Foreigner

I believe the context you are looking for is found 1 Corinthians 4:5, Philippians 3:13. This, however, can be seen depending on the Bible translation.

1 Corinthians 4:5 New International Version (NIV)

5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

1 Corinthians 4:5 the Message (MSG)

5 So don’t get ahead of the Master and jump to conclusions with your judgments before all the evidence is in. When he comes, he will bring out in the open and place in evidence all kinds of things we never even dreamed of—inner motives and purposes and prayers. Only then will any one of us get to hear the “Well done!” of God.


 
Philippians 3:13 New International Version (NIV)
13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,


It’s interesting the perception you have about apostasy. Is it just afore dawn conclusion it’s only meant to “depart” from one's belief or is it also an action taken by one's heart.

James 1:26 ESV

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.


 
Matthew 5:22 ESV
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

As you stated, enough of attempting to justify other people’s behavior by their personal actions. Let's move on.

I have no objection to someone else softening the focus of the ideas presented in my post by using the word 'might' instead of 'must'.
But for me, there are only two Israels in scripture, the fleshly and the spiritual (regardless of quibbles over the chequered history of fleshly Israel). The fleshly Israel had long lost it's identity when the apostle John wrote the words referred to above. So for me, he must be referring ONLY to spiritual Israel, as international a group in a fleshly sense as the "great crowd" he later describes, but, in contrast, a specific number against the latter, which are innumerable.
And as far as I can see, it is this concept alone, (a spiritual Israel), that incorporates satisfactorily the various references to the spiritual significance of terms like "Israel", "Jew", "circumcision" etc. in the Greek Scriptures. They all have their  connection with the anointed or heaven-bound "firstfruits" of those responding to Jesus. Unequivocally heaven-bound I say, to serve as king-priests alongside Jesus in the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham that his offspring or seed, (Christ and these 144000 "spiritual" Israelites), would serve for the blessing of all the nations, (the international "great crowd" of Armageddon survivors along with the rest of resurrected, obedient mankind).
I have yet to hear or read of a viable alternative that makes any sense overall.

Unfortunately, Raymond developed the same obscured understanding, when the Watchtower has kept in line with Bible understanding. To some extent, some within Christendom have kept the fundamental understanding of John’s vision, but yet fail to see the reality within John's vision. The same problem Raymond inherited.
Therefore, there is no reason for the Watchtower to redefine scripture for the sake of some blind faithful.
I asked Raymond how he could see the great crowd celebrating God’s triumphant victory if in that since it was to be literal upon mount Zion, with his updated understanding. The same reason Raymond's books are theologically useless.
The misguided understanding comes by not subjecting the vision in its proper context. 144,000 thousand from all the nations is literal, which Jesus presence along with the saints end up being a symbolic endeavor.
Those that remain will see Jesus victory and God’s glory in the heavens.
 
                           *** w15 7/15 p. 19 pars. 17-18 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
17 The resulting war of Armageddon will lead to the magnifying of Jehovah’s holy name. (Rev. 16:16) At that time, all goatlike ones “will depart into everlasting cutting-off.” The earth will finally be cleansed of all wickedness, and the great crowd will pass through the final part of the great tribulation. With all preparations completed, the climax of the book of Revelation, the marriage of the Lamb, can take place. (Rev. 21:1-4) All those surviving on the earth will bask in God’s favor and experience bounteous expressions of his love. What a marriage feast that will be! Do we not look forward to that day with eager expectation?—Read 2 Peter 3:13.
18 With these exciting events ahead of us, what should each of us now be doing? The apostle Peter was inspired to write: “Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, as you await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah
 
         *** w51 12/15 pp. 751-752 pars. 13-14 Release Under Way to the Ends of the Earth ***
 
13 This joyful prophecy extends now to the Shepherd’s “other sheep” who must be rescued from Babylon before Armageddon. That fact is revealed to us in the Revelation. John the apostle first describes his vision of the gathering and sealing of the 144,000 members of the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel. Then he says: “After these things I saw, and, look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues.” That makes this a Gentile crowd, when compared with the 144,000 spiritual Israelites. But they are where, and what are they doing? “Standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes, and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep on crying with a loud voice, saying: ‘Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.’”
14 Have this “great crowd” come to Zion and submitted to the theocratic rule of Jehovah who is seated on the heavenly throne? They have; for one of the elderly persons identifies the crowd to John and says: “These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation [this locates their coming between 1919 and Armageddon], and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
ii. Great Multitude in Heaven (7:9–17)
 
The saints who are sealed on earth are next seen in heaven (see arguments below) wearing the white robes of triumph and holding palm branches in a reenactment of the Feast of Tabernacles (7:9). Draper (1983: 135–38) develops this imagery, asserting that the scene builds on Zech. 14:1–21. There the feast is connected with the pilgrimage of the Gentiles to Jerusalem in the last days, and here the great multitude have white robes (= the purity of the feast) and palm branches. They celebrate the great victory of God and the Lamb (7:10) and then are joined by the heavenly host, who sing another sevenfold praise reminiscent of chapters 4–5 (7:11–12). This obviously causes John considerable confusion, for one of the celestial elders tells John both the identity and origin (7:13) of those with the white robes: they are the saints who have emerged victorious from the “great tribulation” and have kept themselves pure (7:14). Their reward is to serve God continually as priests (7:15a) and to experience both the Shekinah presence of God and the shepherding activity of the Lamb (7:15b, 17a). As a result they will never again suffer the deprivations of this life (7:16, 17b).[1]
 
 
 
 

Quote TTH  " Remember, ALL of us are apostate if you stretch the word too far, for Bethel clearly prefers we abstain from sites of off the grid spiritualality and yet here we are. "
Oh dear thar word APOSTATE. 
 
apostate Dictionary result for apostate
/əˈpɒsteɪt/ noun   1. a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle. "after fifty years as an apostate he returned to the faith" synonyms: dissenter, heretic, nonconformist; More         adjective   1. abandoning a religious or political belief or principle. "an apostate Roman Catholic"   GET IT IN YOUR HEADS THAT, A PERSON CAN LEAVE A RELIGION, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ABANDON GOD OR JESUS CHRIST   And, all f you will know exactly how JESUS spoke to the Pharisees. That would have made Jesus an apostate to the Jewish religion. All Jesus' followers became apostate to the Jewish religion.   No more animal sacrifices, Jesus fulfilled the LAW.    So why are you all so keen to worship the GB of JW Org, and to hang on their every word. If you GB wishes to misuse the word Apostate are you all so stupid you have to follow them ? 

I will not quarrel over the meaning of the words “abusive” versus “obnoxious” since I’m sure its use is meant to justify the wrongful act of another.

I would think a witness would welcome a defender from abusive rhetoric like Butler and this person by the name of James Thomas Rook Jr.

Therefore, I see this as an unconstructive action on how the Pharisees tried to justify the persecution of Jesus, by removing an obstacle of righteousness from within their populous.  No difference here.

As you stated, this is something we are all guilty of by being here, including the librarian. Ephesians 5:1

Walk in Love

5, therefore, be imitators of God, as beloved children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 wLet no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.


 
By your explanation, there was no good reason to have removed Allen, and what is offered, is another form of unjust, justification to retain those that are abusive and against the Watchtower for the sake of revenue. Therefore, apostasy sells.

Then it becomes a matter of what side we're on.


 
 

All you have to do to be a power player here is to hang around This is a commercial site, after all 
The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/917311
Butler is right. I shamelessly self promote (but it is for the best)
 
None of these have that power. The ones that do, @admin and @The Librarian (that old hen) would not want you erased.  You contribute to eyeballs on this forum, and that drives traffic, which drives money in the form of advertising. This is a commercial site.  The worst you can do from their point of view is to disappear. JWI has been given minor clerical powers. They are mostly so that he can straighten out the messes that his posts mak in the form of launching tangents. The Librarian is a Witness, I would call her an ‘avante gard’ one, which to some means she is not. Admin is not a Witness and is ambivalent in how he feels towards them. Certain posts of his have not been encouraging, but he stays on his side of the fence. Business, you understand.
You have made your point well. Possibly I may mention it again, but I have no plans to bring it up again. An ‘agree to disagree’ thing, and yours is undeniably the majority view among our people. Perhaps it must be that way.
I will be with you as I am with him. In the words of the great American forefather, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will argue mildly for your right to say it!!’
That being said, that being said.

Can't resist a contribution to this bit of a rather diverse thread if you don't mind.
Jesus said to the Jews at Matt.21:43 "the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits." That was pretty much confirmed by the acceptance of Cornelius into the Christian congregation in 36CE. With the rapid expansion of the congregation into non-Israelite territories and the consequent influx of non-Jews, there was an ongoing attempt to Judaize these Gentiles that was countered by many of the letters and actions of the apostle Paul. One particular letter, Galatians written about 50-52CE is relevant.
One of the statements Paul made in this letter is interesting: Gal.3:28-29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham’s offspring, heirs with reference to a promise." There he introduces the idea of a united body of Christians (with Christ) made up of Jews and Gentiles but disregarding their fleshly national origins. He also states that they are (by reason of their being united with Christ) included in the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, "heirs with reference to a promise".  Quck flip to Genesis 22:18, "And by means of your offspring all nations of the earth will obtain a blessing for themselves because you have listened to my voice.’”. No prize for associating Israelites as the "offspring" (or seed) of Abraham, and the promise as relating, in part, to all (other) nations getting a blessing by means of Abraham's offspring (or seed). Now Paul has clarified the identity of this offspring as comprising Jesus, plus his congregation, amongst whom there are no fleshly, national, or religious distinctions. He tops it off by referring to this congregation at Gal.6:15-16 as having no need of fleshly circumcision, as being a new creation, and most importantly for the purpose of this discussion, terms them as "the Israel of God".
Now this has a neat connection with the words of Peter about 10 years later, at 1Pet.2:9."But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." These words are written to scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who are reminded of their reserved heavenly inheritance (1Pet.1:1;4). The words Peter quotes are taken from Ex.19:6 and Is.43:21 which applied directly when they were written to the fleshly nation of Israel. BUT, in the light of Jesus words about the loss of privilege on the part of fleshly Israel, Paul's words about another Israel, united spritually rather than by fleshly descent, and becoming instrumental in the blessing of all nations, coupled with Peter's application of words describing the role of fleshly Israel to this newly constituted other Israel is significant. These words fit well with Jesus' determined pronouncement that another deserving nation would become the instrument to fulfill the blessing to the nations via a spiritual rather than a fleshly offspring of promise. A spritual Israel. And this is not a figurative Israel, it is a literal, spiritual Israel.
So, in view of these developments, and the late date of writing for the Revelation nearly 40 years on, it seems pretty clear that the group of 144,000 described at Rev.7:3-8 must be the same as the "Israel of God" referred to by Paul which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be comprised solely of fleshly Israelite Christians. The idea of them "following the Lamb where ever he goes" fits well with Peter's words at 1Pet.1:4 regarding their inheritance. To emphasise, the reference to Israel is actually literal, along with the complete number of 144,000.  It's just that it is a spiritual, not a fleshly, nation. The tribal split of course is figurative. The location of the group, the historical loss of any genealogical records, the equal split in numbers, the difference in tribal names all lend support to this view.
This , of course is only one thread of scripture that can be brought to bear on the matter. 😊

I guess that would be the point TOM. What part of apostate views can be accepted? Especially when those same ideas are found in apostate sites. Where can we compromise as not to be seen hypocritical by NOT practicing what we preach? James 1:22–25 How can this marvel be seen different just because JWI explains it the same way as opposers. Where’s the intellectual capability with mistaken loyalty.

