JOHN BUTLER

I hope some of our thoughts are the same, but it doesn't matter. Each one stands on his own before the judgment seat of God. I appreciate especially his last thoughts about the topic, just above. I'm not trying to win any converts to my own conscience, though. And I think he (TTH) has made it clear that he disagrees with much of what I say. I think it's fine to disagree. We should be able to hash out our own concerns and issues on a forum such as this, without being disagreeable in person with brothers and sisters who have not subscribed to a discussion of issues as we have here. Hopefully, we can learn from our experiences, and learn from each other. Many things in this life won't matter in the long run.

I remember watching a very stupid 'horror' film about monsters in the mist. 
A man was in his car with his parents who were very old, in thick mist, and they could hear the monsters getting closer. 
The man had a gun with only two bullets in. He didn't want the monsters to get his parents so they decided the best plan was to use the two bullets to kill both his parents. They did this. And then the man was just sat there in the car with his dead parents, waiting for the monsters to get him. But all of a sudden the armed forces arrived with tanks and big guns, the mist started to clear, and the man was saved. However to others it would have looked like he had just murdered his parents. The film ended with the man stood by his car watching the armed forces attacking the monsters. 
I recall that because it helps me to realise that a person has to act on the situation / facts known, that they have at that particular time. A person's motives may be for the good, but to others it looks as if they are for the bad. 
It is therefore a wonderful thing that God, and Jesus Christ, can see all things and know all things. They know us better than we know ourselves. They judge us from a standpoint that we will never understand. Their ways are much higher than our ways. 
Raymond Franz, I would say it is not our place to judge him.
However I do think it is the place of JW's to judge the GB or GB decisions, because the GB run the JW Organisation. And i do think it is the right of JW's to judge the way the organisation is being run and the 'rules' it is run by. 
Therefore I think there should be more clarity, more openness, in the JW Org. So that members can make a fair judgement of whether they want to be part of such an organisation. 
I do think that in the first century, the running of the Christian 'organisation' was much simpler and more open.  
Acts 15 v 28 & 29
For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
Those people hearing those word would have fully understood what they meant. It seems to be all that was needed at that time. 
So when some on here try to compare those days to now, in my opinion it is not possible to make a real comparison. 
Ex-JW's that have known and still remember problems from within the JW Org should of course whenever possible warn others of any dangers of being part of the JW Org. A good person would not want to send anyone into a cage of lions, even if those lions were purring like pleasant pussy cats. 
JW's still in the JW Org should also, and probably even more so, warn others of problems / dangers within the JW Org, but it is a danger for them to do so. 
I think that the more the JW Organisation pushes about Satan ruling the world, and that everyone outside the Org is part of the devil's world, then the more those that have information should push to show Satan's influence inside the JW Org. It's called balance, and honesty.
The Watchtower and the CCJW are not God. The GB are not God. The Elders are not God nor Jesus Christ.
So do not let anyone replace God or Jesus Christ with humans of any kind or status. 

