Foreigner

I especially thought this was a truthful admission from page 202, 203:

However, in the very next columns, starting on the same page, this admission disappears into oblivion, and it becomes a religious organization, after all.

I am ashamed. Ashamed and mortified. As ashamed as my dog was when the cops found cats on his hard drive.

Showing a very Christian attitude Tom. Have a nice day. 
However I think it shows cowardice and the lack of confidence in your own beliefs. 

ITS MISSION
THIS journal is published for the purpose of enabling the people to know Jehovah God and his purposes as expressed in the Bible. It publishes Bible instruction specifically designed to aid Jehovah's witnesses and all people of good-will. It arranges systematic Bible study for Its readers and the Society supplies other literature to aid in such studies. It publishes suitable material for radio broadcasting and for other means of public instruction in the Scriptures.
It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances. It is entirely free and separate from all religion, parties, sects or other worldly organizations. It is wholly and without reservation for the kingdom of Jehovah God under Christ his beloved King. It is not dogmatic, but invites careful and critical examination of its contents In the light of the Scriptures. It does not indulge in controversy, and its columns are not open to personalities.
 
1) It adheres strictly to the Bible as authority for its utterances  
Plenty of doctrinal and instructional, corporative changes from 1943 to today reveals that so called "Bible authority" as base for WT articles was questionable intention. Is it Bible itself questionable authority that is not able to provide clear idea to those who reading Bible text? Is it human perception of very same Words some kind of trap that unable clear understanding?  What is general or particular Bible Idea? To create only true "religious organization"?  Really ?!
WT publications in general and here WT magazine as particular paper for dispensing spiritual food  clearly proved that it can't be trusted for it's readers. 
IN LIGHT OF THIS CONCLUSION, it is very significant how text continues with this: 
2) It is not dogmatic, but invites careful and critical examination of its contents In the light of the Scriptures.
The WT Magazine was Not dogmatic? If authors aka publishers and writers of The WT articles of those period of time were had such idea about own presentation of spiritual food, than that is for praise, undoubtedly. What was changed in meantime??
If you as author of your articles made claim that you and your written ideas are not dogmatic, and how all other are invited to make Careful and Critical Examination of ITS contents, than All Open Discussion, Reasoning, Pro et Contra Argumentation, Accuracy and Wrongness will Never be Sanctioned by Those in "Charge" , from so called "Spiritual Authority", who ever they are in particular time.   
No Shunning or Disfellowshiping  of those who have Other Opinion, because even Official doctrines are only this, Current Point of View, Current Opinion and nothing more, as reality shows us until this day!    
 
Curiosity for fun;
interesting terminology from 1943
."...while we were on Watchtower street work..."         :))) good title for preaching service :))))

This would depend on how you see the operation of the Presidency versus the Governing Body. Who is anointed, and who worked closely with the anointed enough though they were not part of the anointed class.
People seem to forget Brother F. Franz knew C.T. Russell. What CTR administrative obligations were and what he would delegate to a board of directors. Did F.Franz proofread the writing department articles to see if they were consistent with scripture, or was that a responsibility he passes on to the GB? The GB does that now.
I can recall an assembly talk where Fred stated, that's what the book says, its here in print. NO one really truly knew the Presidents just like they don't really know the GB. Those are hypotheticals by witnesses that "interact" at some point with them. Therefore no one has the right to speak about someone they truly don't know. That's the bottom line if you want to continue calling ourselves Christian.
The problem with Bethel at that time was a cleansing of apostates. Perhaps JWI lost a good friend by being disfellowshipped. But still, that's no excuse under God's law. Yes, Fred was the framer on how elders should conduct a committee to ensure the congregation would be maintained clean under scriptural bases. That didn't make him a hardnose, or an inhumane person to stick with the bylaws of scripture.
That was part of the Bethel gossip along with his ability to understand scripture. Some people thought he wasn't qualified. That was a question I asked JWI. Fred was more qualified than anyone at that time. That's why he enjoyed translating scripture into different languages.
There is far more that can be said, it would take a book to yield such information.