That in itself makes no ecclesiastical sense. In this case, there is no persuading those that honor God, not to have things seen, contrary to bible standards. Sorry. 😉

But, as you state in such an indirect way. JWI is a power player here and he can say whatever he wants. When he gets challenged by showing those areas of error, people get deleted, which decides where the greater influence lies. I get that, thanks for the warning, I’m on the verge of being erased, by Tom, Anna, JWinsider.

That being said, I do agree it’s your world TOM, the slave must conform to the master. 🤔

Now just because I used the phrase, “that being said” doesn’t automatically make me Space Merchant. JWinsider, LOL! 😄

Then your exegesis is flawed. While the Israelites do hold some of the 144,000 saints it is conclusive with Jesus mandate by God’s Holy Spirit that the none-Jew (Gentiles) be included. Therefore, when scripture mentions all the tribes of Israel, it can’t be seen other than the descendants of all the tribes that have gotten mixed throughout the generations.

The same flaw found with Raymond. The same ill-conceived argument, when he failed to consider if Jesus was really a Jew because of his Parents. Raymond, just like about everyone doesn’t consider that Jesus was conceived by God’s Holy Spirit, therefore, Jesus was ALL nations (ADAM), not just the heritage of his parents. Was he clinging to his heritage, or was he framing how the Jews and none-Jews would be included?  He was the first Christian, meaning the first none-Jew, by a proclamation not by heritage. If we consider Raymond’s argument, with that logic, where does it leave Apostle Paul?

To that extent, the 144,000 would have the same proclamation. So, don’t think too much into the heritage that the Jews ultimately lost favor for, defying God so many millennia, ago.

Let’s not confuse the original Israelites that Jesus himself claimed to be Matthew 1:1–17 with the Jews in his time. Why else would Paul make a distinction with Romans 11:1 as to the Remnant of Israel? Paul demonstrated that Israel followed God by works instead of faith. That’s why those Jews refused to believe in Jesus and accept him as the Messiah. Had Jesus been born in the time of the Israelites, what do you think would have happened, seeing the son of God present.

We’d be having a different conversation if any, however, the makeup of humanity wouldn’t have been this evil. The same outcome present-day Israel is trying to do by building their own righteousness and their own sovereign state (Kingdom).

With Raymond’s understanding and yours, the 144,000 are already collected by heritage, way before Jesus was born, and serving as kings and priest, presently. This would leave out all the gentiles and converted Jews to Christianity. That is a distention the Watchtower makes when it refers to the false teachings of Christendom.

When you juxtapose those 3 verses as you have, it helps to make a case for the idea already presented that the little flock might be Jews and the other sheep might be non-Jews, that is: people out of every tribe and nation. In fact you stopped just one verse shy of verse 9:
(Revelation 7:9) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands.
So we already know that in some sense the 144,000 refer to Israelites, and the great crowd refer to Gentiles. The question is whether the reference is literal. We claim the number 144,000 to be literal, but we claim the reference to Israel is not. In fact, we teach that people of every tribe and nation are a part of that 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel, and that even many who are fleshly Israelites can end up being a part of that great crowd from all nations. Saying these expressions are NOT literal might appear to some people to be the equivalent of adding and subtracting from the Bible.
If the number 144,000 is not literal then it is surely not up to us to decide how many literal persons might make up this group. Since this is a discussion which has become centered on the views that R.Franz presented. I'll just present some of what he said on this so that other persons can reference it, and decide if it has any merit, or to point out the flaws in the reasoning.
At the time, there were only two of Jesus' parables that were believed to include the "other sheep." John 10:16 of course, and the "sheep and goats" parable because it mentions someone doing something for Christ's brothers, considered here to be only from the 144,000.
R.Franz points out that even if everything we teach about the 144,000 being literal is true, and only 144,000 will be in heaven, and a great crowd will make up the new earth  --even if all this is true-- it still doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't referring to literal Israelites in the "little flock" and literal "Gentiles" in the "other sheep" when he used these terms in John 10:16. The best argument the Watchtower uses for our current view of John 10:16 is that Christendom teaches they are literal Jews and Gentiles. This is not a real argument because we use Christendom all the time as evidence that we are right when Christendom's commentaries and scholarship agrees with us.
 
 

That’s a good way to put it. I like it.
If you cut people absolutely no slack, you almost push them out.
We do cut people slack in most areas. For example, if we cut them no slack on ‘loving violence,’ we would REALLY clamp down on those watching sports like American football, which has been PROVEN to drastically curtail life. (See the movie ‘Concussion’) But we don’t. We allow for the fact that all have missed the mark.
This should not be the one area in which we cut people ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK. JWI spouts off on ‘the way things ought to be.’ So what? He has made it clear many times that he recognizes that there must be headship and that he acqiesces to it. He has picked some obscure backwater channel presided over by some 4th-rate school Liberian who really doesn’t like kids and who is counting the days till her retirement, easing her days with wine, while the children play mean tricks on her, lowering a cat from the ceiling that will first latch onto and remove her toupee like in Tom Sawyer, to pour out how he really feels for the sake of his ‘conscience.’ Let him. If he is a windbag, let that be his vice—probably he is not hung up on violent football. Challenge him on points if you like. I have done so, but every time he does, he defends his point so well that I have learned not to do it. I mean, what am I going to say—that his experiences are not his? He will agree in a heartbeat that what he says is subjective.
Plus, he makes his posts so long that people skip over them, unless they are absolutely fixated on the points he raises, and if they are, they may as well get data from him, rather than from people who decidedly think ill of the JW cause and will make up falsehood. No, Felix, it is not that your point is invalid, but there are bigger fish to fry. 
Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ and MANY say they were driven away on that account. You (forgive my bluntness) are here a case in point, striving very hard to ‘control’ him (with good motive—don’t misunderstand). Of course, it is in the nature of the truth that there is going to be authority, but in light of ALL opposers saying it and MANY friends conceding that it can at times be smothering, it pays to give thought to not being unnecessarily that way.
My blog and book experience has led me to think of other areas where change may one day come. Elsewhere I wrote:
It may be unavoidable, but the scriptural counsel to avoid apostates come what may has a serious downside. If a youngster of ours succumbs to the oldest trap of human nature- going somewhere out of curiosity because he has been advised not to, and he stumbles, he finds himself totally unsupported because we don’t know what is there ourselves. All we can say is that he shouldn’t go there, which opposers spin as proof that he should stay in order to escape from being “controlled.”  I don’t know the answer, but it would be nice if there was one.

