How many JW’s view so-called “apostate literature”

While not an “official” publication by the Watchtower, THIS ARTICLE appears to reflect the attitude of many JW’s as they consider former Governing Body member Ray Franz and his books.  While there may be other books he’s written that i’m not aware of, the most prominent are CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE and IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM.  The purpose of this post isn’t to defend everything Franz has said or published (as i’m sure i’d disagree with him on quite a bit), but to consider some common understandings that many JW’s might have towards he and other so-called “apostates.”

The ARTICLE in question considers the question, “If a member of the Governing Body leaves, does that mean that the organization is a ‘failure?'”  While i’m sure there are some who have asked this question, it’s not one that I find to be an issue even if the JW religion is true.  And for the purposes of this post, i’m only going to address the points related to those who have left the JW religion and/or written books critical of the Watchtower.

Ray Franz was just a person who sought to promote himself rather than his Lord Jesus Christ. And he secretively tried to insert his own contrary ideas into Scriptural truth. When he was called to account by his fellow Christians he refused to correct himself. He continued to be admonished and attempts were made to resolve his perceived issues until all efforts failed. Being unwilling to repent and seeing the “writing on the wall” he “left” the organization and published his self-serving and twisted version of the facts. His personal opinions simply reflect his own prideful animus and require others to have an ignorance of the Scriptures (2Pe 2:17-22).

While he was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses he worked without payment and only for room and board. But after he was kicked out for his prominence seeking, he made money and gained personal prestige by writing against the Witnesses. He had to go promote himself to those who were used to a clergy class to find people gullible enough to buy his books so he could make a profit off his ideas. I think I will trust someone without such a strong personal motive.

These two paragraphs are quite loaded with assertions.  But that’s what they are: assertions and little more.  One who reads Franz’ own testimony of what really happened in “Crisis of Conscience” would hear a completely different story…along with documentation.  While i’m open to a critique of Franz’ documentation, it does very little to simply dismiss him as a self-serving, prideful and greedy apostate.

At the same time, Ray Franz’ teachings are being repeatedly disproved even on this forum. Anyone who would “buy into” Ray Franz’s story clearly will believe ANYTHING no matter what the facts are!!

I’m not sure what forum is being spoken of here and i’m very curious to see where Franz has been “repeatedly disproved.”  But i’m more curious as to why these JW’s are reading “apostate literature” in the first place?  Isn’t this something that is expressly forbidden by the Watchtower?  This is a very common way for JW’s to deal with so-called “apostates”: pose ad hominems and accuse of twisting the facts, but to never actual read this literature to which they are referencing.  Why?  Because it’s against their convictions.

At least non-JW’s such as myself can be consistent here.  That is, I can read someone like Bart Erhman (who I would definitely consider an apostate) and actually deal with what he’s written in good conscience.  Why?  Because I recognize that he has influenced a multitude and I would love to offer the truth to someone who has been misled by him.  However, a JW couldn’t really do this with Franz.  Yes, they could assert that he is a greedy apostate who twists the facts, but they couldn’t actually deal with what he’s written in hopes of helping someone who has been misled by him.  On the other hand, I suppose they could just dismiss all apostates as being greedy twisters of the facts and teach the misled persons that this is always the case.

But I don’t even think that about Bart Ehrman!  In fact, I think that Ehrman is a very sharp scholar and is impecable on most of his facts.  Where I differ with him is on his conclusions and presuppositions.

Ray Franz and others like him left a vibrant, growing, active and truly Christian organization. Now they have withered up and become just like any other cult leader in Christendom. They have nothing to offer.

How so?  What is “every cult leader in Christendom” like?  This is certainly some very emotionally charged language and quite unconvincing at that.  Also, i’m surprised at the use of “cult” here.  What makes Franz a “cult leader” and the JW Governing Body not?  I would also beg to differ on having “nothing to offer.”  Franz has offered hope when there was no hope by those who were hurt by the oppressive shunning policies of the JW religion.  And what was this hope?  Pointing them to Jesus Christ, which is the same hope I would offer.

Ray Franz, and those who were infected by him, left correct doctrine. They worship with and make common cause with religions which turn a blind eye, or outright allow, homosexuals, fornicators and adulterers to be accepted members of their congregation. These religions also allow their members to drop bombs even on fellow “Christians.” So, those who leave the True Christian Congregation either abandon Christian morals themselves or become guilty by association. Literally or spiritually they are debased.

I’ve certainly not read all that Franz has written, but where did he turn a blind eye to homosexuals?  Or is this just more emotionally charged language without any supporting documentation?  Also, how is it that those who leave the “True Christian Congregation” are “guilty by association” regarding those who are murderers?  Am I guilty in this regard?  What if i’m a pacifist?  Would Jesus hold me accountable and guilty of bloodshed for what other professing Christians have done?

Actual evidence irrefutably proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the true Christian Congregation and it alone has the Truth. On the other hand all other religions have abandoned following Christ, in actions and morals.

Not the most persuasive way to finish such an article, but this seems to be the thinking of many JW’s.  Perhaps my JW friends will use this as an opportunity to step back and consider how people like me view their religion and consider arguing more persuasively on topics such as these.  While JW’s authors like these make apostates out to be these bitter and angry persons, one wonders why I shouldn’t see this author as the same?

My commendation to those who really seek to follow Christ would be to look at both sides and come to their own conclusion.  For example, don’t take my word for it about Bart Ehrman.  Instead, read his books and then read what men like Dan Wallace would have to say.  It’s one thing to have a biblical perspective and view true apostates for what they are.  But it’s another thing to dismiss them out of hand without taking the time to examine the evidence.

57 thoughts on “How many JW’s view so-called “apostate literature”

  1. miken says:

    “On the other hand, I suppose they could just dismiss all apostates as being greedy twisters of the facts and teach the misled persons that this is always the case,”

    That is exactly the position presented at the JW’s 2013 District Conventions this summer. Check out the talk Beware of Apostates – .Human Apostates for a slanderous attack on them

  2. ivanmonroy1 says:

    Most online Witnesses have read so called “apostate literature.” