JW Insider

Again, you must be talking about a different Raymond Franz as you put it. Raymond Franz found a need to criticize the Governing Body, that's true. Perhaps he should not have. But the reason this makes people angry is not because it isn't true, but because it erases a fantasy many Witnesses have about them. Also, he decided to do this only after being slandered and spoken of abusively. Are you saying he should not have followed the counsel of 1 Pet 3:15?
(1 Peter 3:14, 15) 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, do not fear what they fear, nor be disturbed. 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. Also you should remember that at the time there was no teaching that this group of men, the GB, amounted to the same body Jesus was dealing with. They only claimed to represent the rest of the remnant of the 144,000 which was, according to the teaching at the time, the same body Jesus was dealing with.
And naturally, R.Franz never defied all authorities based solely on Christ's teaching. You might mean here that he thought one should defy authority when it conflicted with Christ's teaching, but we already know what he should have done in those cases. He spent most of his life acquiescing to the same authority the rest of us have recognized. When that became impossible to continue doing, according to his conscience, he wrote a book to explain why. I think the book was written in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15.
No he didn't. It was exactly the opposite. This is a point that no one could miss if they read either of his books. I'm not sure how you could possibly have missed it accidentally.
It was Frederick Franz who wanted it reinstated without any interference from a Governing Body. In fact, you can still listen to Fred Franz talk from 1975 where F.Franz sarcastically rails against the idea of a Governing Body, and goes to great lengths to prove that a Governing Body is not even scriptural. In that talk he repeatedly emphasizes that it was only one authority figure who made the decisions of the Watch Tower Society.
You are speaking against Fred Franz, not Raymond Franz.

Again, you must be talking about a different Raymond Franz as you put it. Raymond Franz found a need to criticize the Governing Body, that's true. Perhaps he should not have. But the reason this makes people angry is not because it isn't true, but because it erases a fantasy many Witnesses have about them. Also, he decided to do this only after being slandered and spoken of abusively. Are you saying he should not have followed the counsel of 1 Pet 3:15?
(1 Peter 3:14, 15) 14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, do not fear what they fear, nor be disturbed. 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. Also you should remember that at the time there was no teaching that this group of men, the GB, amounted to the same body Jesus was dealing with. They only claimed to represent the rest of the remnant of the 144,000 which was, according to the teaching at the time, the same body Jesus was dealing with.
And naturally, R.Franz never defied all authorities based solely on Christ's teaching. You might mean here that he thought one should defy authority when it conflicted with Christ's teaching, but we already know what he should have done in those cases. He spent most of his life acquiescing to the same authority the rest of us have recognized. When that became impossible to continue doing, according to his conscience, he wrote a book to explain why. I think the book was written in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15.
No he didn't. It was exactly the opposite. This is a point that no one could miss if they read either of his books. I'm not sure how you could possibly have missed it accidentally.
It was Frederick Franz who wanted it reinstated without any interference from a Governing Body. In fact, you can still listen to Fred Franz talk from 1975 where F.Franz sarcastically rails against the idea of a Governing Body, and goes to great lengths to prove that a Governing Body is not even scriptural. In that talk he repeatedly emphasizes that it was only one authority figure who made the decisions of the Watch Tower Society.
You are speaking against Fred Franz, not Raymond Franz.

Fred Franz definitely used a lot of Scriptures to criticize the idea of a Governing Body, but he was outvoted. When the "board" came to vote the actual creation of a Governing Body that could share in the decision-making votes of the Society, and thereby reduce the autocratic power of the office of the Society's President, Fred Franz was quite literally outvoted. But his Scriptural reasoning in his talk was still valid to show how the Bible does NOT support the creation of a Governing Body.
 