I imagine you have dismissed the OPED I submitted, with how many in charge would be frank and open with their responses. Raymond was no different in private. Perhaps his behavior was more polished in public but that would be something people that liked him would only see.
There are two sides to a coin, and I got to experience both sides. It really didn’t matter to me, since adults at that times were by and large as you stated “child abuse” oriented by today’s standards, not so much by the signs of that time. Perhaps, this is the problem people have today.
They look at every situation with today’s ideology rather than being intellectual and cite with the past.
The ecclesiastical determination allows viewing scripture correctly. The understanding of rapture is defined by how God’s Holy Spirit can and will operate. I believe that has been discussed before.
The inference that Fred was not involved in translating scripture to other languages when at that time there were around 109 languages if memory serves, is not an adequate characterization of Fred’s abilities. I believe that was something that was challenged in court.
While the word “framer” is taken out of context, it was the foundation for best practices for having a judicial system through the congregations, Committee. Which Fred had a fair amount of input on how this committee should be conducted, with various scriptural conditions to support it?
Once again, perhaps this is why you hold loyalty to Raymond. In an ecclesiastical level, there was no one more qualified than Fred Franz.
This, however, will remain one opinion over another. The “actions” of both subjects speak for themselves.
This is why I don’t see how you can effectively contradict arrangements that weren’t part of the Watchtower after 1931.
Before that, each congregation ran independently of each other. There was no central system, even though some continue to insist, Bethel was Pastor Russell main hub when it wasn’t.
Elders in each congregation had the ability to choose for themselves what was best for their congregants. Another reason why other denominations were welcomed to speak at their church meeting. Traveling preachers. If they had internal matters within local congregations, they would form an Ecclesia body of Elders.
“We write to apprise you of the fact that a class of Bible Students of this town have organized as an Ecclesia--24 members --Brother W. Sargent of Halifax officiating; and have voted you in as Pastor and Elder.”
“We have heard of cases in which an Elder refused to speak to one of the Congregation because the latter had not voted for him”
Dear Brethren:
I am writing you this to testify my appreciation of the visit it of dear - Pilgrim Brother Blackburn. I so much enjoyed his sweet fellowship. He seemed so, charged with the Message of love-the Gospel of Glad Tidings­ that there was no room for malevolent backbiting and -slander of fellow-servants . . . Brother Blackburn, in all his discourses, emphasized the possessing of the spirit of -Christ Jesus as the all-important, qualification of Christian character . . . Ali! how can those 'Who have tasted of the heavenly gift be so lacking in the spirit of love as to smite brethren who cannot accept every wild speculation and vagary thrust before them! If those who do such things are thereby manifesting the spirit of the Lord, then I have read the Divine Word in vain.
If the Associated Bible Students were offering "strange fire" when they preach the Truth independently of the Society, not only would their efforts come to naught but they themselves would be cut short, even as your article suggests. But, instead of this, the Lord is richly blessing their efforts, and many have come to a knowledge of the Truth and into full relationship with the Lord as a result of these ministries outside of the Society.
 
 All in all, we choose to believe what Satan has placed before us. If we refuse to acknowledge that effort, we will always play into his handy work. To distort the facts by distorting the truth.
For the Watchtower history, it’s been clear, the framers besides Raymond and former apostates like him, fell in a trap of their own device. Self-destruction by opening their hearts to Satan. Another evidence of this was the writing department in Raymond’s time. Conflict within, what a shame and wasted effort.
 
TTH, it is true some consideration should be given to some that still consider themselves as being part of this organization, but NOT when we are dealing with apostasy. If Raymond resigned and then disfellowshipped for it, how much more slack do you think people here should have? Therefore, you have the same conflict the writing department had back then with misplaced loyalty. But, that's between you and our creator.
 

