JW Insider

I hope they'll let me eat some of the cake.

Glad you're here. Your points made are very good. And, fwiw, I agreed with every single word you said above, except for one sentence. And even in that one sentence I would only change one word. I would change the word "must" to "would likely." And to be consistent, then, I would also insert two more instances of "likely" further on in that same paragraph. It's because everything you say about spiritual Israel is true. And you make an excellent Biblical argument to tie that spiritual/symbolic meaning to Revelation 7 & 14. But everything you are saying need not reflect the specific literalness of the number, although I'm not personally arguing that you're wrong. It very well could be literal. I'm just saying that we can't say it MUST be literal. And there are several good Biblical reasons why we should avoid saying "must' here. This particular explanation of the passage in Revelation has stood the test of time among Witnesses for 80-some years. Still, there are many parts of it that are difficult to defend as "absolutes" in their specific Biblical context. And there have been a few arguments in favor of our interpretation that have made use of false reasoning. Whenever that happens, it doesn't mean it's wrong, but false reasoning should always perk up our senses to 'make sure of all things.' We need to know that it does not depend on false reasoning. I'm sure you are personally aware of the points I refer to. But I'll be happy to play "The Bible's Advocate" here and point out some of the scriptural difficulties and false reasoning employed in support of the teaching. Revelation is very symbolic, and therefore it seems that we definitely ought to consider whether any reference to Israel could refer to "symbolic" Israel, or "spiritual" Israel. Of course, if Israel is symbolic, this might be an argument for considering all the numbers in this context to be symbolic: 12, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, 12,000, and 144,000. Of the dozens of numbers referenced in Revelation, we already consider about 90 percent of them to be symbolic. We consider: 24 elders to be symbolic, (and 24 harps, and 24 incense bowls), the 3 and 1/2 days to be symbolic, the 7,000 persons killed to be symbolic, the 1,600 stadia to be symbolic, the number 666 to be symbolic, the 7 mountains to be symbolic, the 7 horns of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 7 eyes of the Lamb to be symbolic, the 2 witnesses to be symbolic, the 12 stars to be symbolic, the 1/10th of the city to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the stars hurled to earth to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the people killed to be symbolic, the 1/3rd of the ships, 1/3rd of the sun, 1/3rd of the moon, 1/3rd of the earth, etc., the 12 gates made of 12 pearls with 12 angels at the gates to be symbolic, the 12,000 stadia to be symbolic, the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, the 12 foundation stones to be partially symbolic (of the 12 apostles), the 12 crops of fruit to be symbolic, and the 144 cubits to be symbolic. I've never made a chart of all of the numbers, but there are dozens of them in the book of Revelation, but we take only a very few of them to be literal. The basic point from Revelation 7, and its context, without any attempt to interpret for the moment is this: John sees 4 angels holding back the 4 destructive winds from the 4 corners of the earth. Then he sees an angel come out of the East with a God's "seal" and that angel tells the 4 angels to keep the destructive winds back until [all] God's slaves are sealed. John heard that the number of those who were sealed was 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel. He hears that there are 12,000 out of each tribe, so that the number 12,000 is repeated here 12 times. (A list where the tribe of Levi replaces the tribe of Dan, and the tribe of Ephraim is called by his father's name.) Then John sees a great crowd that no man could number out of every nation/tribe/people/tongue. These ones, unlike what is said about the 144,000, are: standing before God's throne standing before the Lamb dressed in white robes waving palm branches, shouting: "Salvation we owe to our God, seated on the throne, and to the Lamb." John also sees, not just the great crowd, but also all the angels around God's throne, along with the [24] elders, and 4 living creatures, and they also shout in praise, not because they owe their salvation to God, but to offer God a prayer of thanks, praise and honor for his glory, wisdom, power, and strength. John is asked by one of the [24] elders who and from where are these ones that are "dressed in white robes." The elder does not say "Where is this 'great crowd' from?" The important distinguishing feature is that they are "dressed in white robes." John defers to the elder who gives John more information about them: they come out of the great tribulation they have washed their robes, made white in the blood of the Lamb, which is why they can stand before God's throne they render God sacred service day and night in his Temple (Greek, "naos," often referring to the most sacred and holy part of the temple, where only the priests could render sacred service.) God will spread his tent over them so that they will neither hunger, thirst, nor be scorched by heat, because the Lamb in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and guide them to springs of waters of life, and God will wipe every tear from their eyes. ================== So immediately, we see that the Watch Tower's version has a couple of problems that must be overcome through interpretation so that the uninterpreted verses don't continue to give the impression that it's the "great crowd" and not the 144,000 who are standing before the heavenly throne. Somehow we need to put the 144,000 up there in heaven, too. And then we need to re-interpret this heavenly scene where John is viewing things in heaven, and talking to one of the 24 elders in heaven. We need to keep the "great crowd" on earth. We also need to diminish the meaning of the "white robes" because this is how the 24 elders are dressed, and also is the mark of those dead awaiting under the altar "crying out" for those still alive on earth until their full number was filled: (Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed as they had been. (Revelation 19:14) . . .Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. The white robes are mindful of the requirements for priestly garments, but it seems to refer to the clean standing required of heavenly beings so that they can stand before God and his throne, and perform sacred service in his heavenly temple. The 144,000 are not shown to be in these heavenly garments. The 144,000 are not said to be performing sacred service in the Temple. The NAOS, which often refers only to the inner chambers of the temple, as opposed to the outer courtyards, or courtyard of the gentiles, for example, is only mentioned with reference to the "great crowd." Both these "issues" are resolved by two basic interpretations unique to the Watch Tower publications: The Watchtower makes the 24 elders refer to the 144,000 The Watchtower teaches that the NAOS can refer to the outer courtyards of the temple There's more, of course. But this post needs to be broken up.