I don't think it makes the GB look like perverts. But it does support the claim that R.Franz made in his book, that there was too much concern over legalistic rules without as much concern about the overall "spirit" of Christianity.
First of all, the idea that consenting oral sex within marriage is a disfellowshipping offense comes from the Watchtower, 12/1/1972 p. 735, 2/15/1976 p.122, 11/15/1974 p.704. The idea that homosexuality and bestiality on the part of a spouse in marriage will not qualify a marriage mate for a scriptural divorce comes from the Watchtower,  1/1/1972 p. 32.
In both cases it was due to a definition that F.Franz gave to the Greek word "porneia." Since at least the time of Rutherford's death, Fred Franz was always considered the only one who could come up with a change in scriptural doctrine, or "new truth" as we called it. Creating the Governing Body in about 1971 didn't change this. In fact, when a few people started speaking up with questions about doctrine, the GB was expanded with a lot more " F.Franz loyalists" who would never dare vote against F.Franz. For a while Schroeder was about the only one who would dare to test this deference to F.Franz and try promoting new scriptural teachings on his own by putting them in assembly talks or Gilead lectures. But he got shot down on anything major. Many of his ideas really were crazy, but he had one major good idea that finally got approved, about a decade after he died. It was not an idea that could have been changed during F.Franz lifetime. (Brother Splane admits that Schroeder had been a source of the idea in one of the JW Broadcasts. I'll explain elsewhere.)
At any rate, these practices are considered wrong and one still could be disfellowshipped for oral sex within marriage, but it will be a much more rare occurrence, because elders are instructed not to go out of their way to investigate allegations or follow up even on confessions, except to give counsel. If the person had a title (elder, ms, pioneer) they would likely lose the title for a time, and only be disfellowshipped if they said they would defy the counsel and continue the practice. Also, bestiality and homosexuality are now included in the definition of the Greek word porneia and can now constitute scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage. (A couple could always separate, although it was optional, but now they can remarry after a scriptural divorce.)

Well, then it appears that you hold the same misguided understanding on what the definition of apostate means.

Studying the same material with a blind eye doesn’t constitute good results. That just means there are witnesses willing and able to accept obscured thoughts by questionable people that were not qualified to make certain determinations with their own personal opinion.

The devil here indeed works in mysteries ways. It’s good you follow the same thought as True Tom.

To make false claims is to make an argument meaningless. especially when it comes to 1914, etc. Therefore, thanks for crediting misguided people for an opinionated argument. Have you ever thought of writing your own book about accepting apostasy?

You make a good point. I hadn't realized at first that people outside the "club" can't even read the comments. I thought the purpose was just to avoid extraneous comments, but that anyone could still read it. If they thought what they read was important enough, they could just comment on them over here in this "public club."
I see you are right. When I log out, I get a "do not have permission" notice. I am happy to put all of my own comments from there out here but I doubt you would think they are worth much.

There was a meeting in Jerusalem once, and the Bible tells us in Acts 15 what the argument was on both sides of the issue. The Bible gives us the reason for the question, what they decided, and even some further commentary on who was involved in Galatians 1 and 2.
I think the Bible should be our model, rather than Walmart.

