Ray Franz -some personal recollections.

by Gilgamesh 41 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  IslandWoman

  Farkel,

  All the other nit-picking and side-taking is bullshit

  I presume you're not referring to Amazing's, COJ's or Jim Penton's posts as bullshit. You must mean the rest of us.

  We have been well trained my friend.

  IW
• 

  Pathofthorns

  nice post

  Path
• 

  nancee park

  If a woman says "my husband told me he commited adultery" WTS says that's Witness #1

  If an elder says "the woman who said this is credible" WTS says he counts as Witness #2

  Yet WTS won't count a pedophile victims testimony for Witness #1 and an elder's witness that the victim is truthful as Witness #2.

  Why?

  Maybe Ted Jarasc and his old boy buddies would like to comment? Chickens CTT (Covering Their Tails)?

  Edited by - nancee park on 1 November 2002 18:42:17
• 

  minimus

  Gil, Thank you for that insightful post! I would like to invite you to share more of your thoughts here. What you said, was mentioned in a positive, endearing way. Most people will always appreciate those types of comments.....Keep it up!
• 

  messenger

  A satire,

  This is my first post. Please forgive its length, its bad timing, its preachiness, its prejudices, etc. It's just one more opinion that I feel obligated to add.

  In the interests of disclosure I'll reveal a little about my own bias. I think of Charlie Manson as a dear friend. I said good-bye to Charlie and his groupies at graduation on our last day at High school. To be honest, however, I have only seen Charlie a couple times since then and have only spo to him a few times by phone. I wish I knew Bill Bowen better. I have supported the silentlamb's work and have high hopes for SL's potential both to wake up JWs and help the cause of the abused.

  Both Charlie and Bill have been put on pedestals by some, and that's understandable. I know Charlie well enough to know that, although he has always handled the pedestal with "grace and polish," he does not like the pedestal. Even before Charlie left the high school, his rare combination of humility, honesty, sincerity and good works endeared him to many people. I was privileged to listen to his morning comments about the Beatles for several years from the time Kennedy died until Charlie left high school. I truly believe that the majority of those in high school preferred to hear Charlie's comments about the Beatles to those of any other kid in school. I knew many who would gladly skip breakfast just to avoid the grandstanding, the haughtiness, the harsh admonitions or longwinded ramblings of some of the others. Admitting this out loud would have embarrassed Charlie, but I heard it stated often.

  More to the point, I remember what seemed to be his favorite subjects: justice, righteousness, the spirit of the law over the letter of the law, the principle of a true cult summed up in blind trust and obedience. One could easily understand his spirit, and therefore no one needed to hear him speak directly about rape, abuse, or murder to know exactly where he stood on these subjects, or to feel the depth of his human compassion. Just because some of Charlie's friends killed a few people and they said he told them to, do we really have to blame Mr. Manson? For that matter, no one needs to see me quote a bunch of scriptures, but they aren't to preach. I just thought it relevant to the discussion to show how awkward and incongruous Bill's comments must appear to anyone trying to imagine them actually coming from Charlie. Charlie spoke so often of freedom from law meaning that cult members are not to be motivated by rules. It had nothing to do with abandoning good principles (and good Laws) that serve to make justice and loving-kindness easier to administer. It would also mean that no one should be made to live by or impose a rule when its implementation resulted in disobedience. Charlie, through those talks about the Beatles, was probably the first to help me realize that both Jesus and Paul were saying that a good Law, even a Biblical law, SHOULD be broken whenever he felt it was really, really important to do so. Though some of his followers may have caused some harm it has little to do or detract from the leadership skills of this great man. Personally I do not think he would harm a fly, especially helpless lambs.

  Specifically, the spirit of Paul's use of the two-witness rule was to promote justice and avoid unfair and false accusations. If only this had of been fully applied in Charlies crimes he would have never spent a day in prison. As Bill has emphasized, however, using it for cases of child abuse could easily result in miscarriage of justice. This is a perfect example of where the "Ietter of the law kills." Yet the spirit of that Law is still "protection from injustice," and it continues to represent an excellent spirit even when love might "forbid" its use.

  There could be myriad reasons why Bill chose the words and claims about Charlie. While Charlie's actions as Bill pointed out may seem rather obvious, I have my own beliefs about it. But I'd rather forgive Bill than judge him. I still believe him capable of doing good, but I am concerned for the future of Bill's leadership and especially for the good work that he has championed. I can imagine a lot of folks will not be very forgiving, depending on how well they know Charlie. It's so ironic that people have asked others to tone down the so-called attacks on Bill, for the sake of the organization (Silent Lambs). How can it do it's good work with a sullied reputation? It sounded all too familiar.

  It is understandable that those who know Bill's reputation and good works are as anxious to defend him as I am anxious to defend Charlie. Also, Bill's work has meant so much to many people on a very personal level, and those people especially would be expected to give Bill the benefit of the doubt. It might even be possible to entertain a suspicion that the 64-year-old Charlie Manson had perhaps begun feeling the fringes of senility. But a careful review of Charlies interviews in prison brings me great joy because I can see he is ever the spiritual, clear-thinking man I have known for a quarter century. I feel ashamed that I have not kept more closely in touch.

