Posts by vienne

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

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.

vienne

your view of Catholicism "as it is" is similar to a Roman believing in the old Gods because everyone says they're real.

Thanks Slim. He got it wrong as it always does.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

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.

Both sources use the same stereotypical, manipulative depictions: fat, domineering priests who oppress the "poor" and profit materially from religion. These depictions aim to provoke emotional reactions but are not grounded in an objective understanding of reality or factual analysis of Church history.

This approach wouldn't work without a large element of truth behind it.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

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.

vienne

What the Catholic Church teaches about itself is irrelevant. No one would accept that convoluted reasoning if applied to a political entity. And the Roman church is one. Other than Russians no one takes Russia's' self identity at face value. We define Russia by its leaders actions. The same is true of any other nation.

I read Hyslop's book. It's what historians do. I read endless Catholic nonsense as well. But I don't find either creditable. Your attempt at insult is noted. Your church is corrupt. It is marked as corrupt by its past and by its current history. Your clergy are exposed as immoral. You history as you present it cannot be sustained. Your doctrines are false. Open your eyes. Your self-identity depends on historically and scripturally untenable claims.

When you discuss doctrine here, you consistently twist logic and scripture. I think you know this. You must be aware of how much you have to dance to make scripture fit your hermeneutic. I think you're here for self verification. If you were here for a clear scriptural debate, you'd abandon everything but scripture. No reliance on church teachings, "church fathers" or tradition. Just the Bible. That you do not approach debate here in that way reveals a considerable amount of ambivalence over the validity of your church and your place in it.

And I reiterate, I'm not a Witness. I've never been one. I don't care how offended you are by Watchtower publications.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

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.

vienne

To suggest that human fallibility among individual Catholics undermines the Church’s position is to misunderstand Catholic ecclesiology. The Catholic Church fully recognizes that individual believers, even saints, scholars, and popes, can err in their private theological opinions or personal judgments. This is precisely why the Church differentiates between the private views of individuals and the official exercise of magisterial authority.

Aside from the self-evident logic flaws in this statement, it is an anti-scriptural viewpoint. The faults of Popes and others representing the Catholic sect present an eras long history of ill considered doctrine and moral and ethical failure. By their fruits they are recognized as other than the faithful Christians they should be. They are the organization. These aren't just "hidden reefs at your love feasts." They are the Catholic organization. The moral ills of the past are striking, but more importantly they continue. The Catholic sect is characterized by moral failure, more wide-spread and more pronounced that anything present among Witnesses or most Protestant sects.

Appealing to the age of Romanism is a false argument. The Bible says Satan is extremely ancient. That does not make him holy, God ordained, or any such thing. The argument from age is misdirected.

You cannot separate the sins of the popes and clergy from the identity of the church. There is no mythical, or mystic, separate identity. The Church is the sum of its authority structure now and in past ages. The Roman sects history is dark. It continues to be so.

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

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.

vienne

that is historically false and evasive

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

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.

vienne

... and the Catholic Church is any different?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtME4bQczdo

72

Did the Fred Franz style of writing cease after he died?

by SydBarrett in

jw
friends

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.

vienne

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.

46

the pope has died

by stan livedeath in

most people on the planet have heard of the pope.. most people on the planet have never heard of the governing body..

vienne

Dear Aqw,

Yawn.

46

the pope has died

by stan livedeath in

most people on the planet have heard of the pope.. most people on the planet have never heard of the governing body..

vienne

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.

46

the pope has died

by stan livedeath in

most people on the planet have heard of the pope.. most people on the planet have never heard of the governing body..

vienne

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.