Well, I just finished reading Crisis of Conscience thanks to IssacAustin! (page 4)

james_woods

Yes and Ray made his money from the book too! Enough to live on with the addition of a few more books down the line.

How did Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, and Franz, (and all the others) make their money?

Ice cream

DEBATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'CoC is not the holy Grail. It is just an imperfection of men fallacy argument! I'm surprised it still works on people'.

'IMPERFECTION OF MEN FALLACY'. You mean AD HOMINEM, which means to attack the person, to discredit them so that anything they say is to be rejected.

Ray Franz did not attack them personally, he described in detail the irreparable damage done to millions of lives, as a result of the teachings of a group of delusional psychotic pensioners, who believe themselves to be the WIZARD OF OZ.

'Imperfect men' ' God's true religion' = LOADED LANGUAGE = CULT CRITERIA = CULT!!!!!!!!! As defined by Dr Robert Lifton.

Jog on!

Botzwana

Well just to give an update...The uh, brothers used to come into my restaurant almost every weekend. Now that I haven't been there 2 months and ALL of them know I am attending spanish NONE have come into my place anymore. Even though I am not attending spanish but they have no way of knowing that....

To coin a phrase...

AH, FEEL THE LOVE!

DanaBug

I just got a copy yesterday (hold from my library, free of charge). I cannot put this down. And there's highlighting and notes in the margins, I would love to know that person's story too! I hope it helped them or whoever they were trying to help. Anyone here from Rome, Ga? Lol!

dontplaceliterature

***********

DISCLAIMER:

I really hate to hijack this thread, but I wasted my one 24hr post on that Window Washing thread last night. I don't think I'll have an opportunity to post this up here if I wait, and would like to get it done before the weekend. I will likely re-post it in its own thread after my posting restrictions are removed...so here goes:

***********

I just finished reading Crisis of Conscience today. I got the book just over a week ago, and finishing it so quickly was quite a feat for me personally. I just don't have enough time for private reading.

First, I'd like to say that it was, as many of you know, a great read. Although it got a little slow for me in Chapter 6 (Double Standards), that chapter was still quite informative. I just felt like the point could have been made a bit quicker. Generally, I didn't find anything in the book I was in disagreement with or that I didn't fully believe was true. I really tried to read the book from an objective stand point, expecting there would be plenty of bias, but my impresssion was that the language and descriptions were very fair, and honest.

I can't say that my mind as been totally blown, but it certainly was eye-opening. I've been sceptical about the Governing Body and the modus operandi of the organization since I was a teenager. This publication merely re-affirmed my suspicions. What I have come to appreciate more fully, though, is just how "programmed" we have become as Jehovah's Witnesses.

For anyone who is a current active member of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, and has doubts about the appropriateness of reading this book: Please note, this IS NOT an attack on individual witnesses and their justification for membership in the organization. It is not an attack on Jehovah's Witness doctrine. In part, it is a description of Ray Franz's experiences as a life-long Witness, and Governing Body member. It is also an honest description of organizational history, especially as to how it pertains to the evolution of our doctrine, and the methods in which decisions are made about which interpretation of Scripture we are to accept. Most of this information is not available to the average Jehovah's Witness, and while it may not necessarily cause you to defect from the orginization, it will certainly make you reconsider how seriously you should take advise from "The Faithful and Discreet Slave."

Spoiler Alert!

The funny thing is, I was expecting that Ray Franz was disfellowshipped for promoting doctrines contrary to the WBTS publications among members of the orginization. When, in fact, he was disfellowshipped for something completely different: Merely having a meal with a disassociated member of the congregation (When at the time, it had only recently become the Society's stand, that association with such ones was grounds for disfellowshipping). Last time I checked, there is only one reason a person could ever be removed from the congregation (according to what's in writing): UNREPENTANCE. He wasn't even given an opportunity to display it, before the rug was pulled out from under him. The manner in which his former friends on the Governing Body, and the local elders handled the situation, was heart-breaking.

Some specific comments (I'm sure I'd have many more if I had taken the time to write notes earlier in reading the book...):

On page 286, when Ed Dunlap was being examined by his Judicial Committee, the following exchange happened:

"When questioned about the organization's forming of rules, [Ed] stressed that the Christian is not under law but under undeserved kindness (or grace). He said that faith and love were greater forces for righteousness than rules could ever be. Robert Wallen said, "But Ed, I like to have someone tell me what to do." Having in mind the apostle's words at Hebrews, chapter five, verses 13 and 14, that Christians should not be like babes but like mature persons "who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong," Ed answered, "Then you need to read your Bible more.""