  Edited by - messenger on 1 November 2002 21:50:45
• 

  CoolBreeze

  Messenger, as far as satire goes, I think that was pretty weak. I do believe most 14 year olds could do better. Just my opinion.

  Anton
• 

  gumby

  Coolbreeze,

  Agreed....pretty damn lame.
• 

  Gilgamesh

  messenger,

  I'm sorry my opinion apparently touched a nerve. I must also agree with previous posters that you have an odd sense of what constitutes satire. Is there anything remotely funny about repeating my post nearly verbatim, except for replacing every instance of Ray Franz with Charles Manson? The recent innuendo from several posts attempting to represent Ray Franz as some bloodguilty cult leader seemed in bad taste. In any case, however, the blatant formula "Ray Franz = Charles Manson" shouldn't be left unchallenged. You may call it satire, but I'd think some might see it more as literary "rape."

  Since I'm a newbie, I read a few of your previous posts to get a better idea of your mindset. I liked your post where you replaced Jehovah with Jaracz in the Jaracz' Witnesses satire.

  I'm not all that careful with my own typing and grammar, but I've worked as an editor/proofreader in the past and I noticed some things you probably weren't aware of:

  1. First I noticed that both you (messenger) and silentlambs have shown a propensity to list things in numbered lists. (like I'm doing here)

  2. You both tend to break up single compound words into two words: (e.g., turnabout=turn about, blood guilty, first hand, etc.).

  3. You share a few words and expressions that aren't necessarily as common among other posters. (e.g., I smell a rat, claptrap, etc)

  4. You both format dates and numbers in the same way and you both use "WT" almost exclusively, rather than spelling it out or abbreviating WTS or WTBS, as some others do.

  5. silentlambs also has a post referencing Charles Manson, which contains a similar idea to one that you have expressed:

  "As you may recall Charles Manson has people who protect his name down to this day, that does not make what he caused to happen right and that also does not make every thing he did wrong. Yet evidence shows people were murdered due to the policy he instigated of absolute control over his followers. I guess a few misguided individuals could say the authorities blew the whole thing out of proportion and gave all Manson followers a bad rap. The dead bodies argue otherwise. ...
  regards,
  bill

  Do The Math II

  Oct 18, 2001 00:13

  Don't get the idea I'm saying that you might be Bill Bowen; I'm not saying that at all. I have to admit, however, that I did get suspicious when I saw a post from silentlambs where he said:

  "I [Bill Bowen] am the most dangerous threat to the wt organization, a programmed witness who is fighting for a righteous cause. It will not go away and whatever you do to me will just make things worse for wt. wt please defend yourself, try to df me and silence the messenger....you will be punished ...Remember ... Jehu? He was just one man who was right and as a result killed about everyone in charge of god's organization at that time...I am to mad to be afraid and willing to do whatever by whatever means necessary to shout from the treetops this must be changed. The silentlambs will speak, wt will be silenced and humiliated for their shameful conduct."

  Fighters Against Children

  May 8, 2002 00:29

  And I was even more suspicious when I saw how you accidentally(?) signed the following 7/12/02 post "silentlambs" even though you sent it under "messenger":

  "Who is Ray Franz? Does anyone care anymore? I never read his book and I tell you the reason why. With all the press coverage on the molestation issue, why has he yet to make one comment to the media other than defend WT policy? If he really is the man of ethics as he presents himself to be, why does he not see children being raped as a problem? Twenty-five year old problems with WT is old news, a lot has happened since then and he seems not to care. He could have helped, he has done nothing.

  silentlambs"

  Re: If Ray Fanz had never.....?

  Jul 12, 2002 14:14

  "Hmmm" was curious also and followed your post with:

  messenger,

  Were you signing your post Silentlambs'? Was this Bill Bowen using messenger's account?

  But, of course, you are not that same Jehu-like avenging messenger trying to bring down the WT. After all, for example, you went to Elder's school at a time when Bill couldn't have according to another post.

  So my point is this: it's easy to believe that someone is someone that they aren't. Even after ostensibly digging up all that "evidence," maybe even convincing ourselves, we could still be wrong. Therefore, I think you are wrong in who you think Ray Franz is.

  Satirically yours,

  Gilgamesh
• 

  onacruse

  Gilgamesh: Excellent repost! I like that you did a lot of examination.

  "it's easy to believe that someone is someone that they aren't."

  That's why I firmly believe in WYSIWYG...personal honesty will show through, as will inconsistency. Unknown to me, bikerchic read every one of my posts, to see if I was what I said I was.

  messenger: I don't intend by this to insinuate anything about you.

  Craig
• 

  COJ

  TO GILGAMESH:

  Ray asked me to tell you that you are welcome to contact him if you so choose. He thinks he knows who you are, but is not sure.

  Best wishes,

  Carl Olof Jonsson