Ray Franz blamed for 1975 false prophecy

by EndofMysteries 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Separation of Powers

  The ORACLE Frederick W. Franz spoke the words on 1975. He wrote them down in a book, in magazines, gave them in talks and the rest just followed along with it, regardless of their own suspicions or Biblical knowledge. It's funny, Schroeder was a Biblical heavy, very intelligent, very learned. It appears, however, that he didn't have the sense to question Franz' chronological madness. That is where the intimidation aspect of the GB is so evident. With all the old guard gone, expect some radical changes and some stupid adjustments. There is bound to be one or two of the current GB whose positions or "understanding" simply amazes the others. Just as Freddy amazed the group, they will promote their foolishness much to the chagrin of the organization and the foolish people in it.

  Raymond Franz had absolutely nothing to do with it....

  Propaganda is a wonderful thing!!!

  SOP
• 

  steve2

  To answer the question raised in the OP - and to resist going off on a tangent about the ins and outs of who said and did what - I never heard the witnesses gossip about Ray Franz and/or the apostates being responsibile for 1975. Even when "worldly"media publicized Ray Franz's departure from Watchtower headquarters, there was never any comment or implication about 1975.

  Lots of rumours did circulate in the congregations, the main ones being about "certain ones" at Bethel becoming caught up in their own ideas and being too proud to remain in "the Truth".
• 

  Finkelstein

  In reality it was Ray's brother Fred under the tutelage of Nathan Knorr who created for a second time this 6000 years of man's existence doctrine.

  The WTS. had previously used this marketing scheme previously in the early 1900's .

  Something most JWS old and new have little knowledge of.

  Modern JWS new to the religion have little knowledge of the past doctrines put forth by the WTS. publishing house.

  They are more pushed to read the lastest mags or books.
• 

  compound complex

  In reality it was Ray's brother Fred under the tutelage of Nathan Knorr who created for a second time this 6000 years of man's existence doctrine.

  Hi, Finklestein:

  Uncle Fred

  under the tutelage . . . According to Edmund Gruss' interviewees in THE FOUR PRESIDENTS, Knorr was no scholar and had given FWF carte blanche on matters of doctrine, but was furious with Franz for the embarrassment he caused the Society over 1975 -- not public knowledge, I'm sure.

  I will try to get back with verification of the above once I locate the book.

  Thanks.

  CC
• 

  Quendi

  As steve2 has stated in response to the OP, Raymond Franz was never blamed by the WTS for the 1975 fiasco. His subsequent dismissal came over disputes about the identity and destiny of the "great crowd" mentioned in the book of Revelation. Even that disagreement was covered up in the WTS official annoucement of his dismissal. It is also important to note that when Raymond Franz was exiled from Bethel, he was not disfellowshipped. That came later.

  The rumors about rampant "apostasy" at Bethel came in the wake of Raymond Franz's departure. Indeed, a witch hunt was launched at headquarters during that time and many were kicked out. Others saw the handwriting on the wall and left of their own accord, some returning quietly to their home congregations while others left the organization altogether. Raymond Franz was responsible for the change in thinking about the difference between "service" to God and a "ministry" to him. As a result, Our Kingdom Ministry was changed to Our Kingdom Service and the Theocratic Ministry School was renamed the Theocratic School. After Raymond Franz was removed from the Governing Body, those names reverted back to their originals.

  It was a confusing time in the organization. The Bethel purges, while never discussed openly in any of the WTS publications, were seen by many of us rank-and-file Witnesses as "proof" that Christ was watching over his organization and, after giving apostates enough time to repent, then exposed them for their evil works and "cleansed" the organization by having them reproved, removed or disfellowshipped. It speaks powerfully about the cognitive dissonance that I and so many others suffered that we never questioned the legitimacy of the organization itself when we should have realized that all these fault lines showed that God was not directing the WTS at all.

  So I'm not surprised that some came to believe that Raymond Franz promoted 1975. Maybe that was their way of dealing with the shock of his banishment from Brooklyn. But the fact is that the WTS has used the intervening decades to repair the facade the 1975 episode had severely damaged. Most Witnesses today, unless they were eyewitnesses to those now long gone days, have no idea what really happened.