I litereally laughed out loud when I read that. It was a slam dunk comment in my opinion. I do appreciate the need of Christs followers to be sheeplike. But giving up your entire ability for reason and relying on being fed by spoon at the Watchtower Study each week, merely repeating what's in the paragraph (Like a child learning its first words), betrays the import of the Scripture in Hebrews mentioned in the quote. What's the point of having your "perceptive powers" trained, if you never are permetted to use them. You may argue that as a Witness you use them all the time. I really feel like this is untrue. Witnesses are discouraged, to the point of threats at times, from reading anything that contradicts an official Watchtower teaching, or pamphlets that come from another church. How then would you be able to perceive anything? How can you test the truth of any subject if you only know or ever see one side of it? (1 John 4:1)

On Page 287, when Ed Dunlap was told to "wait on the organization" if he did not agree with some of its teachings:

"If they were willing to accept the possibility that the organization's teaching on these points might be no more solid and enduring than [five years], how could they possibly use them as a basis for deciding whether this man was a loyal servant of God or an apostate?....

...The logic of such an approach can be understood only if one accepts and embraces the premise that an individual's interests--including his good name, his hard-earned reputation, his years of life spent in service--are all expendable if they interfere with an organization's objectives."

I've heard this very same thing before, and always assumed it was the course of humility to "keep quiet" and "fall in line." I appreciate fully the need to be sheep-like in following Christ's direction. It just had never occurred to me in the past that Christ's direction, and The Watchtower's direction could be two different things, at least not the way it FULLY occurs to me now.

On page 289, there is a Scriptural quote from Acts 20:29:

"I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness."

I had never really applied this to the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses before. Really, is Jesus not talking to those who are his followers? Who then are oppressive inside the Jehovah's Witness Congregation? Who are not treating the flock with tenderness? Could it be many of the Elders, Circiut Overseers, and other Branch Members have scattered throughout them these "opressive ones"? Certainly it must be so, because Jesus foretold it. How would a person know when a fellow beleiver has been treated abusively when these "abused ones" are likely expelled from the congregation before they have an opportunity to cry out for help from their fellow brothers. The meetings where there fate is decided are private, and secret. Once they are removed, the rest of the flock is threatened with such expulsion should they be found communicating with such ones. Really, how would you ever know if there WOLVES among you, unless you saw how the WOLVES devoured others in the fold?

I would not accuse the entire body of Elders world-wide of oppression, but you are a fool if you don't recognize that there is entire system in our organization built on conformity. You must recognize that this would exist even among the local body of elders, and that like it or not, the oppressive ones will likely have the strongest voice among the group. The rest of the elders will fall in line with the strongest voice, and then the entire spirit of the body becomes an oppressive one.

Page 293 contains a portion of a letter to all Circiut Overseers from the Branch. It says in part:

"Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. As mentioned in paragraph two, page 17 of the August 1, 1980, Watchtower, "The word 'apostasy' comes from a Greek term that means 'a standing away from,' 'a falling away, defection,' 'rebellion, abandonment.'" Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave, and persists in believeing other doctrine despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostatizing. Extended, kindly efforts should be put forth to readjust his thinking. However, if, after such extended efforts have been put forth to readjust his thinking, he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided through the 'slave class,' then appropriate judicial action should be taken."

For any Elders or recent Ex-Elders on this forum: Is this still the official stand from the Branch regarding apostasy? Could I be disfellowshipped SOLEY because I do not agree that Christ's presence began in 1914?

If that is still the official stand, then I should have been yanked into the "bad room" a long time ago. I was on a shephearding call about 4 months ago with my Coordinator, and specifically said TO A TEENAGER (in front of his parents) who was having problems listening to his parents instructions: "...you might as well get used to going along with things you don't agree with. When you get a job, you will do things your boss asks that you disagree with. When you get married...you will do things your wife wants you to do, despite your feelings. As a Ministerial Servant and lifelong servant of Jehovah, I can give you a list of things I don't agree with that we teach as an organization, but I still have to be humble and follow Jehovah's Organization."