Evidently, Fred Franz was NOT a "framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clear under scriptural bases." This was one of the more surprising points in "Crisis of Conscience."
When the Aid Book was being researched and written, it became obvious that the congregations would have been able to utilize all the elders who met the qualifications. By now it probably surprises most Witnesses that there ever was a time when each congregations was "run" by an ONE autocratic "congregation servant" who could hold that position for decades. He reported to a circuit servant who reported to a district servant who reported to the service department in the US or a respective branch servant elsewhere.
When R.Franz showed F.Franz the evidence that an elder arrangement was Biblical, he says that F.Franz appeared to have known this all along but had held off doing anything about it.
(Of course, under Russell and Rutherford, there already had been an elder arrangement, but this is something that Rutherford stopped in favor of the autocratic arrangement he called "Theocratic.")
Just another take on this, but I think that F.Franz was very unqualified to take on the same type of leadership role that Knorr took on. Milton Henschel, definitely, or even Ted Jaracz. I could see Sydlik probably capable but not in the running due to a condition that was rarely spoken about. In fact Max Larson would have been the most equivalent replacement for Knorr had he been anointed and on the Governing Body. F.Franz was very different, and so many of his early talks in public are forceful only in the sense that they were sometimes "shrill." He was more like a nerdy expert witness on a court stand that no one would speak against because everyone thought he was so much more qualified from the perspective of his intelligence. 
If you listen to his talks going back to 1950 and 1958 (some are recorded), you can see that several times he was given these very small talks that should have been called "Bible Greek Trivia," short snippets of linguistic expertise but on topics that would have seemed insignificant in the context of an international convention. Yet, I understand that when his office filing cabinets were opened after his death, it was obvious he had been the primary writer of all Bible-based articles in the Watchtower since Knorr's presidency (1942) and that he had even been the writer of many articles in Rutherford's lifetime. He wrote almost 100 percent of every prophecy book from 1942 through 1988. Articles that were written by others on these same topics merely copied his previously published material and reworded it. 
Jehovah no doubt blessed the decision to go back to an elder arrangement, and I think that F.Franz knew he could not stand in the way of this change, now that someone else had seen how clearly the Bible defines this arrangement. I sometimes think that Witnesses were protected from something quite chaotic and damaging that would have happened had F.Franz been the bureaucratic head and the unchecked spiritual head of the Society at the same time. The Governing Body arrangement was very timely. Jehovah provides.
Of course that didn't stop F.Franz from writing an article that included some non-Biblical speculation when he accepted the elder arrangement, and a very limited Governing Body arrangement in 1971. In the infamous 'tail wagging the dog' article from December 15, 1971, he wrote:
*** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14.
This may be an excellent idea. But where in 1 Tim 4:14 is there any hint that there was a 'chairmanship' among the body of elders, or that this 'chairmanship' rotated among coequal elders? The argument had been built from the idea that Peter speaks in Acts 2, and then James in Acts 15.
*** w71 12/15 pp. 758-759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
The governing body does not have officers such as the Society’s Board of Directors has, namely, president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer and assistant secretary-treasurer. It has merely a chairman, such as the governing body of the first century had. Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles.
F.Franz was fairly proficient in several European languages and had studied Biblical Greek. He did a lot of work translating Hebrew and Greek into English, but I'm pretty sure he was not involved in translating scripture into any other languages.
I found him to be a very interesting man. I'd read it.

Unfortunately, I don’t share your views and value about, bad association. I am not here for the association but rather show how Ex’JW’s distort Watchtower publications to benefit what is clearly a misapplication of them. The 1943 Watchtower that was posted by Anna comes to show, how vital it is to have good expectations rather than try to satisfy the status quo.
It also appears this is being done with the claim of being an active member whereas if these thoughts and outdrawn misguided conclusions were set before the congregation, they would have nothing to do with such ideology.
Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books, however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.
Another area of how the early brethren dealt with issues, was by being direct and frank. A characterization of Fred, seen as a hardnose can be applied to Raymond in private since he was hypocritical in public, but how the early Bible Students which Fred was baptized under and the Jehovah Witnesses that took a different direction.
This example on an exchange comes to mind.
Dear Brother Woodworth:-
Your editorial of July 8, 1931, entitled "Bible Students Radio Echo", has been read with much interest. Both you and I have often gloried in the privilege of scripturally refuting the audacious claims of the various Babylonian sects who boast that they constitute the only divine channel and repository of all truth. How often have you punctured the pompous pretensions of popes, priests, and ministers who have said that they possess God-given authority to judge and excommunicate all dissenters from their views, no matter how conscientious and devout such "heretics" might be!
We have both known and long taught that the Christian is called unto liberty, and that every child of God is divinely authorized to preach the Truth as he sees it. Is it possible that we are forgetting these past sound teachings and have come to ignore that precious heritage of Christian liberty that has long been ours? Are we now willing to adopt the "human ordination" arguments policies of the clergy whom we have so strenuously condemned?

Are we now ready to consign to everlasting destruction sincere Christians who have done no wrong greater than that of proclaiming Christ's Kingdom without first having been authorized by man or by a man-made organization? I cannot bring myself to believe, dear Brother Woodworth, that you and thousands of other Bible Students or Witnesses of Jehovah are giving your willing assent to such God-dishonoring theories and practices as your article implies. Hence, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, and with no thought whatsoever of retaliation, I write this letter in the hope that I may help you to arouse yourself from the spiritual stupor into which circumstances seem to have gradually forced you, manifestly against your better judgment.

In your attack against brethren who are preaching the Kingdom message without authority from the Society, you make no attempt to show that they are teaching error. Your argument is that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the only instrument that the Lord would possibly use to proclaim Christ's Kingdom (although no scriptural reason for such a conclusion is given); and upon this premise you reason that any independent effort to proclaim the Truth is displeasing to the Lord, no matter how sincere or how effective such an effort may be, and that the Lord will vengefully visit upon such tellers of His Truth swift and lasting destruction.
You will agree, I am sure, that Jesus is the Head of His church, and that all laws governing that
body must come from Him. In spite of this, you have lent your name to a wholesale condemnation of consecrated Christians--your brethren--who are proclaiming the Kingdom message because they love it; and in support of your rash action you have not attempted to produce any authorization from the divinely-appointed Head of the church-evidently for the very obvious reason that no such authorization exists.
Haman Class seek to Monopolize
Both you and I well know that after the apostles fell asleep the early church departed from the faith and from the freedom in Christ which the Lord and His apostles had instituted. Priests and bishops then began to usurp authority; to claim a monopoly of the Truth, and to assert an autocratic control over believers. They claimed infallibility for the pope; all independent Bible study and teaching was banned; the priceless heritage of Christian liberty was taken away; and thus was brought about that dark, dismal period in the church's history during which thousands of Christians were burned at the stake or otherwise cruelly mistreated, when they tried to break away from that unauthorized, unchristian bondage of men and claim the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free.