I've been thinking about this claim for a while. I don't consider Carl Olof Jonsson nor Raymond Franz to be apostate. Not apostates from Christianity, nor apostates from Jehovah's Witnesses, nor apostates from the Watch Tower Society.
The reason is because they didn't "go out from among us." Both of them acquiesced for several years. Both of them were kicked out -- pushed out, instead of just leaving. They didn't go out on their own. And questioning certain doctrines does not constitute leaving the religion, according to directives given in our publications today. Besides most of the doctrines that were questioned have already now been shown to be incorrect anyway. The 2010 change to the generation doctrine was already an admission that 1914 was no longer tenable as the start of the generation that would see Armageddon within their lifespans. Back in 1980, Brother Schroeder himself had questioned this doctrine when he proposed that the Governing Body change that date for the beginning of the generation from 1914 to 1957. I don't think this makes Brother Schroeder an apostate, nor would it even if he had been disfellowshipped over that proposal.
So yes, I think R.Franz should get credit for mentioning Carl Jonsson. They both had studied the same material on chronology, and both of them had decided to go to the experts. But one of them (Jonsson) had decided to carefully question the Society first, and give them several opportunities to respond, and even several years to respond to specific points, before finally going public with the research he collected. So, even after becoming convinced in his own mind, he acquiesced to Witness protocol. Even though he did not originate much of this research, he made it accessible to many more Witnesses. It was very important research in my opinion, especially as it cleared up the problem that the Watch Tower Society was facing at the time. He basically found that the Biblical, scholarly, historical and archaeological evidence perfectly supported the Bible's accounts and resolved the chronology issues that the Watch Tower had been struggling with, changing, stretching, and fretting over for over 100 years. When a Christian Witness has a gift and talent for research, it is a fine thing to share it with others -- to bring one's gift upon the altar -- especially after Carl Jonsson had given the WTS the benefit of the doubt that they would handle things appropriately in time.
Almost exactly a year after Jonsson's manuscript got to Bethel, Brother Bert Schroeder traveled to WT Branches in Europe in 1978 with the idea of building a case against Carl Jonsson during a couple of these meetings. I traveled a good portion of this trip to about 10 of our European branches with Brother Schroeder and met up with him at several of the same cities he visited. But, after breaking schedule in Athens, I was not in Wiesbaden, Copenhagen or Oslo on the same days, and I knew almost nothing of any portion of Schroeder's meetings regarding Jonsson. It was a few months later that I was told that Jonsson's document had now been at Bethel for a year already, still spending almost all of that time on a shelf, untouched.
This is quite true, but just because the Society made many mistakes about "1914" and the "1914 generation" over the course of many years, it doesn't make them evil. The intention was probably very good on the part of almost all believers in the doctrine, in all its forms at least between 1879 and up until 2010. The idea that the Watchtower could make very specific claims about certain dates might have been based on haughtiness and presumptuousness, but there is no intention to be presumptuous or haughty. So I don't think even a falsehood need be labeled "evil" in any way. 
Quite true. I'm guessing you are referring to C.Jonsson's book influencing R.Franz. I'm referring to the dozens of disingenuous ways that our chronology doctrine had been supported, although, fortunately, most of these ways of explaining it have now been dropped.
No one need follow in R.Franz' footsteps. It's true that many of the points he made will cause confusion to some. But they are already out there, and this is why they need to be explained and discussed honestly. If they are true, we should be prepared for how we deal with such truths. If they aren't true, we need to search out evidence to defend against those points. But, no matter what, they need not result in leaving the Witnesses or getting disfellowshipped. Because what happened to R.Franz has nothing to do with whether the points he makes in his book are accurate and true. His books can and will be misused. Just as encyclopedias, and websites, and Watchtowers are misused.
But if he said some things that are true, do they suddenly become untrue just because R.Franz was the one who pointed them out?
R.Franz pointed out that the generation doctrine was going to have to change again in the next few years. He turned out to be right. But do you say he was wrong just it because he said it in his book? R.Franz pointed out that it was the Watch Tower Society that put restrictions on our ministry in Mexico and not the Mexican government. It was the Watch Tower Society that later lifted those restrictions on our work when they determined that the circumstances were right. R.Franz pointed out that the situation with imprisonment of brothers in South Korea and other areas was about to change because it had already received enough votes to change. (But then Lloyd Barry reversed his vote, so that nothing changed.)  We know that it finally changed more recently, after a long delay. But do you doubt the accuracy of the R.Franz book? If so, on what basis, specifically. Just because it was R.Franz who pointed it out?

@JW Insider Thank you, I could not link to this so this is a great help, and those last few comments I would not want to have missed. 
@FelixCA you mentioned," With responsible people in the lead."
So not the GB then  
Quote " Therefore, can you give me verification the Watchtower GB is NOT God’s coordinated helpers on earth as God's will is in heaven? " 
By their works you will know them.  Evidence proves the GB are not God's true servants. 
  

Those seeking truth, not position or just friendship. People like myself, but better than me, that don't mind being shunned for truth. 
And it seems there are people on here looking for truth rather than looking for the easy way. 
The JW Org is the easy way now because there are so many JW's that a person can live their whole life in the Org. 
That is why so many are frightened of the Elders, and frightened to look for truth, because being in the Org has become a comfortable way of life in the Western world. To lose the Org for some people would be the worst thing that could ever happen to them. 
Hence many chose the GB and JW Org, over God and Jesus Christ. 

Mobsters wear suits and ties, Bernie Madoff committed crimes while wearing suits and ties, politicians wear suits and ties, other religious folk wear suits and ties as part of their worship.  You don't need a special uniform to worship God. God is more concerned that a person is worshiping Him, not soley how they are dressed.