From here you go on to indicate that there were differences between the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz and what is found in Watchtower literature. 
But I get the feeling, now, that you probably did not read his books, or did not remember what you read. Either that, or you found it necessary for some unstated purpose to skew the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz into something he did not say. For example:
He claims that 607 is a hugely relevant date to the Governing Body and to the Watchtower writers. And although he never mentions the date 587 or 586 in either book, I agree that his first book points to the fact that all the evidence he could find supports a date "twenty years later" than 607. His point here is that even though he found no evidence, he acquiesced.
We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All
historians pointed to a date twenty years later.
Before preparing the Aid material on “Archaeology”
I had not realized that the number of
baked-clay cuneiform tablets found in the
Mesopotamian area and dating back to the
time of ancient Babylon numbered into the
tens of thousands. In all of these there was
nothing to indicate that the period of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire (in which period
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign figured) was of the
necessary length to fit our 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything
pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published chronology
claimed.
Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe that our
chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence, that such
evidence was somehow in error. Thus, in preparing the material for
the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to
weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence
that would make erroneous our 607 B.C. E. date and give a different
starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date
different from 1914.
Charles Ploeger and I made a trip to Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island, to interview Professor Abraham Sachs, a
specialist in ancient cuneiform texts, particularly those containing
astronomical data. We wanted to see if we could obtain any
information that would indicate any flaw or weakness whatsoever
in the astronomical data presented in many of the texts, data that
indicated our 607 B.C.E. date was incorrect. In the end, it became
evident that it would have taken a virtual conspiracy on the part of
the ancient scribes—with no conceivable motive for doing so—to
misrepresent the facts if, indeed, our figure was to be the right one.
Again, like an attorney faced with evidence he cannot overcome, my
effort was to discredit or weaken confidence in the witnesses from
ancient times who presented such evidence, the evidence of historical
texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In themselves,
the arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their
intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support.
So, despite our heightened appreciation of certain principles, the
Aid book nonetheless contained many examples of our efforts to be
loyal to the Society’s teachings. In many respects, what we learned
through our experience did more for us than it did for the publication.

The person he associated with was not disfellowshipped. Many persons in his congregation still associated with the same man, because he was related to them, and was in a position to help them out financially, running a business that had hired them. Besides 1 Corinthians 5 says the following:
(1 Corinthians 5:9-11) . . .In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. Which one of these labels do you attach to this former member of the local congregation who was not even disfellowshipped? Was he greedy? Sexually immoral? An idolater? An extortioner? A reviler? A drunkard? Also, even if he was such a person --and I think you probably know he wasn't-- what did Paul mean when he said that we don't stop keeping company entirely with such people. Obviously, for purposes of employment, living in the world, we might need to associate with a person who is any one of these types.

The person he associated with was not disfellowshipped. Many persons in his congregation still associated with the same man, because he was related to them, and was in a position to help them out financially, running a business that had hired them. Besides 1 Corinthians 5 says the following:
(1 Corinthians 5:9-11) . . .In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. Which one of these labels do you attach to this former member of the local congregation who was not even disfellowshipped? Was he greedy? Sexually immoral? An idolater? An extortioner? A reviler? A drunkard? Also, even if he was such a person --and I think you probably know he wasn't-- what did Paul mean when he said that we don't stop keeping company entirely with such people. Obviously, for purposes of employment, living in the world, we might need to associate with a person who is any one of these types.

I believe that R.Franz got a few things wrong. His facts were correct, but one can always come to a wrong conclusion based on true facts. But that still doesn't mean that we can judge his heart, of course. A person who disagrees with certain things but doesn't leave his faith over them is not included in the definition of an apostate. And besides, the things he thought we had wrong as an organization included issues he had every right, and even an assigned duty to consider, when he was a member of the Governing Body.
So he thought we had the generation definition wrong and it would have to be changed within just a few years. It was. He thought the Watchtower Society should not be repressing the work of Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico. They stopped. He thought that it seemed Scriptural that homosexual or bestial relations should dissolve a marriage. This was changed. He thought that the Governing Body should complete the change on avoiding the military through alternative service. They did. Although he said there was nothing Scripturally wrong with door-to-door ministry, he thought the Society should also consider other methods of distributing its literature and not focus so much on hours and placements in just one form of ministry. Now it has (website, carts). Granted, he also thought that based on past historical experience, we should stop setting any kind of date or even a date range as a time limit for Armageddon to occur. This hasn't completely stopped per the new generation doctrine, but since 2010, time-setting is much more nebulous than it has ever been in the past. He also thought that the Greek Scriptures should not be so strictly applied only to the anointed who claim a heavenly hope. In recent years, the GB have come to see this issue in the same way, and specifically stated updates in our new understanding in those very terms used by R.Franz.
For me, even if he was wrong on some matters, it shows the truth of the Bible verse:
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. It's not a matter of R.Franz being right or wrong in a few things, or being wrong in more things than he was right about, or even if he was right about most things. But he was definitely right about some of the issues he brought up, or the Governing Body would not have changed over time toward his way of thinking.