  Quendi
• 

  joe134cd

  In all the decades I was going to meetings,although I was familiar with the 1975 debacle, I had never heard of Ray Franz. I vaguely remembering hearing about a cleaning out in bethel although I never knew who was involved. I found CoC a fascinating book and insightful into the inner workings of the GB. What astounds me is just what I didn't know.
• 

  Terry

  I don't know where the idea comes from that Ray was "asked to leave" Bethel or that he was kicked out.

  If memory serves, Ray took it upon himself to offer his own resignation.

  If he were held in disregard, is it likely the Society would pay him $10,000?
• 

  jookbeard

  no greater fraud and liar then mad Freddie, also a sexual deviant
• 

  Terry

  "After I resigned as a member of the Governing Body in May, 1980, I received numerous calls from newspapers and magazines wanting information about the situation existent within the organization. I consistently directed the inquirers to the headquarters in Brooklyn. The inquirers, in turn, consistently said that they had tried that avenue with no success: “No comment.” My reply was simply that I could not be their source of information. I maintained that position for nearly two years. What happened in those two years, not merely as regards myself but as regards others, caused me to reassess that position. During those two years, the motives, character and conduct of persons who conscientiously disagreed with the organization were portrayed in the worst of terms. Their concern to put God’s Word first was represented as the product of ambition, rebellion, pride, as sin against God and Christ. No allowance was made for the possibility that any of them acted out of sincerity, love of truth or integrity to God. No effort to distinguish was made, but all were “lumped” together. Any misconduct or wrong attitude on the part of some who had left the organization was attributed to all who have left. For those who did display a wrong attitude, no effort was made to appreciate the part that frustration, disappointment and hurt may have played in that conduct. An enormous amount of rumor and even gutter-level gossip circu- lated among Witnesses, internationally. Faithful Christians with high standards of morality were spoken about as being wife swappers, homosexuals, hypocrites, egoists interested in establishing their own personal cult. Older ones were often dismissed as being “mentally disturbed” or “senile.” Crisis of Conscience pages 31,32
• 

  Terry

  "Karl Adams, who was in charge of the Writing Department when I entered it in 1965, explained to me that the president by then had given the department considerable latitude as to the reworking of such material. He pointed out the one exception, namely, any material written by the vice president, stating that “what comes from Brother Franz is viewed as ‘ready for publication,’ with no adjust- ments to be made.”

  "Here again, nonetheless, the president himself could overrule. As an example, in 1967, President Knorr sent to Karl Adams, Ed Dunlap and myself, copies of a “Questions from Readers” that Fred Franz had prepared and turned in for publication. Just the year before, a book had been published, authored by Fred Franz. in which it was pointed out that the year 1975 would mark the end of 6,000 years of human history. Governing Body 73 Not for many decades had there been such a sense of excitement among Jehovah’s Witnesses as these statements generated. A tremendous surge of expectation developed, far surpassing the feeling of the end’s nearness that I and others had experienced in the early 1940s. That is why we were amazed to see that the “Question from Readers” Fred Franz had worked up now argued that the end of 6,000 years would actually come one year earlier than had just been published in the new book, namely that it would come in 1974 instead of 1975. As Knorr told Karl Adams, when he received this material he went to Fred Franz and asked why the sudden change. Franz replied with definiteness, “This is the way it is. It’s 1974.” Knorr did not feel at ease with the change and that is why he sent the three of us copies with his request that we submit our individual observations. The argument endeavored to show that the count of time set out in the new book was off one year as to the time of the Flood and that one more year needed to be added, with the result that the end of 6,000 years would come up one year earlier, in 1974 instead of 1975. Each of the three of us respectfully wrote that we did not think the material should be published, that it would have an extremely unsettling effect on the brothers. 31 The president evidently agreed, since the material prepared by the vice president was never published and this was quite a rare occurrence." Crisise of Conscience by Ray Franz