Talk:Raymond Franz

NPOV

I've tried to neutralize some of the POV of the article, but it still seems to be a bit slanted. I don't know anything about the subject to delve further. Al 17:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, neither does anyone else! We're left to assume that Franz's perspectives are the final word on events as they really happened (see below, re: his interpretation of passages in WT material). Keep in mind that we're only getting his side of the story. So this article reads more like a synopsis of his book/s rather than a fair and unbiased representation of the facts. --bUcKaRoO 13:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"We're left to assume that Franz's perspectives are the final word on events as they really happened (see below, re: his interpretation of passages in WT material)?" Then please, do tell how you verified the precise article spoken of, and how you came to a different conclusion despite having "to assume that Franz's perspectives are the final word." The fact is, any account you read, whether the author be Raymond Franz, the Watch Tower Society, a Bible writer, or me, involves stuff that you just weren't there for (unless you actually were). At least Franz names names, provides exact citations, provides photocopies of letters, etc. If you want to get into well-known liars and wildly-out-of-context quoters, however, we can discuss Watch Tower Society publications. In any case, the fact that Raymond Franz wrote his book 22 years ago and has not received a single lawsuit from the lawsuit-happy Watch Tower Society is basically their endorsement as to the veracity of his story.Tommstein 09:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How did I 'verify' the article? By actually reading it (I wonder how many of Franz's readers have bothered to do this?). Franz's presentation of the article's contents is - purposely or not - misleading (again, see below). Your concluding line of argumentation is typical of so much anti-WT rhetoric but glaringly suspect.

Having read the tone and phrasing of one or two of the comments on this page (including your own), I have no wish to encourage further WT mud-slinging, nor do I think Wikipedia is the place. There are plenty of sites out there in cyber-space where folks can indulge in such things. --bUcKaRoO 19:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But, but, I thought we had to rely on whatever Raymond said? What is this 'verification' you speak of?Tommstein 03:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you are misunderstanding me. My comment was in response to the original post which questioned the neutrality of the Raymond Franz article under discussion. I agreed, stating that it did appear to be presenting Franz's point of view as unquestionable fact.

With regard to the example quoted from his book (from the WT magazine, regarding the alleged misuse of the Greek term 'naos'), may I ask if you've read the specific WT article in its original form? Or are you simply accepting Franz's paraphrasing of it as authentic? --bUcKaRoO 14:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to the original post was that this doesn't read like "a fair and unbiased representation of the facts." How are you qualified to make that statement? Do you have a better, more accurate version of the story? The article probably appears to present Franz's story as "unquestionable fact" because no one has questioned it with different facts, and they've had 22 years now. People that don't like what he has to say are bound to try to call him a liar because what he said is most inconvenient for them, but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia is supposed to entertain their groundless personal conspiracy theories born from not hearing what they want to hear. Are you similarly weary of the Watch Tower Society lying when you read their stuff, in this case there even being demonstrable lies on their record? Or do you implicitly assume they're not lying, despite their record of doing so? As a famous man once said (roughly), "We're left to assume that [their] perspectives are the final word on events as they really happened.... Keep in mind that we're only getting [their] side of the story."Tommstein 09:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to have a, "more accurate version of the story," to tell when an individual's opinion is being presented as fact. Nor did the original poster, who admittedly didn't, "know anything about the subject," and would have no particular axe to grind. You appear to be obsessed with this 'lying' business. We're not talking about the deliberate telling of known untruths here. Why would the WTS invest time and energy, better spent on much more important things, pursuing one man's percieved grievances against them?

Despite what outsiders may think, JWs certainly don't believe their Governing Body to be infallible. Mistakes have been made. Presumptuous, errant, predictions in regard to Bible prophecy have been offered, as they have freely admitted. These are hardly reasons, in themselves, to dismiss the whole movement as some kind of fraud.

Let's keep this in perspective. Peter lied three times over in denying Christ. God still used him to further his purpose. He went on to work miracles and even had the privilege of penning books of the NT. The nation of Israel - Jehovah's chosen people - is a prime example of God's patience with imperfect human organizations. --bUcKaRoO 14:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You need a more accurate version of the story to imply that this one isn't, because otherwise you're flinging crap all over the walls and hoping something sticks. Also, some of the untruths coming out of the Watch Tower Society are in fact deliberate. Read up on the various accounts of people providing them volumes of proof that there's no way in hell Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC in the 70's and early 80's, and what happened to all those people, and get back with me. At this point, they've been engaging in that bald-faced lie, with knowledge that it's untenable, for over a quarter of a century. I don't think that's their only deliberate lie, but I'm not going to create a list of lies now.

Also, note that Peter's momentary weakness did not consist of over a century of misleading while claiming the guidance of the holy spirit. Show me Peter pumping people full of crap for parts of three centuries and still having God's approval and you'll have a case.

While the 'official' story is that the Governing Body is fallible, you go start talking about that and challenging them and get back with me about what happens. The religion can say one thing and do another all it wants, but that doesn't really fool anybody but members, and only those that stay at that.Tommstein 08:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there could be found a more accurate version of Raymond Franz's side of the story than that penned by Raymond Franz himself(!). Seriously though, to suggest, that by reminding folks that his is but one side of the story (and at that, a side which appears, under casual scrutiny, to be less than objective), I'm somehow guilty of that which you mention is a bit much. Especially, in light of my earlier comments about the indulgence in such tactics and, may I say, your own voracity in promoting clearly unfounded accusations against people.

Which brings us to your 607 BC comments. Now, before you can have a 'lie', there must be an undisputed 'truth'. Only when a party knowingly promotes an established untruth can they be accused of lying or misleading others. The current impasse we have reached, where popular scholarly opinion disputes the WT's (actually, the Bible's) timeline of events without unquestionably verifying such as truth, clearly doesn't qualify as that which you are insisting on.

With regard to your final comments, I can only assume that a person who openly "challenges" an organization of which they are a part is desirous either of prominence for themselves within that organization or a swift exit from it. Either way, that person knows the rules and can surely have no complaints when they disregard them. --bUcKaRoO 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pissing away more of my time doing the equivalent of repeating myself to a wall, I'll just mention that it is an established, known, guaranteed fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC, not 607 BC. Here are some links should you wish to educate yourself on the evidence, which I know you won't:

http://www.towerwatch.com/articles/the_1914_doctrine.htm

http://www.607v587.com/websitepage4.htm

http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev1.htm

http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/gentile2.htm

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/time.pdf (go to page 25, although the page itself says 23, and take a look at the distribution of Neo-Babylonian tablets that have been found, and read the preceding discussion about them)

When you've read all that, you'll be less unqualified to bring this subject up again.Tommstein 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, sir, it was you who raised the issue. Further, how can you talk about 'guaranteed facts' in the same sentence as the unsubstantiated date of, "587/586 BC?" One of your links talks about, "compelling evidence," but this is not the same as absolute proof, as you must acknowledge.

See:

http://www.2001translation.com/Jerusalem's%20destruction%20587%20or%20607.htm (for some sound reasons why the Bible record insists on the date 607 BCE)

http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm (for some sound reasons why the accepted secular date of '587/586 BC' is by no means 'guaranteed') --bUcKaRoO 19:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess I did originally bring it up. Although I wasn't the one that started disputing the date. I'm not talking "about 'guaranteed facts' in the same sentence as the unsubstantiated date of, 587/586 BC," I'm talking 'about "guaranteed facts" in the same sentence as the substantiated date of, 587/586 BC.' Granted, we could all be in the Matrix or something and everything we think we know is wrong, but barring something bizarre like that, the proof that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 BC proves that date about as well as anything on the planet can be proven. If we can't believe this, we can believe literally nothing at all about anything. Regarding your links, I am already thoroughly familiar with the scriptures Witnesses use to try to prove their 607 date, and the links I provided show why in fact even the Bible itself both contradicts 607 and demands 587/6. I would repeat some of it, but I have faith in your ability to read. Regarding your second link, one of my links is a direct rebuttal to that book. Your "sound reasons" aren't so much sound reasons as they are "crap that Furuli made up trying to defend his religion." Seriously, read it. It's a lot of reading, but, if you're a member of a religion that bases its entire existence on these dates, through the dates from 1914-1919 that are derived from them, and you are going to base your whole entire life around it, it is well worth it.Tommstein 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JW categories