They said how here in Croatia is origin of tie (kravata - Croata, Cravate - in English, from French word Cravates for Croatian people )  typical scarves worn by Croatian cavalrymen,  an accessory which became the ubiquitous necktie of today...

Are but who's choice of modesty ? Oh of course the GB's and the Elders.  
Maybe what Jehovah wants of every one is a bit of individuality.    
Are I've just noticed you say 'JW' standards, not God's standards. 

Poor Felix like a baby throwing his toys out of the pram again. 
Quote Felix "How convenient to all of a sudden develop a conscience to justify his own actions.. "
Um, one can only develop a conscience over time as one put things together. Things build up over time as one gathers information. So one's conscience builds with the more information one has on a subject.
But then it seems Felix has suddenly been given power from 'above' to judge Raymond Franz. 
Quote "I’m not mentally challenged spiritually .". That makes no sense at all. Spiritual things give wisdom from God.. Whereas we think mentally of our own choice. 
And this silly word 'apostate' is so misused now it really has no meaning at all. 
Remember, an apostate is someone that turns away from a former religion. They do not necessarily turn away from God or Jesus Christ. 
So it seems that Raymond Franz chose to serve God and not serve the GB or JW org. Hence the GB got annoyed with him. 
And once again we see typical GB / JW org attitude whereby Felix thinks he has the right to tell someone where to post his comments. 
As for faithful followers of Christ. A lot of them are already out, out of JW Org that is  ....

I do agree.
 
We all have free will, anyone can and accept the cleansing Word of Christ…unless we have already chosen and ultimately “sealed” our heart to follow another path.   Jesus knew Judas’ hardened, unbending heart condition,  before he was chosen among the twelve.  Scriptures reveal this fact.  John  13:18 (Ps 41:9); John 8:31
None of the teachings by Christ absolved him of his sins.  John 12:4-6; 13:10,11
His prophetic role is verified in the Hebrew scriptures.  Acts 1:16-20; (Ps 69:25; 109:8)
Free will is expressed by our heart’s desire.  This man’s heart made the free choice to pursue evil before joining with Christ.
While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12
 “The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?
10 I, the Lord, search the heart,
I search (examine, investigate) the mind, (the most secret parts)
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings."  Jer 17:9,10
God knows the end of all things from the beginning, including the sway of our heart.  Isa 46:10
 
 

This book became a long, ongoing conversation for a few years among my former roommates at Bethel and another Bethelite who was a groomsman at my wedding, and a friend who had remained in the Writing Department for 30 years after my last Bethel assignment. (In 4 years at Bethel, I had 5 different roommates, and four of them have talked to me about the book.) This doesn't prove anything, but a former roommate (Service/Correspondence), and the brother in Writing, have both confirmed that copies of R.Franz books were kept in the Writing Dept "special" library since the early 1980's.
Of course, he had bias. And I'm sure he would only choose or emphasize details that would lead one toward that same bias. We are all taught to do that, because there is nothing wrong with bias if it's a bias toward what's true. And, though I don't have proof yet, I also think he was wrong about a couple of things, too. But I tend to think he was factually accurate because I have found good corroboration for a couple of things I personally questioned. Also because it is much more important for someone in his position to pay more than the usual attention to all details claimed, for the same reasons that an outsider plaintiff must be extra careful in a "David v. Goliath" type of court case. One false claim and you get crushed.
If you can recall any of those items you thought "twisted" that could be very important to the current discussion.

This is a whole new thread that spun out of the Raymond Franz article.... not BY JOHN BUTLER... but a group of members.... just for clarity
 

I have no problem at all with it.  I do not lay down new decrees for men to obey as the GB is known for, and admits to doing.  (Check with Anthony Morris about this)  This is "distorting the truth" - Christ's truth.
Felix the Cat carried around a Magic Bag of Tricks.  I'll just say this; no further comment, Allen Smith. 
 