From here you go on to indicate that there were differences between the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz and what is found in Watchtower literature. 
But I get the feeling, now, that you probably did not read his books, or did not remember what you read. Either that, or you found it necessary for some unstated purpose to skew the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz into something he did not say. For example:
He claims that 607 is a hugely relevant date to the Governing Body and to the Watchtower writers. And although he never mentions the date 587 or 586 in either book, I agree that his first book points to the fact that all the evidence he could find supports a date "twenty years later" than 607. His point here is that even though he found no evidence, he acquiesced.
We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All
historians pointed to a date twenty years later.
Before preparing the Aid material on “Archaeology”
I had not realized that the number of
baked-clay cuneiform tablets found in the
Mesopotamian area and dating back to the
time of ancient Babylon numbered into the
tens of thousands. In all of these there was
nothing to indicate that the period of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire (in which period
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign figured) was of the
necessary length to fit our 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything
pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published chronology
claimed.
Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe that our
chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence, that such
evidence was somehow in error. Thus, in preparing the material for
the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to
weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence
that would make erroneous our 607 B.C. E. date and give a different
starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date
different from 1914.
Charles Ploeger and I made a trip to Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island, to interview Professor Abraham Sachs, a
specialist in ancient cuneiform texts, particularly those containing
astronomical data. We wanted to see if we could obtain any
information that would indicate any flaw or weakness whatsoever
in the astronomical data presented in many of the texts, data that
indicated our 607 B.C.E. date was incorrect. In the end, it became
evident that it would have taken a virtual conspiracy on the part of
the ancient scribes—with no conceivable motive for doing so—to
misrepresent the facts if, indeed, our figure was to be the right one.
Again, like an attorney faced with evidence he cannot overcome, my
effort was to discredit or weaken confidence in the witnesses from
ancient times who presented such evidence, the evidence of historical
texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In themselves,
the arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their
intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support.
So, despite our heightened appreciation of certain principles, the
Aid book nonetheless contained many examples of our efforts to be
loyal to the Society’s teachings. In many respects, what we learned
through our experience did more for us than it did for the publication.

It's true that most JWs put faith in the GB and in the assembly speakers and in their elders and even put faith in each other to some extent. Taking R.Franz just a bit out of context, he praises the Witnesses for how they have responded in difficult situations, and which often means putting faith (trust) in one another.
Many religious affiliations could benefit from the example of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in the area of racial integration, in their deemphasizing
of class distinctions, their comparatively strong sense
of commitment and obligation toward anyone, though otherwise
a complete stranger to them, who is a member in good standing in
the organization. Perhaps some of the most appealing—and dramatic—
features in their history are those occasions when they have
been faced with crisis situations, in times of intense persecution
or natural disasters or war, when many of them have shown a will-
ingness to risk their own safety, possessions or even their own lives
in the interest, in one way or another, of fellow members. The accounts
of the experiences of Witnesses during the Nazi regime in
Germany, during the Duvalier premiership of Quebec, or during
the period of mob violence in the United States in the 1940s, make
absorbing reading. The sincerity of those who demonstrated a courageous
and selfless concern for others rightly goes unquestioned,
and I find their example both encouraging and laudable.  -- R.Franz, "Christian Freedom" p.600
Of course, this comes from a person, R.Franz, who would never have been allowed back into the Organization even if he wanted to. Yet after giving it several years of thought, he still recognized areas where JWs excel. Elsewhere in the same book, he still recognized the value of core doctrines he learned through Jehovah's Witnesses.
I am not one to claim that only JWs are good, or only JWs have the truth about many things. In fact, I have no doubt that we are absolutely wrong about certain things, but I consider them minor compared to more important things. But I do find that JWs have the best overall set of beliefs (for me) because I am a core anti-war, anti-Trinity, anti-Hellfire Christian. I could also list a lot of other things about Christian morality and cleanliness, and Christian activities including public preaching and proselytizing, and emphasis on a God who will accomplish his purpose toward the earth, etc., etc. All these things make the JW faith attractive and comfortable. Imperfect, with a lot of things wrong, but I still don't know of a religion with more "truth." I also think it does an excellent job attempting to put the first-century principles of Christianity into the twenty-first century -- and all over the world at that.
I appreciate how this particular combination of beliefs sets us apart from the rest, almost by definition, and by doing so enhances the cohesiveness of our Christian brotherhood. We are therefore going to stand out as different from other denominations, a good thing, in my opinion. We take upon ourselves a "teaching" ministry. If you ever again want to be part of a "teaching" ministry, and you think that this is an important ministry for the times we live in, then I think there is every good reason to consider JWs again. I'm sure Jehovah looks with favor upon Christians and would-be Christians who take up some kind of charitable ministry, too, or any ministry where their goal is to help fellow humans in response what God has done for them, even if it's just what they perceive that God has done for them.
Jehovah looks at motivations of the heart and our responses that are based on love for Him and love for neighbor. This is the great teaching of Jesus, and it matches the goal that the Mosaic Law could have transitioned a nation to do. And now, we can be a part of that nation. I don't believe that nation must be an organization, per se, even if it was a kind of organization under Israel and the Law. I think it's individuals. But under normal circumstances it will be individuals that join together under the same tenets of faith. And not all those individuals have to be JWs as far as I can see. But JWs set forth an attractive combination of teachings that do a great job reflecting the truth about Jehovah.
I can't tell you that you will be very comfortable as a JW again, but it is good and healthy to try to trust people. And I know that it's always more difficult for people who have been through what you have. Even if JWs are just kind of a social club for now. You did say that you sometimes talked to other JWs about issues related to the organization. I think the organization needs more people who are willing to talk to others honestly about issues. And you will always have the balance of having seen right through those times when fellow JWs are too hooked on following men. It's also true that you might get pushed out again. But in the meantime, you will have given it a try, not just walking away. And you might find some comfort in associating again with your brother, the Elder, and explaining things to him. No doubt he is a true believer and was never trying to trick you.
Summarizing, (I have to throw in that word to encourage myself to stop blabbing on and on) I know that you are referring to how some Witnesses will replace faith that should be in Jehovah and and letting faith in the GB supersede this. I admit that this happens. But it's easy to make this claim without understanding that all faith in Jehovah's ability to teach us will involve being taught by others. Jehovah does not teach us by putting complete understanding in our mind. The Bible tells us to expect teaching to come through others, and to hold fast to the teaching as handed down. We probably could get the basic things on our own, but we wouldn't have the encouragement that comes from a group of persons: some who will need our help and some who will be there to help us.

