshade of church tradition?
uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
His 'girl friend' in Thailand looked male. Just my opinion, but I think it's a good one. A little honesty from Lloyd would be refreshing.
I watched part of one of his latest youtube videos. I lasted about two minutes before I clicked it off and turned on some music. He drones on and on and makes "a mountain out of a molehill." His greatest sin? He's boring. His faults are, in last analysis, offensive but ordinary. His videos are ordinary, even a bit on the 'lower side' of youtube quality. As a parent he's inadequate, but in a very ordinary way.