Yes, I can understand your sarcasm and your obsession with Fred and the year 1975. I'm sure your motive goes beyond this site into others that share the same view as you do. It was a very interesting year that brought many changes to humanity. This, of course, was the urgency Fred was referring to. Time was of the essence to prepare the faithful sheep for hard times too difficult to deal with. By god, if that revelation didn’t come true if we are here arguing about 1975. 2 Timothy 3:1-17


 
Therefore, your subtle perspective is still only your opinion, based on how you are viewing the information cited.

Therefore, how can you justify Raymond Franz blatant disregard for Bible truth when he cited that others besides the 144,000 would join Christ in heaven. Give a scriptural example? You might as well tell people once they die, they go to heaven as Michael waits to welcome them at the pearly gates of heaven.

If you knew Raymond, you don't need to read his book. 😉

Yeah, @JOHN BUTLER, where you can’t come.
Nyah, Nyah, Nyah.

I just want to pipe up here. The internal struggles ARE what shaped "what Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done" . I know, and I agree, we do't want to focus on the negative. But in my personal opinion it helps to know these things sometimes because it helps us become more grounded in reality, rather than what we think is the reality, and then get disappointed, to the point of being stumbled. I don't know if I have explained that very well. I'm not talking about fault finding or criticism. Just reality.

You could be right about this one. Especially the part where I made a big deal about how F.Franz says we shouldn't be "toying with Jesus' words." Those words were in the August 15, 1968 Watchtower:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. But you pointed something out in the May 1, 1968 Watchtower that tells me I need to correct something I've said here. I still think it's wrong to write an article in such a way that so many points are ambiguous. But I don't think that the above highlighted words mean that F.Franz was saying not to think about and apply Jesus' words. I have never seen the Watchtower say to ignore a scripture. If the writer means to override the common meaning given to a scripture, it will provide another scripture or some logic that shows how it shouldn't be applied in every case, at least in the way we might think. 
So I don't think that F.Franz is saying that we should ignore Jesus words, or that we shouldn't invoke them as a caution to potential over-speculation. Someone might have thought I was saying that this was like F.Franz saying, "Don't try to use Jesus' words against me on this, because you would just be toying with them." Or, it could sound as if he was saying that no one else knows how to use Jesus' words, so don't toy with them: don't try to put a stop to all of this talk with your one little scripture." I do NOT think this is what F.Franz meant.
And, of course, this scripture is usually used among ourselves to remind us that we should avoid speculation. That's the way it is used with almost identical sounding logic and very similar context in the May 1, 1968 issue that @FelixCA already quoted:
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
8 Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” (Mark 13:32) Sufficient is it for God’s servants to know for a certainty that, for this system under Satan, time is running out rapidly.
In this May 1st issue, its meaning is clearly to be cautious not to go overboard with speculation. Jesus had used it in the original context, not primarily about speculation, but primarily as a reason to avoid complacency, knowing that the end will come at any time as if a complete surprise; so be ready at all times.) But the meaning is slightly different from both of those prior meanings in the later August 15 issue. Here the most likely meaning is "Don't go making light of Jesus warning that no one could put a date on the end of the system, and therefore start thinking that it could therefore be far off in the future."  
If that's the meaning --"not to let Jesus' words make you complacent"-- and I think it very likely considering the following paragraph in that Watchtower, then it is not a wrong application at all. (It's also not wrong to use it in a way that tells us to avoid speculation.) What I still find wrong is how it's made to fit in the context of the entire article. It's as if it's saying the following, paraphrased:
"It's absolutely certain that 6,000 years of man's existence will be up soon, yes, within this generation, and if you read carefully what we just said, it was pretty much proven that those 6,000 years will be up in 1975, and that the actual 7th day (after Eve's creation) must have begun at most a few weeks or months, but not years after the fall of 1975. So that final millennium of the 7th day is going to be here very close after 1975. So don't any of you go thinking that just because Jesus said no one knows the day or the hour that this means we shouldn't be looking into all this. Don't go thinking that those words of Jesus mean that it could still be a ways off just because after all "we don't know; no one knows." To the contrary, we do know something here that's very important and significant about how close that end must be."
If that's the meaning in context, then it is used in a way that tends to supersede or outweigh the original meaning in Jesus' context: "No one knows so it MUST be close." This of course fits not just the context of the paragraph and article, but the entire context of all publications that year. (The Truth book with a half-a-dozen 1975 quotes from experts, later removed in the next version. Articles pushing urgency, from January through December: January Watchtower: "THE TIME IS SHORT" . . . December Watchtower: HOW WE KNOW IT IS GETTING NEAR")
And as you say, I could be mistaken on this point especially, by reading too much into it. And this was August 15, only a few months after the May 1 issue, when the Watchtower had published nearly the same idea, but had used it with a meaning that was made perfectly clear by the context.
The problem with the May article is that it had another problem/mistake in the context that was just ridiculous. Perhaps it's a mistake that the August 15 issue is trying to correct, but if it is, it doesn't correct it by much. This is the mistake.
*** w68 5/1 p. 270 par. 2 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
With accurate knowledge of Jehovah and his purposes, the Christian rejects the speculations of men.
Good so far.
According to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 B.C.E., likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation.
This is speculation of men about what time of year he was created, but that's not the problem.
*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 4 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Since it was also Jehovah’s purpose for man to multiply and fill the earth, it is logical that he would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E. After her creation, God’s rest day, the seventh period, immediately followed.
Now we have speculation but it is properly labeled as such by saying "it is logical that..." rather than "it is definite." There's a bit of speculation in the idea that God's 7th day, his "rest" day immediately followed Eve's creation. But the main point here is that we are speculating that Eve was created in 4026 BCE, within 12 months of Adam in a year that is counted from autumn to autumn.
Now the next paragraph:
*** w68 5/1 p. 271 par. 5 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
To calculate where man is in the stream of time relative to God’s seventh day of 7,000 years, we need to determine how long a time has elapsed from the year of Adam and Eve’s creation in 4026 B.C.E. From the autumn of that year to the autumn of 1 B.C.E., there would be 4,025 years. From the autumn of 1 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1 C.E. is one year (there was no zero year). From the autumn of 1 C.E. to the autumn of 1967 is a total of 1,966 years. Adding 4,025 and 1 and 1,966, we get 5,992 years from the autumn of 4026 B.C.E. to the autumn of 1967. Thus, eight years remain to account for a full 6,000 years of the seventh day. Eight years from the autumn of 1967 would bring us to the autumn of 1975, fully 6,000 years into God’s seventh day, his rest day.
So this article is saying that we KNOW that the full end of the 6th day was 4026 B.C.E. and that we KNOW --no speculation-- that the autumn of 1975 is "fully 6,000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day."
This article is basically rewritten in August, just a few months later. In this one we don't speculate about the time for Armageddon even though we KNOW that 1975 marks the last 1000 years of the 7th day, God's rest day. In the re-write we are back to looking an UNKNOWN gap between Adam and Eve and THIS is why we can't speculate as to the time when the millennium will most likely be timed. It puts a different flavor on the use of Jesus' cautionary words in Matthew 24 and Mark 13.