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.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980. But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others? And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written: *** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . . So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time. Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb. So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower. This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him. Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication. Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own. If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness. That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.

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.

Moved a bunch of posts from another thread to here. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley, @Shiwiii.

I can try to move the CSA centric posts here to there, but they will sort themselves by the time of the post and might cause some confusion there too as they "interleave" with the original posts, there. I'll look to see if it might improve things. OK. I moved them. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley

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.

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. 😉

I do not wish to justify R.Franz' doctrines, per se. If some of his ideas seem worth looking into, I am only concerned with evaluating the evidence he offered for his perspective. I did not know that R.Franz thought that the 144,000 was a symbolic number until I read his book. I was not surprised however, because it was fairly common to hear brothers ask about why it had to be literal if the number 12,000 was symbolic, or the number 24 was symbolic (symbolic of the 144,000!?!, at that). And I knew that at least two other persons in the Writing department had been discussing this question. Personally, I do not know if the 144,000 is a literal number or not, so I cannot give a scriptural example. Before I left for Bethel, I moved to another city away from my home congregation, and pioneered almost exclusively with a group of 4 brothers, instead of the 3 sisters that I pioneered with previously. One brother in this group was a well respected elder who was the first person I ever heard wonder about the literalness of the 144,000 and he also wondered about the "other sheep" of John 10 as being the Gentiles who were soon to start flocking in after Jesus was finished going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I tended to forget about this because even if the great crowd of other sheep were Gentiles, and the little flock of current sheep were the Jewish believers, it still could have been that they represented "spiritual Jews" and "spiritual Gentiles" in Revelation 7 and 14 and, of course, especially so in our modern times. After all: (Romans 2:29) . . .But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code.. . . Funny you say that, because just to be sure, I had to review what R.Franz said about the topic. I hadn't remembered anything too specific about his own view of this this in "Crisis of Conscience," and still have not read that much of "Christian Freedom." I knew that R.Franz had implied that there wasn't enough Bible evidence to prove that the number 144,000 had to be literal. But I didn't recall him stating his own belief. I assumed he didn't think it necessarily literal, and assumed that he would probably think it wasn't. I just don't think he had said for sure. I had no idea how he views the difference between those who aspire to an earthly hope and those who aspire to a heavenly hope. He seemed to have thought that no one should be "too extreme in their statements." (p.238) I know that R.Franz spoke about the problems that were ensuing due to the focus on 1935, and I think this is another issue for which R.Franz predicted a change would need to be made. I think R.Franz book provided the impetus for the Governing Body to make that correction after they saw the points he made. 1935 is no longer looked at as a strict date that closed the door for all but the replacements of anointed who had proved unfaithful. This may become even more important as the number of anointed claimants rises to about 30,000 then 40,000, etc., because it would otherwise indicate that ALL the original pre-1935 anointed might be suspected of having become unfaithful. At any rate, I think that R.Franz probably believes that the number 144,000 is not a literal number, based on the fact that it is built on a foundation of 12 non-literal numbers of 12,000 from each tribe. Based on some of what I remember from "Christian Freedom" he probably also believes that the "other sheep" and "great crowd" represent gentiles, and the 144,000 represent Jews. Without knowing anything about what R.Franz thinks about this, I already have presented my own view that this is my own opinion, too. It's based on Paul's description of the ONE olive tree that represents the Jews so that the a number of Jewish persons would be sealed, and that the grafting into the same tree from the gentiles would continue until even "jealousy" motivated the full number of Jews to fulfill their invitations. Since Paul says he was an apostle to the Gentiles/Greeks, just as Peter was to the Jews, this appears to be the symbolic reference to the two olive trees in Revelation also. (Romans 11:7-24) . . .What, then? The very thing Israel is earnestly seeking he did not obtain, but the ones chosen obtained it. . . . 