He belongs to neither of these categories. He rather belongs to a kind of religous criticism category.Summer Song 08:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's not some kind of generic religious critic, his importance is directly and 100% tied to Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's Witnesses only.Tommstein 09:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, the user Summer Song is JW and a well known vandal, and has the habit of also deleting whole pages of text, and disappearing for a while, and then re-appearing from the shadows to trash more pages with little or no explanations, and never any discussion. I have come to the conclusion he thinks no one will actually notice, and that is why his vandalism is never discussed beforehand. Central 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, if does actually start doing some of that stuff.Tommstein 01:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I am to be called a "vandal who appears from the shadows" when I am explained why i did what I did? And the user Central seems like he just want to thow some judging words at me? If I did mot ecplain well enough: The category JW people is about people who currrently ARE witnesses, not people who have been witnesses before. So Raymond Franz do not belong to that page.Summer Song 14:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Song, are you actually serious? You said: "The category JW people is about people who currently ARE witnesses, not people who have been witnesses before", Ummm. . . so I see the resurrection must have already occurred, can you tell us what country and congregations Frederick William Franz, Milton George Henschel, or Joseph Franklin Rutherford are currently in? Maybe we could give them an interview and ask them about what it's like to be resurrected. Raymond Franz played a very significant position within the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you are very well aware of that. The only reason you want to keep vandalising pages is you clearly don't want people to stumble on any information about him. You would prefer to keep the false rumours alive rather than have the truth out there for people to make up their own minds.

As for you being a vandal, you cleary are, and here are some edits out of many you have trashed. You have also been told multiple times to discuss any objections before any edits are made, but you chose to ignore this and vandalise pages whenever it pleases you, and always chose to cover up embarrassing facts about the Watch Tower Society. Here are some of your vandalism attempts (besides the ones on this page):

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
Example 6
Example 7
Example 8
Example 9
Example 10 . . .and on and on goes your vandalism. You are not interested in improving Wikipedia, because all you do is destroy perfectly valid texts, and you refuse to make any case for your point, you just vandalise and disappear, then come back as you have here and do it again! You are a perfect example of what fundamentalism does to people's sense of reality or reasonableness. Please desist from your petty acts of vandalism. You have failed to make a case for any of your edits, and you refuse to have any dialog, as many others have repeatedly pointed out to you before on multiple occations. Central 18:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, an interview with Rutherford. That could be interesting. I wonder if he'd be sober for it. Ooh, or we could ask Franz why he lied about the Rhodes Scholarship, and just how precisely he was the main translator of a Bible translation when he didn't know a lick of Hebrew, and pretty much no Greek either. But Summer Song, some of those examples that Central posted definitely look like vandalism to me; I clicked on a random one, number 5, and it definitely was.Tommstein 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting here is that a person talks about 'improving Wikipedia' whilst in the same breath promoting tired old anti-WT propaganda masquerading as 'truth'. Then come the attacks of character. Fred Franz never claimed to have a Rhodes Scholarship; it's a non-starter. He actually passed the qualifying exam for the Scholarship before deciding against pursuing a nomination - which, according to one of his tutors, was due him. Previous to this, he had studied Greek and Latin at the University of Cincinnati, discontinuing his studies a hair's breadth short (90%, in fact) of a degree. This included 23 A's, 8 B's and 5 C's out of thirty-six completed classes! --bUcKaRoO 19:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're going to want to verify your facts there, but I don't have the time to do it for you right now.Tommstein 09:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll save you some time, sir. The University of Cincinnati has confirmed these facts. See: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/JwFranzFred29.htm --bUcKaRoO 00:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that link, since I was wondering where those grade statistics came from. Everything else it said, though, I already knew. It even says "At a court trial in Scotland in 1954 he stated: 'I was offered a Cecil Rhodes Scholarship, I took an examination for that in the University of Ohio…' (Douglas Walsh Trial Transcript p. 178)," so he did in fact claim, even under oath (as opposed to just a writing in a magazine), that he was offered the scholarship (which is a lie, since he wasn't even close; look towards the bottoms of http://www.607v587.com/Letter%20re%201874.htm and http://www.607v587.com/Final%20Bethel%20letter.htm for more details). Compare his statement, "I was offered a Cecil Rhodes Scholarship," with the statement from the Rhodes Scholarship people found at the above links, "Mr. Franz was never offered a Rhodes scholarship." I also don't have time to verify the following either, but it is my understanding that he studied modern Greek, not Koine Greek, and not very much at that. Although being unable to translate on the stand at the same time the New World Translation was being worked on kind of renders the question of his Bible translating ability moot.Tommstein 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that Franz is 'lying' when he makes those statements. For a person to be lying, though, they need to be knowingly stating an untruth. Franz was likely referring to a private conversation he had had with his professor where, according to his bio, he was told that he was the school's choice for the scholarship. Keep in mind that this hearing took place forty years after the events of that time. It is wholly possible that Franz may have been mistaken about the precise terminology being used by his interrogator. What reason, please, is there to assume he was flat-out 'lying'?