If this is the official stand, then either this elder agrees with what I said, and feels the same way...or he just didn't hear me properly. I was very clear when I said it though. No doubt about it.

On page 296 Ray says regarding the Governing Body:

"The concept or mental image they have of "the organization" seems almost to take on a personality of its own, so that the concept itself controls them, moves them or restrains them, by molding their thinking, their attitudes, their judgements. I do not believe that many of them would take the position they now take if they thought only in terms of God, Christ, the Bible, and the interests -- not of an organization -- but of their Christian brothers, fellow humans. The insertion of the existing concept of "the organization," however, radically alters their thinking and viewpoint, becomes, in fact, the dominant, controlling force."

This made a lot of sense to me. Keeping the status quo is more imporant than keeping someone in the congregation by acknowledging fault, or passing on suspected mistakes. When I wrote down this note, I had something really profound on my mind, but now it escapes me. Perhaps your comments on this section will jar my memory?

On page 310 Ray mentions the "predictable" course of his Judicial meeting about associating with Peter Gregerson:

"Dan referred to First Corinthians, chapter five, in support of the position. I pointed out that the apostle there spoke of not associating with persons called brothers who were fornicators, idolaters, revilers, drunkards and extortioners. I had no such persons among my associates and would not want them in my home. But surely they did not consider Peter Gregerson as included among that kind of people? Neither responded."

Where in the scriptures is the justifcation the Witness use for disfellowshipping on any other grounds besides those 5 things mentioned? Does anyone know?

On page 330-331 the story is related of two brothers (heavyweights ) in Ireland who went to visit the Governing Body to get some questions answered over the issue of disassociated ones. Many of the brothers in Ireland were up in arms over this, and these two wanted to have the matter straightened out, so that they could admonish the friends back home and set things straight. They were told:

"Put it in writing."

The attitude and response that these two men received from The Governing Body made me so mad I wanted to throw the book across the room. I cannot express the level of disappointment I felt. We constantly brag about the brotherly love that permiates every level of the fabric of our organization. Clearly, this is not the case. Those two would have had an easier time getting face to face with the President of The United States.

Pages 340-341 brought up a point that I had never considered before, when comparing The Watchtower Organization to the Jewish people of ancient times:

"Above all, the teaching that they are, exclusively, the one people on earthy with whom God has dealings, and that the direction they receive from teh Governing Body is from a divine "channel," helps produce a sense of cohesion, of specialness. The view of all other persons as "worldlings" contributes to this feeling of a close-knit relationship...Because of this, I think it is equally as difficult for the average Witness to contemplate serving God without [Branch Offices, Assembly Halls, Kingdom Halls] as it was for Jewish persons in the first century to contemplate such service apart from the religious arrangements they were accustomed to. The impressive temple buildings and courtyards at Jerusalem, with temple service carried out by a large staff of hundreds and thousands of dedicated workers, Levites and priests, their claim to be exclusively the chosen people of God, with all others viewed as unclean, stood in tremendous contrast to the Christians of that time, who had no large buildings, who met in simple homes, who had no separate priestly or Levite class, and who humbly acknowledged that 'in every nation the man that fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to him.'"

The feeling of Jehovah's Witness exceptionalism is apparent among the individuals in the congregation. Unfortunately, it is also apparrent to some in the world. My employer specifically complained to me about this. A prevoius employee who had been a Witness constantly badgered everyone at the office to death about the Truth. She always had her Bible on her desk, and was perceived as fanatical. I personally know this woman, and she is not a fanatic, she's just trying to be a "good Witness." Nonetheless, the result is the same. This tendency to be "special" has annoyed me very much of the last 10 years. It seems so...."un-Christian" and elitest. Where is the humility in that attitude?

I had never really considered the fact that the early Christians were more private with their meetings. "Congregations" were in a more informal atmosphere, which I have often argued was more conducive to meaningful Scriptural discussions. Then, all at once, our only chance of that ever evolving was eliminated: The bookstudy arrangement was scrapped.

On page 378 the following point was made:

"The membership of Jehovah's Witnesses experiences a constant entry and departure of thousands of persons annually. As a result of that turnover, along with a measure of annual growth, today the membership contains a larger percentage of new members who know virtually nothing of the excited expectations stirred up regarding 1975, and even less of earlier failed perdictions."