Finally, a successful break for liberty was made and the Protestant Reformation was launched. But one after another of the Protestant sects soon fell away to the very same error against which they had protested; boastingly to assert that they had the power to open and shut the doors of heaven to whomsoever they would. Is history again repeating itself?
This is the kind of openness the Watchtower framers had. Did, it make these people less qualified for their openness, and direct approach? Perhaps, you yourself would suggest this can be seen as a bad association. If this is the case, it would be applied to justify the end means, not the truth. This type of OPED’s can be seen throughout the Watchtower history, including the Zion Tower.
Also, with this illustration, it should be able to give more clarity to other issues.

Nonsensical non sequitur just to imply I might hate Fred Franz. I have never hated Fred Franz. I was always very impressed at his abilities. But I also felt badly for him, because he entered the Bible Students under Russell back at a time when the Watchtower freely admits that many of the Bible Students had turned it into a "cult." According to Rutherford it was a personality cult that worshiped Russell. Rutherford himself had apparently fallen victim for a time, if you listen to his eulogy at Russell's funeral. (And if you read the twisted logic he employed in order to defend Russell in the booklet "A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens.) Now that I have seen numerous additional examples of the same behaviors I saw in Fred Franz, I believe that he was a high-functioning autistic person. (Something akin to what many psychologists will now diagnose as "Asperger's Syndrome.") This does not belittle him as you might think. But it explains a lot of his anti-social behaviors, and it explains a lot of his talks and comments that were clearly intended to provoke, or push the envelope in terms of what he might get away with verbally.
If you think I have expressed something like anger here, and I hope I haven't, it might be related to the same way that that Raymond Franz felt anger, but not about his uncle, at a funeral of R.Franz' nephew. This was the funeral where F.Franz gave the talk, and started out, very loudly: "Isn't it grand to be ALIVE!"
[F.Franz] walked up to the podium, paused, and then in a very loud, almost
stentorian, voice said: “Isn’t it grand to be ALIVE!” After that
introductory exclamation, for several minutes he discussed, effectively
and dramatically, the meaning of the words at Ecclesiastes
7:1-4.  As yet my nephew had not been mentioned in any way.
Then, after approximately ten minutes, in referring to the words
about it being ‘better for us to go to the house of mourning,’ the
speaker said,  “And the reason why is that sooner or later we’re all
going to end up like THIS!” and, without turning, he threw his hand
backward in the direction of the coffin where my nephew’s body
lay. The talk went on with further commentary on the Biblical section
but with no other reference to the dead man until the close
when the standard statements of the reason for the occasion and
the names of the deceased’s survivors were given.
I felt a sense of burning anger—not at my uncle, for I sincerely
and honestly believe he thought this was the best way to deal with
the situation, the best way to combat the natural sensations of grief
and loss. What I felt incensed at was the organizational attitude
that allowed a person to feel fully justified to speak in a way which
essentially transformed the dead person’s body into a vehicle or
platform on which to base a talk, a talk that expounded organizational
doctrine, but which throughout simply made no mention of
sadness at the loss of the person whose life had ended, as though
by ignoring this the hurt would be lessened. I kept saying to myself,
“James deserves something better than this—surely the text
about a ‘name being better than good oil’ calls for talking about
the name he made for himself in life.
This is the kind of thing I remember most about F.Franz' comments in the morning, too. Fortunately, his assembly talks were rarely like this, although a couple of his Gilead talks seemed to test the limits. An nearly hour-long scriptural talk on "the Biblical meaning of the Liver," sounded like it could have been a F.Franz satire from "The Onion," in part, but was also intended to sound very serious by the Gilead Graduation audience. (Brother Schroeder implied to me that he took it as a satirical attack on a talk that he [Schroeder] had recently given.) Another example was his wearing of a T-shirt with the word "HELL" in its message, for nearly the entire week during his morning worship comments in response to Sydlik's call for a Kingdom Hall like dress code at Bethel breakfast.
But I liked that his rants at breakfast were not about dressing down specific Bethelites that he wanted to belittle, the way that Rutherford and Knorr had used much of their 'morning worship' time. He railed against certain questions that had come up, and process changes, but mostly he always tied what he said to a Bible passage or topic, even if it was a rule he wanted to talk about. Some GB members rarely spoke on Bible topics, like Henschel and Jaracz, for example. (Sometimes MH & TJ would literally start out a talk with: "Jehovah is a God of order, therefore . . . . " or, "Our God is a God of rules, so let's talk about . . . .") However, I always appreciated something in what F.Franz said every day that he spoke.
I think a lot of the things he said could be taken as funny and thought-provoking. But I don't think it was healthy for the organization that he carried on in such a socially immature manner for so many years. He seemed to have a bit of an obsession with the Russell and early Rutherford years, and more than once told the story of how Rutherford said he had made an "ass" of himself over his 1925 predictions. But he would always emphasize the word "ass" for dramatic effect. Some of his later talks highlighted Russell and Rutherford's Christmas celebrations, birthdays, pyramids, false expectations, dates, etc., but without a stated purpose except maybe just for effect. 
With F.Franz, there was a lot to like, and a lot to feel sorry for. I think he could be brilliant and foolish at the same time. Nothing to hate.