I believe that R.Franz got a few things wrong. His facts were correct, but one can always come to a wrong conclusion based on true facts. But that still doesn't mean that we can judge his heart, of course. A person who disagrees with certain things but doesn't leave his faith over them is not included in the definition of an apostate. And besides, the things he thought we had wrong as an organization included issues he had every right, and even an assigned duty to consider, when he was a member of the Governing Body.
So he thought we had the generation definition wrong and it would have to be changed within just a few years. It was. He thought the Watchtower Society should not be repressing the work of Jehovah's Witnesses in Mexico. They stopped. He thought that it seemed Scriptural that homosexual or bestial relations should dissolve a marriage. This was changed. He thought that the Governing Body should complete the change on avoiding the military through alternative service. They did. Although he said there was nothing Scripturally wrong with door-to-door ministry, he thought the Society should also consider other methods of distributing its literature and not focus so much on hours and placements in just one form of ministry. Now it has (website, carts). Granted, he also thought that based on past historical experience, we should stop setting any kind of date or even a date range as a time limit for Armageddon to occur. This hasn't completely stopped per the new generation doctrine, but since 2010, time-setting is much more nebulous than it has ever been in the past. He also thought that the Greek Scriptures should not be so strictly applied only to the anointed who claim a heavenly hope. In recent years, the GB have come to see this issue in the same way, and specifically stated updates in our new understanding in those very terms used by R.Franz.
For me, even if he was wrong on some matters, it shows the truth of the Bible verse:
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. It's not a matter of R.Franz being right or wrong in a few things, or being wrong in more things than he was right about, or even if he was right about most things. But he was definitely right about some of the issues he brought up, or the Governing Body would not have changed over time toward his way of thinking.