@Queen Esther 
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.
Greek meaning for "created things" - "the act of founding, establishing, building, etc; creation i.e. thing created..."
For the true temple, House of God, Paul states: 
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will live with them
    and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.”
17 Therefore,
“Come out from them
    and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
    and I will receive you.”[d]
18 And,
“I will be a Father to you,
    and you will be my son and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”  2 Cor 6:16-18
 
 
 

I don't actually think God is watching every one of us every second. 
God has the ability to do so of course, but probably chooses not to. 
 

I am afraid I disagree with that assessment. It takes much more than just having breakfast with the GB at Bethel to really know someone. You seem to forget, these are highly spiritual people that won't involve themselves in the daily struggles of their personal lives. They concentrate on the spiritual needs of all the worldwide brotherhood. 
That in itself is a monumental task to think of others before your own. JWI assessment is of an angry hateful person bent on maligning FRED, bottom line. Therefore, NO! it's not an honest assessment by any standard. Since you are an author, I would think your research is for the truth, not some halfbaked drawn conclusions by an individual that has made up his mind to align himself with opposers and try to persuade people he still holds the truth in his heart. I'm, sorry friend, the world doesn't revolve around JWI, for as much as you admire his limited knowledge of Bethel. I would enjoy hearing what the excuse is going to be, come judgment day.
This is another indicator:
·  Who gets called "The Oracle"?

·  Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'?

·  Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"? 

·  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned?

·  Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not?

·  Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000?