11 So I ask, They did not stumble and fall completely, did they? Certainly not! But by their false step, there is salvation to people of the nations, to incite them to jealousy. 12 Now if their false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their full number mean! 13 Now I speak to you who are people of the nations. Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, I glorify my ministry 14 to see if I may in some way incite my own people to jealousy and save some from among them. 15 For if their being cast away means reconciliation for the world, what will the acceptance of them mean but life from the dead? 16 Further, if the part of the dough taken as firstfruits is holy, the entire batch is also holy; and if the root is holy, the branches are also. 17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root, . . . 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! (Revelation 11:1-4) 11 And a reed like a rod was given to me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. . . . 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy . . . .” 4 These are symbolized by the two olive trees . . . standing before the Lord of the earth. Whether the full number of Jews, means literal Jews or symbolic Jews, I couldn't say. Whether it means a literal 144,000 or a symbolic 144,000 I couldn't say. It's compared with a great crowd which no man can number, which is a fair reason to conclude that it might be a literal number, but that's not definitive. (And even then we don't want it to refer to literal Jews.) We already teach that the 12,000 cannot be a literal number in the exact same context, so I wouldn't insist. The illustration of the Gentile "wild olive tree" grafted into Israel's holy, "garden olive" tree and then growing together reminds me of Jesus saying that he has other sheep not of this fold but which must be brought in to be one flock. In "Christian Freedom," R.Franz sees the similarity in another scriptural passage: (Ephesians 2:11-19) 11 Therefore, remember that at one time you, people of the nations by fleshly descent, were the ones called “uncircumcision” by those called “circumcision,” which is made in the flesh by human hands. 12 At that time you were without Christ, alienated from the state of Israel, strangers to the covenants of the promise; you had no hope and were without God in the world. 13 But now in union with Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have come to be near by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. 15 By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, in order to make the two groups in union with himself into one new man and to make peace, 16 and to reconcile fully both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. 17 And he came and declared the good news of peace to you who were far off, and peace to those near, 18 because through him we, both peoples, have free access to the Father by one spirit. 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, ... [cf. "one flock, one shepherd"] For reference, I would add: (Matthew 10:5, 6) . . .These 12 Jesus sent out, giving them these instructions: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter any Sa·marʹi·tan city; 6 but instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Acts 15:1-11) . . .Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” . . . 3 So after being escorted partway by the congregation, these men continued on through both Phoe·niʹcia and Sa·marʹi·a, relating in detail the conversion of people of the nations and bringing great joy to all the brothers. . . . 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and said to them: “Men, brothers, you well know that from early days God made the choice among you that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of the good news and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. 9 And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. . . . 11 On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.” (Galatians 2:7-9) . . .On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. (Romans 1:16) . . .For I am not ashamed of the good news; it is, in fact, God’s power for salvation to everyone having faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 2:9-11) . . .on the Jew first and also on the Greek; 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who works what is good, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. (Romans 10:11, 12) 11 For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. . . . (Compare, 'no more wall that fenced them off into a different pen.' (John 10:16 and Ephesians 2:14.)

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.

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.

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.

It's true that many ex-JWs, apostates and interested persons mistakenly believe that Russell predicted 1914 as the end of the world, when 1914 was NOT supposed to be the end of the world. It was only the final date for the "rapture" of the remnant of Christ's Bride, and the year when Gentile kingdoms would cease ruling, and all religious and political institutions would plunge into their final chaos, which could last until the end of 1915, perhaps even a few months beyond. At the same time, 1914 would also see a non-Gentile government in Jerusalem become established, which would begin to administer the earthly part of a one-world government for everyone on earth except Christians, who would all go to heaven (including the great crowd, also considered to be anointed.) Many ex-JWs, apostates, and interested persons also mistakenly believe that F.Franz and/or the Watchtower Society predicted that 1975 would be the end of the "world." But in this case absolutely nothing was predicted that would definitely happen in that particular year. It was always about how close 1975 must be to the time when Armageddon was expected because of the unscriptural significance given to the end of 6,000 years of man's existence. F.Franz must have sincerely thought that there was some scriptural significance to "the end of 6,000 years. And of course, this fit perfectly with the idea already being promoted that the end must come before the lifespan ended of those who were teenagers in 1914. In other words they would already be about 75 years old in 1975. And you are right that this was seen to fit a host of other "signs of the times."

His point was, basically, that the body of elders at the Jerusalem congregation, even though it included James and some of the apostles, could not constitute a "governing body" or "ecclesiastical body" of authority to make decisions incumbent on the rest of the the Christian congregations. There was an occasion when it did do that, but not because it was an authoritative body, but because that's who started the problem and it was important to get their problem fixed and announce how they resolved it, since it was detrimentally affecting other congregations. As evidence he used the example of Paul, who says he never got appointed from this body in Jerusalem. And how Philip and Barnabas and others were not appointed by a central body in Jerusalem. How, for some purposes, we might as well say that Antioch served the function of such a body. This was all given as evidence that there is no need for a first-century type Christian governing body of the type we imagine Jerusalem had. He derided that idea very sarcastically denying that anyone would have thought that they needed to check in with that body of elders in Jerusalem.

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.

@FelixCA, I had said that F.Franz in his Gilead talk, made it clear that, instead of some ecclesiastical body, he liked the idea of a single president wielding authority with the final say, and the ability to just ignore all those under him if he wished. To that you responded: I notice that you keep repeating this idea that Raymond Franz also aspired to an authoritative presidency. I'm not sure where you got this idea. Nothing in his books gives that impression, and he states the exact opposite. The impression he gave while at Bethel was also consistent with someone who wanted a quiet, unassuming, thoughtful, existence there. In all his comments he spoke with a quiet, soothing voice. (It was that same voice that read the book of John in the first set of Bible recordings on cassette.) The political aspirers would rant and raise their voice and talk about things they didn't like. You could tell that R.Franz wanted a more spiritual life than a political life at Bethel. On the idea that some here knew him on a more personal level, that's very possible. The now-infamous A.Smith said the same thing. I think F.Franz would have been very interesting and possibly even fun to know on a personal level. I was a friend with his long-time Bethel roommate, who left Bethel amid the scandalous kerfluffles of 1980. But did he act haughty, presumptuous and self-righteous? There was no question in the mind of anyone at Bethel. It was just his way -- and his way of talking.