Furthermore he wasn't, "unable to translate." He declined because he wasn't proficient in speaking the Hebrew. There's a huge difference in being able to translate and being able to iterate properly in the original tongue. --bUcKaRoO 22:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What we know is that Franz wasn't actually offered squat. What we also know is that Franz claimed that he was. You can try to blame his professor, Watch Tower editors, Satan, or whoever else you want, but the fact is, he 'stated an untruth,' if you find that better than saying he "lied." This is something he could, and should, have checked on, if it were true. Either way, blame game aside, Franz stated an untruth when, at the very best, he should have known better. He stated that he was offered a Rhodes Scholarship, but they didn't award him diddly. Also note that in the trial, he didn't use the 'professor cover,' he flat out said he was offered the scholarship, not the he was told that it had been offered. Maybe the holy spirit just wasn't concerned enough about its main man spreading non-truths for millions to read to make sure Franz didn't do so.

As to your separation of speaking and translating, you either don't know more than one language or you are playing games. It is impossible to learn a language, let alone to the point of being qualified to translate the Bible, while remaining unable to say anything in it. You may not exactly sound like a native speaker, and no one was expecting Franz to sound like a native Hebrew, but you'll at least be able to get through with an accent. How did he communicate with anyone about Hebrew, did he carry around a little tablet and write down everything he wanted to say because he couldn't speak it? I don't think so. Even I, who don't know Hebrew, grumble through Hebrew transliterations and such. It may not be pretty, but it's something, and Franz should have been light-years ahead of me if he was actually qualified to translate the Bible. Further, note that the request for translation in the trial came after he said that he couldn't speak Hebrew, so that was understood. He could have written down his translation, having already clarified that he couldn't speak the language. No one asked him to speak a translation of the verse, just to translate it, which is normally something done in writing anyway. But he flat out refused to translate a single Bible verse, period, in any fashion. So he didn't know Hebrew, and was certainly not qualified to translate the Bible.Tommstein 08:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naos vs. Hieron

Biblesupporter, I think you brought up the wrong verses. To quote what Raymond Franz wrote in Crisis of Conscience, in the footnote on page 355:

"The article, in the August 15, 1980, issue of the Watchtower, endeavored to show that the Greek term naos (temple or sanctuary), used in Revelation 7:15 with regard to the "great crowd," could apply to the temple courtyards. In doing so it said that Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the naos. (See page 15, box at the bottom of the page.) Since the Bible account itself, at John 2:14-16, clearly uses another term (hieron), the claim was obviously false, as one elder expressed it, "either an example of intellectual dishonesty or intellectual ignorance."

If you look at the PDF you linked to, it does in fact use hieros (presumably a form of hieron) at the verses in question. So it would seem that no one has a quarrel with the verses you mentioned, but a legitimate one with the verses that are really in question. What say you?Tommstein 15:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aug 15th Watchtower

I have never read Franz's book, however I do have the Aug 15th 1980 Watchtower in question. That article never cites John 2:14 & 15, but it does cite John 2: 19-21 where 'Naos' is used! All the scriptures cited in that article use the term 'Naos'. Therefore, Franz's argument is artifactual.

Well, I don't have the article handy at the moment, so I guess I'll have to take your word for it for now. Undoubtedly someone with a working Watchtower CD will verify just what exactly the article says.Tommstein 06:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. It does not say, as Franz asserts, that Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the naos. That is a misleading presentation of the article. It mentions the account in John 2 but clearly quotes Jesus' subsequent interchange with the Jews, at vs. 19-21, where both parties use 'naos', commonly rendered 'temple'. --bUcKaRoO 17:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptural Meaning of "Apostate"

The article states, '... he has been infamously labelled in the society's literature, and by some Witnesses as an "apostate" (Scripturally this means antichrist/anti-God)'. I would dispute this point, or at least its inclusion as currently worded in an unbiased encyclopedia. As it is currently phrased, it makes an assumption about what the reader would consider scripture, and/or that all scripture is in agreement on this point. Setting that aside, it is unsubstantiated. If "apostate" is defined as the antichrist etc. in any scripture, I would be interested to know where.