So far scripture stipulates those that can take the lead. You seem to fail in wanting to acknowledge their needs to be a party responsible in any given organization as instructed by Jesus. A faithful servant, reputable men, shepherd of a flock. All these are found in scripture you seem to dismiss. The ancients had prophets as guides. Christianity was guided by Christ and instructed to do the same throughout the world. With responsible people in the lead. Why defy Jesus instructions and God’s laws. 2 Timothy 4:3-4
What part of Christ words in Acts 20:28-30 fails you. These are the inspired words of God through John 1:1
Then it is yourself that are altering Jesus teachings. Then you should consider placing yourself in the same category as the GB. It’s dishonest to claim scripture as a convenience. 1 John 4:1-6
Therefore, can you give me verification the Watchtower GB is NOT God’s coordinated helpers on earth as God's will is in heaven?
On the rest, it appears the interpretation you give on scripture is misguided. Can anyone listen to a corrupter of God's word? Once again, wouldn’t that put you in the same category as these “Pharisaical leaders” you hate? Matthew 16:11-12
It appears the same problem Raymond Franz had after confusing scripture with his own personal desire.
All that the GB is about is written in scripture. In effect, the Watchtower constitution. What, is your constitution and doctrine when having people understand scripture the incorrect way for personal gain. Therefore, no one is adding to Christ instructions aside from those that hate a fellow Christian Colossians 2:4

You appear to be placing the GB on the same level as Jesus Christ, which I agree that they have accomplished this.  Jesus altered the Jewish teaching because its leaders spoke as their "father", Satan.  
  Is anyone allowed to alter Jesus' teachings?  
 
Can you give me scriptural verification that the GB is God's coordinated earthly rule?
The Watchtower has corrupted the decrees of God – His Word. God’s “laws” are the source of life which Jesus brought us as, “The Word”. John 1:1 His teachings incorporate every decree God expects us to follow. The WT leaders “judge” and “measure” according to the decrees of men.
  The “Pharisaical” leaders of the WT cannot interpret the decrees of God since they have come as false “christs”, lording it over anointed and all in the organization. Matt 24:24  They expect obedience to them and their decrees, and not to Jesus Christ and his Word, which comes from God.
" Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The WORDS I speak to you I DO NOT SPEAK ON MY OWN. The Father who lives in Me does His works." John 14:10
“Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For I assure you: Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all things are accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands AND TEACHES PEOPLE TO DO SO, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, UNLESS YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS SURPASSES THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:17-20
"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."   Deut 4:2
That's right.
 
 
 
 
           

That's true. I have no proof that Fred Franz didn't. But if Fred Franz really had challenged the book in any way, that surely would have been huge news. Some Witness somewhere would surely have made a note of it. Interesting, however, that some Witnesses have said that they first heard about certain controversial issues (re: WTS history) in this book by R.Franz, and believed that some of these things could not really be true. But then Frederick Franz gave a talk in 1985, about two years after the book CoC came out, and confirmed many of the same controversial issues out of his own mouth. You can hear it here:
https://archive.org/details/DecisionMyLifeStoryByFredFranz
It's a 1 hour and 33 minute talk, but you can find about 10 minutes of excerpts from it in shorter versions on YouTube. Obviously, Fred Franz didn't mention the book, but he surely had a chance to challenge something in it, and instead he either purposely or inadvertently expresses agreement with many details that some Witnesses had first seen in R.Franz book, and had found difficult to believe.
But the main point, of course, is that your "redirection" above sounds like evidence that you didn't have any specific examples after all. Until you offer any, I'll assume that you found no evidence of inaccurate details in the book.
I'm not trying to promote the book. I don't know his motives for writing it. I only know what he claimed, and those claims might be true, and they might be untrue. If his claimed reasons are true, then it is very understandable why he felt it necessary to write the book. If they are false, then we can probably impute all kinds of wrong reasons for him to write such a book.
Maybe he was. I don't know of anyone who had evidence that he was being overlooked or if even if he was actually being considered the prime choice after Fred Franz. I was handling assignments for Brother Albert Schroeder at the time Schroeder was involved in a kind of campaign against R.Franz, and I did get a very strong sense that Brother Schroeder did not want to be overlooked for the office of President. So it is possible that R.Franz was like him, too. I only knew R.Franz through reputation and his 15 minute comments when it was his weekly rotation at "morning worship."
I can tell you that among many serious Bethelites, including many Bethel Elders in the late 1970's and up until 1980, there was a lot of talk that R.Franz would be the most likely candidate for next president after his uncle died. This was one of the reasons that news of his resignation from the Governing Body, and news of his leaving Bethel shocked so many brothers and sisters. There was even a lot of crying, and a line of people waiting at his door to say good-bye to him and his wife the day they left Bethel. But just because a person has a humble and loving reputation, you still don't know what is going on in their heart.