·  Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example:

Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205): 
Yes, it was among the favs from the apostate site free-minds. I don’t know if they are still around, but it’s an oldie but goodie by opposers. I would encourage any sensible person to read the full context of “Righteous Requirements” for themselves instead of relying on a misrepresented, snipped. Although, I have no clue if Fred was the author of that article piece, if someone lays claim to being absolute it was FRED, I would ask for proof. After all, we need to distinguish rants from one another. The only thing proven here is personal resentment and hatred for one individual. The good thing, it’s all meaningless.

*** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***


 
Once again, I would refer people to read the full context to understand how the presidency and the governing body worked at that time. It appears the misinformation is laying a foundation into a false claim.

*** w71 12/15 p. 755 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***

A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation


 
I believe the topic of how the Holy Spirit works by different people has been proven by scripture which can be tied to the operation of the Watchtower. Ex’JW’s insist in combining everything to make their argument solid. It hasn’t worked yet.

Now I'm not saying the early leaders weren't direct. If you asked a stupid question, you would get a profound hard response. One thing is dealing with imperfection, it's quite another thing to say they were doing things, for themselves. Only a blind man cannot see the advances and changes the Watchtower has adapted to by generation.

Too bad then. Because God is far superior to any man made organisation. 
It is wrong to interchange those words. 
An organisation is good as God is a God of order not disorder. 
However, the organisation has to have God's approval and be guided by God's Holy spirit.
The GB and the JW Org show that it does NOT have God's approval and is NOT guided by God's Holy spirit.
So it is not doing God's will properly. 

I know some brothers  who will use very similar expressions with very specific things to do with assignments for  KH cleaning for instance. This is only a slightly exaggerated example; "Jehovah's direction is to use the swifter rather than a mop and bucket to clean the floor in the restrooms". Some people just have a knack....

Yes.... I know, I know. He obviously had strong opinions. Perhaps he was covinced these opinions were guided by holy spirit? But were his intentions bad? I think you said everyone at Bethel though he acted haughty and self righteous, and that that was just his way. I wonder how he was received at his final calling. I wonder if he is speaking beyond the veil to the new "kids on the block", telling them not to make the same mistakes. Perhaps he already did, through, Raymond's book 

Of course I agree with everything you say, and I am sure GJ would too. He obviously didn't want to go into so much detail. The last part of your quote would have no doubt made a good impression on the commission as it could have been linked to the child abuse issue and its resolution. You are probably thinking of the misapplication of scripture which led to problems for the worldwide body of Witnesses in the past. I think now though these are being considered much more, and I would say lives are changed for the better. But this can also be a matter of opinion, because some things are still being judged as a "law" rather than a principle and left to be a matter of conscience.

Who gets called "The Oracle"? Who realizes that the primary scripture  that stands in the way of his 1975 obsession was when Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, and then he himself toys with that very verse in a dismissive way by saying that 'now is not the time to toy with that verse'? Who calls the non-governing Jehovah's Witnesses the "rank and file"?  Who writes all of the explanations for parables and prophecies as if they are doctrines from on high which cannot be questioned? Who claimed that even doubting 1914 was a form of apostasy whether one stated it out loud or not? Who would rant angrily that Jesus can't be the mediator of "every Tom Dick and Harry" but is only the mediator of the 144,000? Who would refer to the Society as if it was not only the Lord's mouthpiece, but that its pronouncements were the same as "the Lord" himself speaking? Example: Here is how Franz put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205):
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 
A similar attitude was shown in R.Franz experience after the GB had elicited input from various Branch Overseers in many countries where "alternative service" was an issue. In the book "In Search of Christian Freedom" page 268, R.Franz writes:
Indicative of this, the Society’s president, Fred Franz, also expressed
doubt as to the weight to be given to the expressions of
the Branch Committee members. He reminded the Body that he
had not voted in favor of the worldwide survey and then, sharply
increasing the force of his tone, asked: “Where does all this information
come from anyway? Does it come from the top down? Or
from the bottom up?” He said that we should not build our decision
around the situations found in different countries.
As noted, this phrase regarding “top” and “bottom” was not new
to me. As recently as 1971 in a Watchtower article, Fred Franz had
used it, along with reference to the “rank and file” members of the
organization. But the whole tone of the discussion was extremely
upsetting to me, particularly such expressions as “If we allow the
brothers this latitude.” When recognized by Chairman Klein, I reminded
the members that it was the Governing Body’s decision
to write the Branch Committee members, that those men were
among the most respected elders in their respective countries, and
if we could not give weight to their expressions then to whose
expressions could we do so? I felt compelled to add that my understanding
was that we considered ourselves as a brotherhood and
had no reason to look on ourselves as the “top” of anything, that
we should even find the concept personally repelling.
Edited to add that the Watchtower article written by Fred Franz from 1971 referred to above is this one, an article stating that the Governing Body can't be voted in because they are appointed by Jesus Christ himself:
*** w71 12/15 p. 760 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
They do not want to cause anything like a situation where the “administrative agency” controls and directs the user of that agency, which user is the governing body as representing the “faithful and discreet slave” class. No more so than to have the tail wag a dog instead of the dog’s wagging its tail. A legal religious instrument according to Caesar’s law should not attempt to direct and control its creator; rather, the creator of the legal religious instrument should control and direct it. . . . Rather, it governs such corporations as mere temporary instruments useful in the work of the great Theocrat. Hence it is patterned according to His design for it. It is a theocratic organization, ruled from the divine Top down, and not from the rank and file up.
 