"Apostate" is an emotionally charged word among Jehovah's Witnesses (in fact I can't think of any that are more so). Most Jehovah's Witnesses would probably interpret it to mean something like "someone who was once a Jehovah's Witness but is no longer, and who is actively trying to turn others away from the religion". Jehovah's Witnesses in my experience react to apostates as though they believed they were anti-Christ, but it is one thing to make a claim about what is believed by Jehovah's Witnesses, and another to make a claim about what is written in scripture.

The use of the word in the article as redefined by Jehovah's Witnesses seems as though it is an endorsement of the rather substantial negative judgement they attach to it. I would rather say that Raymond Franz is unarguably an apostate if one goes by the perfectly serviceable denotation of the word: one who publically turns aside from his religion. It is not a question of being infamously labelled. It is a statement of fact. It is the Jehovah's Witnesses, not the rest of the world, who are confused about the meaning of the word, and since this encyclopedia is for everyone it should use the word definitively.

The article should either:

1) Cite the scripture where "[apostate] means antichrist/anti-God". If this were done it would be a statement of fact and unbiased. 2) Be rephrased to make it clear that it is the Jehovah's Witnesses, not scripture, that considers apostates to be antichrist/anti-God. Something like, "... he has been infamously labelled in the society's literature, and by some Witnesses, as an "apostate" (someone who is considered by the Jehovah's Witnesses to be anti-christ)'.

The same goes for the rest of the paragraph. While it is true that the label of "apostate" can have a devastating impact on the life of the one so labelled, it is only grossly pejorative among Jehovah's Witnesses.

MalcolmMacMillan 07:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just rephrased it (basically, I took option #2, just in my own words). What think ye? Change anything as you see fit.Tommstein 07:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject, could someone explain the curious language employed here? How is a person 'infamously labelled' in an organization's literature whilst remaining unnamed? If the WT Society had intended, as this phraseology suggests, to make an example of Franz to its members it could easily have done so. The fact is, Raymond Victor Franz's disfellowshipping itself (not his earlier 'infamous labelling as an "apostate"') got the briefest of mentions and likely was greeted with sadness by any who read that far down the 'Announcements' column of the August 1980 Our Kingdom Ministry. Correction; this was simply a notification that he was no longer a member of the Governing Body. --bUcKaRoO 15:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Re: JW's view of apostates. An apostate is one who defects from, or abandons, their current beliefs. At 1 John 2:18,19, it confirms such ones (specifically, those who subsequently deny the Christ) can be regarded as antichrists;
"Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us." (KJV)
Scriptural evidence, then, that apostates can (though not in all cases) be antichrists. Clearly, though, Ray Franz does not fit this category. It would appear that it is the misrepresentation contained in this article which is muddying the waters here, not any 'confusion over' or 'redefinition of' on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses with the term. --bUcKaRoO 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. --MalcolmMacMillan 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Malcolm. I'm glad that made sense(!). --bUcKaRoO 15:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving New York and starting a new life
The quotation within this section that purports to be from the letter to Circuit and District overseers of 1 September 1980 (copy on page 342 of Crisis of Conscience) is in fact a paraphrase of the letter, and not an entirely accurate or helpful one. The letter reproduced in Raymond Franz's book actually refers to a person who "abandons the teachings of Jehovah ... and PERSISTS in believing other doctrine." "If ... he CONTINUES TO BELIEVE the apostate ideas and REJECTS what he has been provided ... then appropriate judicial action should be taken." (emphasis mine)
Although this wording is stern, it is significantly less blunt than the apparent (but inaccurate) quote within this article that implies the Governing Body instructed that an individual who "merely disagrees in thought with any of the Watch Tower Society's teachings is committing apostasy and is liable for disfellowshipping (excommunication)".
The tenor of this inflammatory quote is, I'm guessing, aimed to encourage comparisons with Orwell's Thought Police or some medieval inquisition. It certainly exaggerates the strength of the Governing Body's feelings on this matter and in a pejorative manner. Raymond Franz's story is a powerful and moving one, but it should be told accurately.
I'm proposing to delete the section within quotes and replace it with a paraphrasing similar to the one I have used above. Grimhim 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Grimhim. You claim the quote was "not an entirely accurate or helpful one" but then you go and post here a statement that is clearly highly inaccurate and biased. I have put a link to the book, and pages, so people can go and read it for themselves.
You said, "The letter reproduced in Raymond Franz's book actually refers to a person who 'abandons the teachings of Jehovah ... and PERSISTS in believing other doctrine.' 'If ... he CONTINUES TO BELIEVE the apostate ideas and REJECTS what he has been provided ... then appropriate judicial action should be taken."
Why have you deliberately missed out all the clear qualifiers? The actual words in the letter state: "Keep in mind that to be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a promoter of apostate views. . . Therefore, if a baptized Christian abandons the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave [Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses], and persists in believing other doctrines, . . .then he is apostatizing. . . if he continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what has been provided through the 'slave class' [Governing Body] then appropriate judicial action should be taken." As Franz rightly points out from page 342 onwards. (You can read that in the link to 'Chapter 12' below.) It has nothing to do with anyone abandoning Biblical teachings, but more forcefully those of the men's doctrines on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. As Franz states:
The letter presents an official policy. It actually says that a person's believing—not promoting, but simply believing—something that differs from the teachings of the organization is grounds for taking judicial action against him as an "apostate"! The letter makes no qualifying statements limiting such differences of belief to fundamental teachings of God's Word, such as the coming of God's Son as a man, the ransom, faith in Christ's shed blood as the basis for salvation, the resurrection, or similar basic Bible doctrines. It does not even say that the person necessarily disagrees with the Bible, the Word of God. Rather, he disagrees with "the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave." Which is something like saying that a man's accepting and obeying a King's written message is no guarantee that he is loyal; it is his accepting and obeying what a slave messenger claims the ruler meant that decides this!
It's rather interesting that you missed out all the qualifiers of the Governing Body's teachings, and presented it as if it were "rebelling from God's word in the Bible". I have put a link to the full letter so anyone can check the letter and see the clear qualifiers, that just thinking an independent thought that does not conform to the men's interpreting in the Governing Body can lead to excommunication as an apostate, which Jehovah's witnesses put in the same category as antichrist/anti-God rebellion, or the lowest of the low along with Satan.
PS. As you clearly appear to be a Jehovah's Witness, are you not aware that you are committing apostasy according to your religious organization by coming here and debating/altering text about one of their most infamous "apostate" enemies, Raymond Franz?
Sample chapters from Crisis of Conscience:

Chapter 1: PRICE OF CONSCIENCE

Chapter 9: 1975: 'THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR GOD TO ACT'

Chapter 10: 1914 AND "THIS GENERATION"

Chapter 11: POINT OF DECISION

Chapter 12: AFTERMATH
Regards. Central 13:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Central. I take your point that in my quote above on this page I did omit the reference to the Governing Body. I assumed that was a given. You're absolutely correct that the Governing Body's stated definition of apostasy focuses on the act of disputing its view of the Bible rather than the Bible itself.
However I have reverted the article on Leaving New York to my version, which clearly states that the Governing Body's letter was focusing on those who (again) rejected its teachings. I have again removed the article's inflammatory, inaccurate and unhelpful reference to disfellowshipping being a consequence of "just the act of thinking a non-conforming thought". The point I made in my initial comments on the discussion page stands, unless you produce evidence to the contrary: the Governing Body does not claim to take action against Jehovah's Witnesses for allowing stray thoughts to cross their mind, which the phrase you reinstated implies. It does, however, act against those who, in its view, persist in believing something contrary to the Governing Body's teaching after extended reproof. Stating that clearly, as I've done, should be enough. For that reason I've also deleted all the tub-thumping at the tail end of your revised article. The article isn't the place for your views on the Jehovah's Witnesses' disfellowshipping policy. Grimhim 00:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the wording you seem to keen to have "Extended kindly effort should be put forth to readjust his thinking" and re-inserted the quote as it's an essential piece of evidence for the subject. I was the one to wrote the original, and would appreciate you discussing any large edits before you come in as a mystery "new" JW poster making large biased edits. I'm sure you are aware of the massive problem of vandalism, toll behaviour, and edit wars that some JWs have been causing on the main JW page, especially sock puppets/multiple fake IDs.
You said: "I have again removed the article's inflammatory, inaccurate and unhelpful reference to disfellowshipping being a consequence of just the act of thinking a non-conforming thought"." Beside your claims of "inflammatory, inaccurate and unhelpful" being unsubstantiated, this paragraph was there to point to this policy, and to show where this policy came from, i.e., the 1st September 1980 letter a verifiable source. Holding independent thoughts not in line with the Governing Body's interpretations was enough for excommunication, as has been proven by the examples of five people from the headquarters being excommunicated for allegedly discussing 1914, and the 144,000 doctrines in private, and by the September 1980 letter sent out after this event.
You said: "stray thoughts to cross their mind. . . which the phrase you reinstated implies." That is a straw man. Those words you claim do not appears anywhere in the article, and one would have to be psychic to know if someone were having "stay thoughts", whatever they might be. Can I remind you we are not here to give interpretations, just the written facts. The article clearly states from the letter "persists in believing other doctrines", and "if he continues to believe" demonstrating that you are making up biased and false accusations. Can I ask why are you doing this? As a JW, you know you should not even be here debating "apostates", let alone attempting to place JW PR propaganda in articles. And as a Wikipedia participant, you are not supposed to put your interpretations or point of view into texts, just the facts as they can be verified. We have had over the past months massive problems with some JWs who do not know their own religion's doctrines well, and came to the main JW page causing edit wars, only to lose face later when they eventually realised from the mass of Watch Tower Society quotes that they were wrong all along because they failed to do their research.
You said: "The article isn't the place for your views on the Jehovah's Witnesses' disfellowshipping policy." I am not interested in putting my views of JW disfellowshipping policy, I am interested in putting the written facts down on that policy, which clearly state to hold differing views to the Governing Body is classified by them as apostasy, which you as a Jehovah's Witness know is the same as 'antichrist rebellion'. Can I also kindly remind you that Wikipedia is not here to promote religious agendas. It would help you if you read all the posts in the Talk section of the main JW page. But I'm sure you are familiar with them already. Regards Central 02:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're seeing dispute where there's none. The article itself is fair and balanced for the most part. My edit -- and I began a discussion on this and waited a couple of days for comment before proceeding, thanks -- was simply to remove a statement that was in quotes but which was inaccurate. There is no value in a statement from which a clear, but wrong, inference can be drawn. My other changes, far from being major edits as you claim, are refinements, and I mean no offence by that. This is the essence of Wikipedia, but you seem unable to tolerate any tidy-up.
Having said that the article is fair and balanced, I think you destroy that with your final comments about the WT Society's disfellowshipping policy, which seems an emotional and defensive outburst aimed at anyone who you think might disagree with you (me, for starters, I'm guessing). The way I expressed it in my edit stated the facts without repetition. And can you cut the insults? I take offence at you (1) labelling my contribution as vandalism, (2) describing my edits as biased, (3) dismissing me as a "mystery, new" contributor and (4) making assumptions about my religious affiliation and lecturing me on the basis of that. Grimhim 03:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Grimhim, I am sorry if I have caused you any offence, and maybe I was on tender hooks with your edits. This is due to having to deal with an unfortunate amount of trouble from JWs who have caused no end of problems recently, and always play the martyr at the end of this. Another poster listed some of their behaviours. A rather nasty sock puppet here (and that page is just a tiny fraction of the problem we have had with this JW). And breach of rules here. There is also a current edit dispute on the main page from a JW who refuses outright to accept over 100 (and I mean that literally) quotes from the Watch Tower, and has persistently started edit wars on that basis. When he has lost past ones, he always throws it back to the opposing side as if they have "harassed" him, or some other unfounded excuse, none of which justified his false edits.
The reason I say all this, is dealing with these unreasonable persons and their often compulsive lies they use to cover up their actions, has led me to being less than tolerant of Trolls, or propaganda from posters who have no intention of improving an article, they just wish to use any methodology to promote their religion, logical fallacies and lies are all fair game to them. Again, I am sorry if I have been over sensitive, and offended you, I did not mean to. I hope you understand why, and see it's nothing personal to you, it's more to do with dealing with ones who are religious fundamentalists and even more worrying have little accurate knowledge on their chosen faith. I'm sorry again, please don't take my defensive position as a personal thing, as it was not. It's was more like an auto-reaction, due to the many constant less than helpful JW edits on Wikipedia. Central 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Central said, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the Jehovah's Witnesses that one finds on Wikipedia is that either all Jehovah's Witnesses are stupid dickheads or that Wikipedia for some reason attracts the religion's stupid dickheads. Both result in finding the same stupid dickheads on Wikipedia.Tommstein 05:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]