This also is monumentally important. I had never really thought of this before, but am now going to take inventory of my congregation to see just how many were around when that happened. I wonder what percentage of the orginization is currently made up of such individuals?

On page 382 regarding "The Anointed Class":

"Outside of the [Governing] Body, being of the "anointed" counts for nothing as to becoming an elder, a traveling overseer, member of a Branch Committee, or holding any other organizational position."

I have always recognized this to be the case. It's funny that The Watchtower officially teaches that it is the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" that is appointed over the "domestics," and that this title represents all within the annointed class. Unless I am in error. Yet, indiviual "annointed" brother have no more authority or "say" than the average Joe. That makes the whole doctrine of "Faithful and Discreet Slave = Annointed" kind of pointless. The should just change the teaching to "The Faithful and Discreet Slave = The Governing Body."

I'm sure there is much more that I could say about the book, and likely will once the comments start coming in. The only contrary thing I have to say is this:

Maybe I misunderstood him, but it seems to me that Raymond Franz believes that everyone who gets salvation will experience it by means of a Heavenly Ressurection. I just don't think this adds up, wth regard to the Scriptures I am familiar with. Could it be that there is a disconnect in the translation/understanding of the term Paradise versus that of Heaven?

I have no desire at all to live in Heaven. The Scriptures specifically say that God didn't form The Earth "simply for nothing," but rather to be "inhabited." -- Isaiah 45:18

Common sense would tell me that the Earth is not a "Heavenly Springboard" or "Heavinly Testing Station." While I do agree that the number 144,000 mentioned in Revelation is likely/possibly figurative, I just don't see the logic in reasoning that everyone who gains salvation goes to heaven.

Looking forward to your comments.....

dontplaceliterature

I might also add that the formatting on this forum sucks. :)

Mad Sweeney

I'm with you on everything you said, dontplaceliterature.

I also want to comment on this from DanaBug:

I just got a copy yesterday (hold from my library, free of charge). I cannot put this down. And there's highlighting and notes in the margins, I would love to know that person's story too! I hope it helped them or whoever they were trying to help. Anyone here from Rome, Ga? Lol!

I had the same thing in the library version of Combatting Cult Mind Control I read. Notes in the margins here and there relating the cult methods of the Moonies and others to the JWs. I hope that person managed to break free, too.

sd-7

Glad to see that Crisis of Conscience has once again helped someone. You know, CoC was actually one of the last great books I read, after I'd done my own independent research and discovered dishonest scholarship in some of the literature and statements in the literature that seemed very wrong to me. I was scared to read it, as it was officially an "apostate book". Maybe the red letters on the cover scared me, too...

But I found that Raymond Franz gave voice to so many of the concerns I myself had had, but had never been able to lay out so eloquently. I could almost anticipate what he was going to say next about certain things.

Well...also....I had to respond to 'debator' on this statement:

His fruitage is one of division and that in itself proves his actions were false.

Is there a meaningful difference between any 'division' he caused and the kind of harm that has been wrought upon countless people by dishonest manipulation and the abuse of scripture? If you blast other religions for doing the same things you do, there's really no difference.

The JWs' fruitage is one of false prophecy, lies, taking of scriptures out of context, academic dishonesty, spiritual abuse, and the deaths of innocent people due to unscriptural rules about medical treatment and other matters. That in itself proves THEIR actions ARE false.

--sd-7

Hoffnung

Dontplaceliterature: I am not an elder, never was, but I know for a fact that, yes, you can be disfellowshipped for expressing doubt about 1914 or other so called key doctrines. However, most BOE will only take you before a JC when you start promoting this to others in the congregations or other JWs and the news gets back to your congregation. Or it is used in combination with other things like meeting with DFed ones. There is a WT in 1986 about this subject. In theory just having a different idea and admitting as much is sufficient.

dontplaceliterature

I just wondered if there was anyone who had that in writing, from a more recent source than the 1980s. I'm sure it's subject to how loving or cruel your local body is. I'm just suprised that the Coordinator wasn't put on alert by my comment, and didn't even bother to ask me what my differences were. Maybe he feels like if I don't tell him, then he can avoid disciplining me for it?

Well, I just finished reading Crisis of Conscience thanks to IssacAustin!

Share this