 

False prophets (he did prophesy), false "christs", wolves in sheep's clothing, having a form of godliness but denying its power.  Matt 24:11,24; 7:15; 2 Tim 3:5

I answered both questions already. You asked if F.Franz wasn't referring to the first century [Jewish] governing bodies. I already said he wasn't and that he referred to modern governing bodies of Christendom today. Then you asked me why he would have mentioned such an irrational thought about the first century governing bodies anyway.
Remember, don't confuse the objective.

More emphasis on the power of prayer and even faith in setting the mental and heart attitude that should lead them to the right Scriptures, lead them to see through previous mistakes and resolve them with a consistent picture obtained from Scripture, and on the ability of each of them to bring further and additional scriptures to the table that each of them appreciate as being in consistent harmony with the spirit of the Bible and of an over-arching view of Christianity. There should be more emphasis on speaking in agreement with one another, seeing the value of these decisions in producing a more loving organization producing more love and other fruits of the spirit. Also emphasis on the evidence of Jehovah's blessing through the success of these decisions in how they are appreciated by the worldwide body of Witnesses as a whole. How problems are resolved. How lives are changed for the better.

Excellent point!

Of course the account in Genesis is scriptural, and Psalms and Peter too, as you must specifically be referring to the "thousand years as one day with Jehovah." What was unscriptural was to say that just because we had a doctrine that said that all the 7 creative days were 7,000 years each (not scriptural) for a total of 49,000 years -- that a point that was 6,000 years into the 7th of those days should be significant as a time marker related to the end of this system. That would be building an unscriptural point on top of an unscriptural point which also happens to defy Jesus words that neither he nor the angels knew the day or the hour. After all, if that 6,000 year point really had been the significant time marker for Armageddon, if we only knew how long it was between Adam's and Eve's creation -- then surely the Son and the angels would have already known that time marker. Right?

I can see why you might be disappointed, but I thought it was a pretty good explanation, lol. I just cannot imagine someone (in this case GJ) describing going into some kind of trance or supernatural state, or some inexplicable feeling. I suppose one could say that the HS guiding someone could be similar to someone KNOWING they are of the anointed. I have heard it said that it took some anointed a while to recognize the calling. Could it perhaps be that it takes a while for someone to comprehend what the HS is telling them and that is why mistakes have been made? I do think though that using the Bible as a kind of "mediator" or channel for the HS to do it's work is reasonable. Without the Bible we would have nothing to base our faith on, regardless of the HS.
In any case, those are my thoughts. How do you think the HS works, how do you think GJ should have described it?

What expectation do you think the first-century governing body would have to send people out to evangelize the gospel of Christ? A person they despised enough to kill. Why, would Fred mention such an irrational thought. Perhaps what is false, is your way of thinking.

No, he specifically ran through a listing of modern governing bodies of the major churches of Christendom today. What he did NOT mention was first century governing bodies who should have been sending out people. So if I had to guess, I'd say that at least that part of what you propose is false.