I am assuming you no longer have faith your brother, but you still do have faith and trust in so many people. You have faith in the milkman that he will bring your milk everyday, (do they still do that?) you have faith in medical staff that they will administer treatment for your benefit, you have faith in the pilot that he will get you to your destination, you have faith in the police force, that they will  help people. Whether that faith is justified or not doesn't matter. The fact is us humans have a need to rely on other humans and put faith in them otherwise it would be impossible to live a normal life. 
Maybe that was a mistake, that you didn't ask any questions, but evidently you didn't feel you needed to, if everything made sense....
With the Org changing the meaning of scripture, and teachings, I am assuming you preferred the previous ones better? Or is it because you think there should never be any change?
From the examples I wrote about above it's unrealistic to think that JWs pretend they don't put their faith in men. I know in this case you mean the men on the GB. But that really is no different than putting faith in anyone else who is doing a particular job, whether it be the milkman, doctor, pilot or policeman. Yes, Witnesses do put faith in the GB, it is logical they do so and there is scripturally absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as they keep in mind that if there is ever a conflict between what man says, and what God says, then what God says must always take precedent of course. You know the scripture (Acts 5:29). 
With regard to the wrongdoing you mention, I am assuming you mean the mishandling of Child abuse cases? Or were you thinking of some other specific wrongdoing?
Yes, I don't think anyone is denying that the Org. presents itself as God's only orgnisation. Most Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. With the GB being the only spokesperson for God, then that is disputable and would be presumptuous in the words of G. Jackson. Every time  a brother or sister speaks about the promises in the Bible, they are being a spokesperson for God. The Org. being the only means of salvation can be a tricky one. Of course it is Jehovah who is going to save, and every Witness believes that. The concept 'means' or 'by means of' can apply to the fact that the requirements for salvation as stated in the Bible have been proclaimed by that Organisation. If the stones were to cry out instead ( Luke 19:40) then it would be by means of the stones
Don't forget about this scripture: "For everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?  How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!” (Romans 10:13-15)
 

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

Actually, you might have hit on the exact reason that many Witnesses have read it secretly when you said:
It's the fact that he purports to tell people what went on in the GB.

I can't really tell what you are trying to say.
I imagine that the vast majority of people at Bethel never read any of the books by R.Franz, at least not while at Bethel. But they certainly wanted to talk about it, and to talk about things they had heard from others about the book.
Don't know what you mean. Surely you don't think that R.Franz coined that phrase. And surely you don't think that R.Franz claimed to have coined that phrase.
I don't really see that J.Butler would be benefited from reading the book. I think he already has his mind completely made up about the usefulness of the Organization long before any talk of this book. But if a person can understand from a book such as this that the leadership of the Organization has a human side, and can figure out why Jehovah could still work with (and bless the efforts of) such humans to accomplish something good, I don't see how the book should necessarily hurt. I have a feeling he would read it just for "ammunition."
One benefit I see for true Christians, however, is that it should make us more humble, less presumptuous, and it helps us understand the difficult position of leadership of a the Organization when their is no direct inspiration, no signs, and no miracles. As more members of the Governing Body have explained, they see their role as trying to devote themselves to a study of the scriptures in order to guard the doctrine. They pray over the scriptures, and the best decisions, and best course to take, but there is no "magic wand." It's still a matter of trying to distinguish right from wrong by being spiritually minded persons who know that everything they decide should have a Biblical basis.
For the most part, this produces excellent results. But certain traditions and strongly entrenched things will not necessarily be improved if you only see yourselves as "guardians" of existing doctrine. But in spite of this, a lot of good changes have also taken place. I have not seen a year go by, when improvements were not made. (Especially since about 2000 when the role of the GB became more focused on doctrinal matters and less on legal and bureaucratic matters.)
And it's also quite possible to be critical of what we should be critical of, to learn from their mistakes. And it's also possible to be critical and come to a better appreciation of Jehovah's ways and his patience.
Again, you make no sense. If this is another reference to Carl Olaf Jonsson per the argument that Allen Smith invariably brought up in this context, it is still a false argument. R.Franz discovered the problems with our chronology way back before 1969, while writing the Chronology entry in the Aid Book that came out in 1969. Jonsson had not even started his questioning of the chronology back then, had he? Brothers that I knew in Writing would not touch the Jonsson manuscript precisely because they already questioned the chronology and realized that they might get an assignment to rebut COJ if they took an interest. This is why it sat on a shelf, and was called the "hot potato" for at least a year, and no one dared touch it.
Unfortunately, this is very true that much of what goes on in Bethel, especially within the GB, is not made public.

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

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

Everything on a forum is partially opinion. But this is based primarily on the opinion of a person who spent 10 years in the Service Dept and nearly 30 years in the Writing Department. It was also the opinion of one of my roommates even after he became an elder and left Bethel. And it is my opinion, of course. I'm sure that many others who were at Bethel during these same years would agree.