S. Lett delivered message how WT and JW members are "holy people" who respecting Bible moral standards and teachings about sexuality. By that reason JW people condemns depravity as pedophilia. 
What S. Lett didn't said is, that WT policy and rules, instruction how to handle inside cases when own members molesting JW kids, are very questionable and how such weak, inadequate, misguided approach to pedophiles, shows that WT is not capable of solving problems in their own home. 
Another thing that S. Lett didn't said is, from where coming expression "permissive". Who, what ex-JW individual or group used terminology "permissive" in this context? What You-Tube video or individual letter accused WTJWorg for "permissiveness" about pedophiles? 
As i can conclude from YT videos i saw, ex-JW or pedophiles victims talking about wrong treatments of elders and WT rules that are in fact working in favor to wrongdoers and leaving victims without "justice", and even put victims to be as guilty part because they are not "able to prove accusations", or even contribute to be a victims.
Such WT policy can be seen as "permissive", and it is, no matter what was the intentions of WT Creators when making rules about how to handle and processing child molestation accusation. 
S. Lett, (with some other TV preachers on JWTV) made another manipulation on Public JWTV. Never told about Court cases and out of Court deals, and how much money WT gave, by Court decision or by settlement, to victims. Omitting to talk about it, on JWTV as worldwide instrument to share spiritual food and instructions to Brotherhood, WT leaders showed and still showing sort of "permissiveness", not so much to pedophiles, but to own Wrong Ideas and Teachings and to themselves as Pioneers who created bad administrative regulations on issue, and now they do not want to admit their own guilt.

It appears you have the same reservation as Raymond when it comes to fully understand scripture on an ecclesiastical level. Perhaps that’s why you hate Fred so much.
Let’s take your comment about the 144,000 thousand that isn’t mentioned in scripture as a literal number. We both know this comment is a flat lie. But let’s see where you fail to understand the exegesis. Let’s take 14th part C of Revelation.
We know the saints (anointed) were purchased for the lamb, would amount to men gathered from the earth that wasn’t tainted and loyal to Christ. This, of course, doesn’t mean sinless just in case you want to misapply my words as you usually attempt to do to confuse the narrative.
These men are composed to reflect the 12 tribes of Israel. A symbolic initiative with literal numbers. Meaning, after Christ included others rather than just the Jews, ALL nations on earth were given that opportunity to serve in heaven as saints, and all the nations would receive the opportunity to be saved. Of course about the 12 tribes, we are referring to this literal number of 144,000 saints (anointed).
Shouldn’t these saints be positioned in a specific place somewhere in the new heavenly kingdom of Jerusalem? Just wondering with the other numbers mentioned.
I guess I would have to ask if you believe that we will get to see Jesus and the 144,000 saints in mount Zion, even though if we take that as a literal meaning, it wouldn’t be possible for millions that weren’t around a certain part of the world at that time to marvel and witness the Glory of Christ, since it would be impossible to literally see it from another part of the world. Ezekiel 37:22
Therefore, I guess all the nations that would stand to see Christ glory and victory from heaven is false, and shouldn’t be included in scripture. Perhaps I can see where you might agree with Raymond. A quiet man in public, but just as loud as Fred in private.
Revelation 7:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
I guess that would be the difference, Fred was not a hypocrite to hide his true nature like Raymond. Did it make him any less qualified? I wonder when I read the historical facts about  PETER and PAUL.
Since we all should know, 144,000 thousand saints is a literal number, my question to Raymond and Fred early on in my life, was, if some saints were still earthbound, would these saints be the ones to automatically be raptured into heaven to complete the cycle. After all, everything would have to be complete and set in place in heaven so the heavenly kingdom would have full control of all the earthbound survivors.
Now, I appreciated Fred’s answer even though it wasn’t an answer. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you, there is no question as to what scripture means. Perhaps I didn’t quite understand then because of my age, but it sunk in as I grew older.
On the other hand, when Raymond set me aside, he expressed an opinion with regard to rapture. This is when I asked him to elaborate since scripture clearly states the accounts of Enoch, Genesis 5:24 and Elijah, Second Kings 2:11.  After his comment, this is why stupid children need to grow up to understand, I left it alone. I’m assuming here since he never had kids of his own he had no patience with children.
This, however, would be a good argument for the final rapture of the saints “if” there are still some left. Now, not everyone who partakes will eventually be of the anointed class.
I had a second cousin that started partaking of the emblems. That was a joke since we knew what kind of person he was. That just means there are some that have a passion to believe. He eventually stopped.
Now, all my nephews and nieces that attended Bethel, are successful and righteous in serving Jehovah without reservations whatsoever. They don’t dwell in the past and keep their eye on the prize, promised by God.
So, which 12,000 do you think we should do away with?
Luke 12:32 King James Version (KJV)
32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
John 10:16 King James Version (KJV)
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Revelation 7:3-8 New International Version (NIV)
3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
5 From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
6 from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
7 from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
8 from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.
Since you seem to be the favorite of True Tom and Anna with ecclesiastic wizardry, how far back do you wish to argue the interpretation of scripture?  I say this because you are so good with grammar and words that people tend to admire someone for the wrong reason. Well, at least TTH.
So, which ones should we dismiss, or where would you like to ADD to scripture to allow others aside from the 144,000 thousand anointed to rule in heaven as kings and priest?
Now, don’t respond with Watchtower literature. I’ve had enough distortion on the subject. Stick to scripture if it’s at all possible.
Just like the obsession you have with the 6000 years. Maybe if you look at it by someone else’s perspective. It’s pretty drawn clear you don’t trust or care for the Watchtower literature unless you find something to criticize about it. Perhaps this is the objective of this site and always has been.
To find the same kind of people with no faith and a weak heart.
HA1423
Similarly the pseudo- Barnabas, a very ancient though Apocryphal writer: "Consider, my children, what that signifies, He finished them in six days. The meaning is, that in 6000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end," &c.
The same expectation as to the six days of creation typifying 6000 years, as the term of the present world's duration,
continued, as we have seen, (see p. 230, &c, supra) even among the anti- premillennarian fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Only they explained the sabbatical seventh day as typical, not of a seventh sabbatical Millennium of rest, but an eternal Sabbath: - - a view generally adopted afterwards.

