by Emery 43 Replies latest jw friends
james_woods: I think that they will always be very sure after Ray Franz to only appoint total sycophants - no more real thinkers.
And now we're seeing the results of that, ridiculous doctrines like that incredibly stupid "Overlapping Generation" nonsense and the increasingly shrill attempts and total control and manipulation.
OBEY, OBEY, OBEY!
Agree with james. Let's hope a Department head jumps ship and writes a tell-all.
Unlikely.
As far as I can understand from reading his book, the only reason he went public was because the GB wanted to make an example out of him and disfellowshipped him.
Even after leaving the GB he was content to remain a Witness.
If they ever feel the urge to remove a GB member again, I doubt they will make the mistake of disfellowshipping him. Especially in the light of today's information age.
I have to agree with the above. Plus the factors already mentioned that helped Ray Franz. He did research to develop the AID book. None of these guys do that kind of research anymore. So they find some total duds to appoint eventually, and nothing will really wake them up.
All 7 GB. members together couldn't light a candle next to Ray Franz.
This is true, it's amazing how often people forget that Ray Franz did not leave voluntarily. Even if another GB member does have doubts the others will probably not do a repeat of the Ray Franz ouster.
Do you really think the Legal Department would allow anyone to join without signing a non-disclosure contract?
The only way I could see anything possible to the likes of Crisis of Consciences is a posthumous commentary/notations shared by the surviving wife or child(ren) of a GB.
Even then I could see legal action to block publication.
Do you really think the Legal Department would allow anyone to join without signing a non-disclosure contract?
Yes.
I know I'm going to get grilled for saying this, but I don't see Ray Franz as some kind of saint that some make him out to be.
He didn't seem to experience any crisis of conscience while 'spinning' and lying for the WTBTS as he wrote all those articles, or serving as a WTBTS apologist when he KNEW he was supporting unscriptural policy (I remember him writing about having to cherry-pick evidence to support the date for the first destruction of the Temple, and when they couldn't find any, he shifted gears to falsely attacking the credibility of the experts who offered the correct answer).
It was only after it became apparent to him that he was effectively kicked out in a power struggle, and wouldn't hold ANY position of responsibility in the JWs (not even as an elder: that idea was shot down from Brooklyn when the local congregation tried to do it, after he resigned from GB) and AFTER being DFed, that he wrote COC. He probably decided that if he couldn't play the game any longer, then no one else could: he'd show them. Sure, it's childish, but that's human nature.
He'd have earned more respect from me had he written COC WHILE on GB, published, and THEN resigned from GB and publicly DAing himself before they could DF him.
Not that it matters: his book rings pretty true to me and to those I've talked to who actually "served" (slave-labored) at Bethel when he was there. I believe what he did was incredibly helpful in exposing the scam, and hence his motives are not a concern to me: while the motives MAY be suspect, the conclusion is right/just. I doubt he'd have killed the goose that laid the golden egg, had he believed he'd be able to continue benefiting from it.
Besides, does anyone really care if there's ethical members on the GB, when you KNOW it's a Spiritual Ponzi scheme, a scam? The entire endeavor is unethical, morally-bankrupt, since it's based on lies (the Bible being the largest accumulation of unproven hypotheses and lies stacked onto each others, like a Tower of Babel).
This is true, it's amazing how often people forget that Ray Franz did not leave voluntarily. Even if another GB member does have doubts the others will probably not do a repeat of the Ray Franz ouster.
Tried to post this before, but it is gone. Guess I clicked out of my post before submitting.
Both Ed Dunlap and Ray Franz were actually REFORMERS - not wild-eyed anti-Watchtower rebels. Ray really thought that he could convince the rest of the GB to reform through scriptural reasoning. He got burned.
Ed Dunlap was more the activist progressive. He was, for one thing, unwilling to compromise on the notion that the 144,000 doctrine was a complete figment of fantasy - thus he would never himself partake of the emblems under false pretenses. He was less convinced than Ray that real reform could ever take place - but still tried his best. This explains why he also would not compromise to stay in when the sparks flew - and they did offer to let him stay if he would only be quiet and quit making waves.
I think it is highly unlikely that the GB will ever allow another free thinker like Ray Franz into their midst.
Slimboyfat...
yes
Giggles.... oh the implications that could mean within Legal