Well-said. I see your point. It's also true that we only have his side of the story. And I know there was some concern among at least one of his peers to take care of some of the issues he exposed as soon as possible.
But these issues he brings up, along with a review of our own organizational history from WT publications, all support the idea that someone in his situation could easily have had a crisis of conscience. I think he should have had one. I thought it should have led to him resigning from the Governing Body before he was asked to resign, rather than just take a leave of absence from the Governing Body during this time of crisis.
His crisis seems to be initially about whether he should have continued to work for more scriptural policies from the inside, or whether he should stand up more strongly for his own beliefs, or whether he should acquiesce. For years, apparently, he always acquiesced. Within the Governing Body, he would vote against creating a new rule that married couples could be disfellowshipped for oral sex, for example. But then when overruled by at least two-thirds of the rest of the Governing Body, who got the assignment to write it up?
He would be the one asked to write up the Watchtower article to provide the scriptural defense of something he conscientiously believed was not scriptural. Kind of like your point (in TTvTA) about how people are taught to debate by being assigned either side of an argument.
Now as a member of the Governing Body, he could remain and fight for what he thought was the scriptural position: that there was no explicit Bible rule stating that married couples must be dragged through a judicial hearing if, for some reason, the couple admitted to a friend, for example, that they had engaged in oral sex of some kind.
At the same time, the Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce. R.Franz still believed, as did his colleagues, that these forms of sex were wrong, and not to be engaged in, and that the person could be disfellowshipped. But for some reason he did not stand up for his conscience and take a stand against what was clearly an unscriptural case of using the supposed "letter of the law" to kill the "spirit of the law."
Of course, he reports that he did fight for the change, from the inside, and sometimes it would take months of collecting letters to the Service Department, and sometimes it would take years. And patience. But in large part, apparently, these areas of conscience were resolved and the rest of the Governing Body finally acquiesced. We have the Watchtower articles that provide evidence to fit his claims.
This might sound self-aggrandizing for R.Franz, but it makes perfect sense considering the persons who made up the Governing Body.
Working as an artist for most of my 4 years at Bethel, I knew who was writing which articles and books. In fact, the initials of the writer and an additional series of initials of those who had seen and approved the article were always at the top of the first typewritten page. This also helped proofreaders and artists know who their department head might talk to if there was a question.
Listening to the Governing Body members rotate through their 15 minute talks every day, sometimes rambling unprepared, and sometimes well organized, it was easy to tell who deferred to whom, and which members were interested in Bible topics and which were interested in organizational rules, and rarely did the twain meet.
Between that experience of hearing them speak daily and knowing which Watchtower articles a GB member had written lets me know that everything R.Franz says in the book makes perfect sense with respect to those who spoke up and what they probably would have said during GB meetings. I should also add that I could sometimes hear L.Swingle and F.Rusk (non-GB) speaking to other writers from their offices. (Most GB members never wrote a Watchtower article, and most had almost nothing to do with Writing of any kind.) It also makes sense why, by way of explanation, R.Franz goes into the history of the creation of the Governing Body from the time it began in the early 70's.

It is evident in Raymond's case, that he only wrote what the Societies' understanding of those dates were at the time. He added nothing of his own understanding or interpretation to these dates. He quotes nobody else but the Societies' literature concerning these dates. It had nothing to do with anyone else's perception but only of the perception of those who mentioned these dates in the first place ( Barbour, Russell, Rutherford, Franz...)
These dates are only a common theme for ex-JW books because most of them derived this information from Raymond's books
I think they understood these dates, but most of these dates failed in their expectations and had to be revised, several times. I think it is up to each individual person to asses whether this is meaningless for them or not.
I am not sure what you mean by this. But assuming I understand what you mean then again, I don't think this is a matter of personal opinion if you quote (in context) the other party. I think it became quite clear how certain things were supposed to be understood. Many times it was crystal clear.
I am assuming you mean that Raymond put too much faith in his own research of the society? If that's what you mean then it doesn't make any difference whether Raymond put faith in his research or not because research, or the evidence provided, should be able to stand on it's own, and it should be up to each individual to decide how much faith they will put in the evidence shown. It's what we do with our Bible studies, we show them evidence, and on the basis of that evidence the student decides whether they will accept it or not, or reach a different conclusion. It doesn't matter how much faith in that evidence we have ourselves.
If you mean that Raymond did separate parallel research on the same subject as the organization, then I do not see that in his first book (I didn't read his second book). From what I've seen, Raymond merely reports on beliefs already held, and how those beliefs had to change due to inaccuracies. I do not see him espousing his own ideas.
Well he 'only' quoted the organizations own literature and or/letters from branch offices.  So you decide by whose standards are they correct.
I don't think that this late in the stream of time it is difficult at all for anyone to see that the organization has had wrong expectations and understanding. Time itself has has proved this. No one has to try very hard at all.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jw-doctrine-changes/#?insight[search_id]=2d58f3a4-a39b-4bab-8385-d3b8065094d5&insight[search_result_index]=1
What Raymond does focus on though is how some of these misunderstandings have had detrimental results in the lives of some friends.
Distorted information has no benefit of course. Did you have something in mind in Raymond's book that would be considered distorted information? There are some things I remember that I did not agree on, but it has been a while since I read the book and I cannot remember what they were. Perhaps you can be quicker in giving an example.