Poor Felix like a baby throwing his toys out of the pram again. 
Quote Felix "How convenient to all of a sudden develop a conscience to justify his own actions.. "
Um, one can only develop a conscience over time as one put things together. Things build up over time as one gathers information. So one's conscience builds with the more information one has on a subject.
But then it seems Felix has suddenly been given power from 'above' to judge Raymond Franz. 
Quote "I’m not mentally challenged spiritually .". That makes no sense at all. Spiritual things give wisdom from God.. Whereas we think mentally of our own choice. 
And this silly word 'apostate' is so misused now it really has no meaning at all. 
Remember, an apostate is someone that turns away from a former religion. They do not necessarily turn away from God or Jesus Christ. 
So it seems that Raymond Franz chose to serve God and not serve the GB or JW org. Hence the GB got annoyed with him. 
And once again we see typical GB / JW org attitude whereby Felix thinks he has the right to tell someone where to post his comments. 
As for faithful followers of Christ. A lot of them are already out, out of JW Org that is  ....

It is understandable for me to see your disappoint about R.F. or similar characters inside JW. Yes, perhaps your view about him is correct. But for many of us is of less concern why he wrote a book about GB and WT. We can feel sorrow for him or we can say he is/was hypocrite. Nevertheless, information's we get from his inside insight about WT GB mechanism are more important then he alone. Because "The Truth" is in question, not he, not me, not you. 
He was the one who has must struggle with HIS conscience why he stay inside and support all wrongs he knew about, despite knowledge he had. He was the one who has been responsible for covering this too long and so on. I do not care, in final stage of matter, what was his motive. Only important thing for me is;  Is it that or this, what he said, true?      

Interesting quote from his book Crisis of Conscience:
"Herein lies a paradox. Despite their intense activity in door-to-door witnessing, most people actually know little about Jehovah’s Witnesses aside from their position on certain issues of conscience. They have heard of their uncompromising stand in refusing to accept blood transfusions, their refusal to salute any flag or similar emblem, their firm objection to performance of military service, their opposition to participation in any political activity or function. Those familiar with legal cases know that they have taken some fifty cases to the Supreme Court of the United States in defense of their freedom of conscience, including their right to carry their message to people of other beliefs even in the face of considerable opposition and objections. In lands where constitutional liberties protect them, they are free to exercise such rights without hindrance. In other countries they have experienced severe persecution, arrests, jailing, mobbing, beatings, and official bans prohibiting their literature and preaching. How, then, is it the case that today any person among their members who voices a personal difference of viewpoint as to the teachings of the organization is almost certain to face judicial proceedings and, unless willing to retract, is liable for disfellowshipment?"

@JW Insider Ok... I was doing some moving at the same time... 
I will back off.... go ahead and move the stories I may have moved as you think best.
 

@The Librarian, @FelixCA, @JOHN BUTLER, @Witness, @Anna
I started a new thread, taking most of these comments over to: