JW Insider

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

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.

When was it ever anything else?
From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 
Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize.
JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account.
The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart.
No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant  - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news.
With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home.
Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was  likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist.
Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say?
You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

Don't you know it! lol

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. 😉

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. 😉

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.

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.