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.

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?

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.

Exactly the same point I have often made. This is why I don't blame the Watchtower for the personal decisions I have made, and this is why I never complain that I lost out on anything. Edited to add: This is why I also have never expressed any kind of resentment, because I don't feel any. Someone on here who comments very little could testify that it was just early this morning when he asked me what I thought of my time at Bethel and my complete answer was: I enjoyed it. I learned a lot. Loved the work. I'm an artist and worked in the art department. Then I got a lot of research assignments, so I got to go to the library a lot.

That is correct. That is why I asked what you meant instead of correcting you. I don't want to degrade anyone, which is why my behavior did not poke fun at anyone. Also, you provided no evidence of anything, just more false and empty assertions.

I think there are only a couple examples of persons who were not anointed, about 13 men in all. Interestingly, Luke (as the writer of Acts), mentions that while not "anointed" Apollos was "aglow with the spirit." (Acts 18:24-19:7) . . .Now a Jew named A·polʹlos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephʹe·sus; he was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of Jehovah, and aglow with the spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things about Jesus, but he was acquainted only with the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him. 27 Further, because he wanted to go across to A·chaʹia, the brothers wrote to the disciples, urging them to receive him kindly. So when he got there, he greatly helped those who through God’s undeserved kindness had become believers; 28 for publicly and with great intensity he thoroughly proved the Jews to be wrong, showing them from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. 19 In the course of events, while A·polʹlos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came down to Ephʹe·sus. There he found some disciples 2 and said to them: “Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?” They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.” 3 So he said: “In what, then, were you baptized?” They said: “In John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they began speaking in foreign languages and prophesying. 7 There were about 12 men in all. Some scholars have assumed that, for many of the early years at least, Baptists were probably a larger group than the Christians. John had obviously baptized many persons before Jesus got there, and there were already crowds being baptized by John. The similarities of their beliefs might have allowed some to join with Christians and not realize that there was more to being a Christian than just verbal acceptance of a Christian message on top of a Baptist message. Some scholars also believe there is early documented evidence of an ongoing debate or even a competition between followers of John the Baptist and followers of Jesus the Christ. Interesting, too, is the story that explorers in the Middle East in the 1700's came across one or more Bedouin groups, who explained that they were not Christians but claimed to have been followers of John the Baptist for thousands of years. I'll have to look up the story again to get the exact details. It's possible they were followers of Mandaeism, who see John the Baptist as a more important person than Jesus. Some scholars, and I might be using the term loosely, have also thought that the Qumram community (the probable guardians of the Dead Sea Scroll "library") was related to John's preaching, and that most of John's followers would have been Essenes. Another aside, but Apollos, by some, is considered a prime candidate to have been the author of the book of Hebrews. Note that he was eloquent, and zealous in preaching to Hebrews about Christ. I think it is a minority of modern scholars who believe that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. We have no evidence one way or another in scripture itself except style and content, but Paul's "calling" or ministry was not to the Hebrews.

Of course, not everyone did, or could. I doubt they expected even such a high percentage as they got. The excitement shows it. *** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? *** Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end. The specific quote about a future in school is in the Awake! but not in the Watchtower Online Library, but you've probably seen it. Also, a circuit assembly in 1971 influenced me to quit school, but I have no notes on which talk it was. If the end had come in the mid-70s as expected, no one would have needed professionals. Up until 1975 Bethel HQ had used very few professionals, but in 1976, they accepted computer professionals to start a computer department (my roommate and another friend from St. Louis), electronics professionals (including my brother) to develop some programmable controllers, a second surgeon to live near Bethel to back up Doctor Dixon, etc. But professionals can always be recruited. Or we could rely on worldly people. Jehovah provides. Also, I don't think you or I can impute wrong motives of the GB claiming that they wanted dumb people to domineer. Higher education is considered "dangerous" to one's spirituality because, in practice, many Witnesses leave the organization when they go to college. A very high percentage. I understand that there are still some mixed feelings about higher education among the GB.