That is why I spelled Truth with a capital letter and in  quotation marks. I am talking about what most Witnesses understand to be the tenets,  based on the Bible, that Jehovah's Witnesses live by.
What attracted you to what Jehovah's Witnesses taught'? Why did you become one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Surely there must have been something that you recognized as valuable?
I am sorry you had put your faith only in man. It's not funny at all, it's sad.
If you are implying that this is wrong, then you have misunderstood the meaning of faith in this case. All of us need to have some faith in fellow human beings, some more than others, and in different circumstances of course. I am sure you have faith in your wife, in your children and others? Faith in this case is synonymous with trust, belief, confidence, reliance. The difference is that faith in God is always completely justified, because He can never fail us, everyone else can.
  You must have posted this after I went back and clarified that I was not trying to compare the GB with Jesus. The thought did cross my mind that someone might think that this is what I was saying. I was trying to compare the situation. Did you know that a very large majority who leave Jehovah's Witnesses sooner or later become Atheists? They realise that there really is 'no other religion to go away to'.
Then you know more than anyone else

I’d only do it for Anna and JWI. And even for them there would be height limitations.

Here is my few cents on the Crisis of Conscience. (It’s been a few years since I have last read it though). This book must be unique to any other ex-Witness publication (I have no desire to read any others) just by virtue of the fact that the author was in a truly unique position to be able to write about something that none of the others could.
 If I was going to read only one book on Jehovah’s Witnesses (besides our publications of course) it would be this one. I say this with a bit of a heavy heart, because this book has been the cause of a multitude ‘falling away’. Perhaps I should rephrase that, it has given the impetus to those who were already on a wavering course for one reason or another. It’s difficult for me to explain this well, but I think those who have seen the ‘Truth’  transform lives for the better, and have experienced and seen this within themselves as well, and have experienced the liberation from Christendom’s false teachings (and other religions) and have seen the puzzle pieces of pure teachings of the Bible become a clear picture, and those who’s faith is grounded  in Jehovah and not mere man, for those people I do not think that reading this book poses a danger to that faith at all.  Perhaps not even a danger to the relative faith in the Governing Body for that matter. And it shouldn’t.  It’s not that kind of a book. It’s not some kind of ‘expose’ on par with Leah Remini’s whistle-blowing on her former faith. It will surprise some, especially those who have had unrealistic opinions of the Governing Body.  But for those who have had more of a pragmatic and scriptural (!) approach, they will find that the element of surprise is not that great, and that in fact they begin to understand some of the things they have wondered about in the past. They will understand the human struggle and imperfections about those whom it has been said that they were the ‘mouthpiece’ of God (Russell etc.). They will understand better  the dilemmas regarding end time calculations. They will also find that naturally the book is written with bias (as JW Insider pointed out), but if one can overlook  RF’s obvious (and expected) emotional involvement in places, and just concentrate on the facts presented, then one can glean quite a good picture of behind the scenes of the Organization. (I still have to find the places where I thought RF was being unfair and less than honest, but I need time for that. One area where I remember RF was being unfair was in his descriptions of potentially life changing decisions being made in an arbitrarily frivolous manner, devoid of scriptural basis. He seems to omit crucial information and detail where discussion of scriptures and their application must have occurred, and he only talks about HIS input where he used scripture. I find that hard to believe since absolutely any idea put forward in WT publications have always provided an array of scriptural reasons to go with it,  even if sometimes wrongly applied. On the other hand he is tries to be fair by admitting that problems were rarely just over looked or ignored. I suppose it was easy for RF to point out failings that became obvious in hindsight.)
All in all the book shouldn’t undermine ones belief; in that if you are going to be part of a faith based organization, then Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only way to go. I think the scripture here could be loosely applied, (although in this case it obviously applied to Jesus, and I am here not trying to compare the GB with Jesus) “.....whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life” . The disciples had just learned something ‘shocking’ and many left and did not wait for the resolution of the matter, despite the fact that Jesus demonstrated that he had the sayings of everlasting life.  In the same way, if you have recognized the ‘sayings’ of Jehovah’s Witnesses as something valuable, then it would be a shame if you let the various failings of mere humans cloud that overall picture.
The shortest way to describe the book? It’s like drawing back the curtain on the old man in the Wizard of OZ.
P.S When reading the book one has to bear in mind that here RF is writing about what was the current GB of his time, and that not one of those people make up the GB today. Also, it is the opinion of quite a few, including mine, that if RF hadn’t been made to resign from the GB he would have served on it until his death.
 