It could be, that’s the problem. Loyalty. I wouldn’t lose my personal relationship with God, for the sake of writing a book that is being collaborated by someone who is clearly a bad association and influence my decision to have an input of that book, right or wrong. Proverbs 3:3-13, 1 Corinthians 15:33

Too much of that kind have, authored books about the Watchtower, that allowed misinterpreted claims to stand. Raymond was one of them. 1 Corinthians 5:11

That just means, the desire of this world still dwells in the heart and minds of many Christians, instead of willfully trusting in Jehovah for guidance if they have a desire to print. 2 Corinthians 6:14

Could this be the reason TrueTom and JWinsider conspired to remove this Allen Smith JWI is so obsessed about? When it seems people like Butler can be more obnoxious yet still hold an account here? That would lead me to believe this person was proving some false claims here. That type of action should be embarrassing and shameful.

He said, "As an example, think about the apostate-driven lies and dishonesties that Jehovah’s organization is PERMISSIVE” toward pedophiles.”
How can you dispute this?  Because of their permissive stand, they were called in front of the ARC for not reporting 1006 perpetrators to the police.  Is this not permissiveness?  They are in the courts continually, or settling outside of the courts simply because they have been permissive toward pedophiles residing in the organization.  It appear that a pedophile's behavior did not, does not warrant enough disgust over the damage done to the victim, to turn them over to the police...unless...unless, state laws requires them to.    
Yes, the organization is permissive toward pedophiles.  Their actions prove it.  What's very sad, is JWs believe GOD WILL FIX IT.  People are to "fix" their actions, their beliefs, and approach God on how to do it through Christ.  It is not God's responsibility to correct an organization that is corrupt.  It is our responsibility to correct ourselves by turning to both Christ and the Father.  There's nothing to wait on but judgment, and whether we served God according to Christ's teachings by rejecting the continually failed doctrine of men and their made up "decrees". 
What is "unclean"?  Pedophilia and its permissiveness in the organization.  Leaders who give false "prophesies". Leaders who have muscled their way in between Christ, the anointed, and all.  Giving an earthly entity the title of "salvation".  Disfellowshipping and shunning those who realize NOT TO TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN.  2 Cor 6:17
Does this sound like an organization that has gained God's approval???    
Our "brothers and sisters" cannot save us from the wrath of God.  As much as we want to support them, we each stand before Christ to answer for our choices.  What did the early prophets do?  They spoke a message not favorable to their "brothers and sisters".  They were "sanctified by truth" and they spoke truth, no matter how difficult and how perilous to themselves it may have been. John 17:17  That should be the desire of each one of us, and it is how we walk in the path of Christ.  
The organization is a delusion, a scam, a deceitful "machination" to lead us AWAY from Christ and the Father.  2 Thess 2:9-12   But each heart will make their choice.
 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;  but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.  So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”  Matt 13:24-30
Would the "wheat" remain where all those things that are detestable to God, are practiced?  Or, would they turn to Christ?
 
 
 
 
 

The ones that I would like to talk to face to face, are too frightened to talk to me. ... Now that is either, frightened because they may get reported to the Elders, or, frightened that what i have to tell them will take them out of their comfort zone. 
And I am quite reserved on here actually. There are some on here that i don't even bother replying to. Because A. I think they are just a wind up, and B, I would totally lose self control, then probably get banned. 
I do have a tiny amount of common sense  
As for fault finding, I don't generally go looking for things but things just seem to crop up. Lots of people are mentioning 'faults' that i didn't even know existed in the JW Org. I have my main concern but that has been talked about enough unless any 'new light' appears. And I'm not meaning that new Watchtower.. 

Anna gets told off for fault finding and criticism, too. So do I. It depends on what someone is criticizing, to what extent, and how, etc. Sometimes I think you (and probably me, too) will criticize with too broad a brush, or harp on something that belongs under a different topic. Everyone's a critic (of something).
I just have one general rule. If someone signs out so @Foreigner can sign in and down-vote a post, then I know I must be doing something right. 😉

Yes, I noticed that too. I think this is the same pattern of reasoning as in AW 7/09 "Is wrong to change your religion".

Excellent and amazing founding, revelation. Nail in coffin, as some would say. Controversy in full measure, despite written statement in preface of magazine that say:   
ITS MISSION
............
 It does not indulge in controversy, and its columns are not open to personalities". .............
No controversy? Writers are generate Controversy  in the Core Itself. Listen what is written in the magazine:
quote: "Such "society" is not legal society or corporation, chartered according to the laws of some state or nation, ...." they said.
They are exactly what they claim they are not !! Hey JW people,  AWAKE! Dear people, this is official hoax on paper.
Watchtower and all entities under Mother Organization are pure Corporations worldwide, and all, every single of them have Charter/s!!  

This is soooo funny. 
There is no religious organisation that ... oh um just a minute, yes there is it's us.  
Just so funny. 
And the bit about : -
"and composed of His spiritual remnant.. "  Well um, only 8 of them as bosses at the moment it seems. 
But it's all good for a laugh. 

Of course, it is. I will never claim otherwise. It's impossible to get into the mind of another person, no matter how many clues they give us, or how much we hear about them from others. A person can seem haughty and presumptuous and sarcastic, like F.Franz, but be motivated by good intentions. A person can seem always friendly, humble and spiritual, like R.Franz, but have murderous intentions that we might never know about.
All we can do is try to evaluate their stated perspectives from evidence and experience.