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

Well-said. I see your point. It's also true that we only have his side of the story. And I know there was some concern among at least one of his peers to take care of some of the issues he exposed as soon as possible.
But these issues he brings up, along with a review of our own organizational history from WT publications, all support the idea that someone in his situation could easily have had a crisis of conscience. I think he should have had one. I thought it should have led to him resigning from the Governing Body before he was asked to resign, rather than just take a leave of absence from the Governing Body during this time of crisis.
His crisis seems to be initially about whether he should have continued to work for more scriptural policies from the inside, or whether he should stand up more strongly for his own beliefs, or whether he should acquiesce. For years, apparently, he always acquiesced. Within the Governing Body, he would vote against creating a new rule that married couples could be disfellowshipped for oral sex, for example. But then when overruled by at least two-thirds of the rest of the Governing Body, who got the assignment to write it up?
He would be the one asked to write up the Watchtower article to provide the scriptural defense of something he conscientiously believed was not scriptural. Kind of like your point (in TTvTA) about how people are taught to debate by being assigned either side of an argument.
Now as a member of the Governing Body, he could remain and fight for what he thought was the scriptural position: that there was no explicit Bible rule stating that married couples must be dragged through a judicial hearing if, for some reason, the couple admitted to a friend, for example, that they had engaged in oral sex of some kind.
At the same time, the Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce. R.Franz still believed, as did his colleagues, that these forms of sex were wrong, and not to be engaged in, and that the person could be disfellowshipped. But for some reason he did not stand up for his conscience and take a stand against what was clearly an unscriptural case of using the supposed "letter of the law" to kill the "spirit of the law."
Of course, he reports that he did fight for the change, from the inside, and sometimes it would take months of collecting letters to the Service Department, and sometimes it would take years. And patience. But in large part, apparently, these areas of conscience were resolved and the rest of the Governing Body finally acquiesced. We have the Watchtower articles that provide evidence to fit his claims.
This might sound self-aggrandizing for R.Franz, but it makes perfect sense considering the persons who made up the Governing Body.
Working as an artist for most of my 4 years at Bethel, I knew who was writing which articles and books. In fact, the initials of the writer and an additional series of initials of those who had seen and approved the article were always at the top of the first typewritten page. This also helped proofreaders and artists know who their department head might talk to if there was a question.
Listening to the Governing Body members rotate through their 15 minute talks every day, sometimes rambling unprepared, and sometimes well organized, it was easy to tell who deferred to whom, and which members were interested in Bible topics and which were interested in organizational rules, and rarely did the twain meet.
Between that experience of hearing them speak daily and knowing which Watchtower articles a GB member had written lets me know that everything R.Franz says in the book makes perfect sense with respect to those who spoke up and what they probably would have said during GB meetings. I should also add that I could sometimes hear L.Swingle and F.Rusk (non-GB) speaking to other writers from their offices. (Most GB members never wrote a Watchtower article, and most had almost nothing to do with Writing of any kind.) It also makes sense why, by way of explanation, R.Franz goes into the history of the creation of the Governing Body from the time it began in the early 70's.

Everything on a forum is partially opinion. But this is based primarily on the opinion of a person who spent 10 years in the Service Dept and nearly 30 years in the Writing Department. It was also the opinion of one of my roommates even after he became an elder and left Bethel. And it is my opinion, of course. I'm sure that many others who were at Bethel during these same years would agree.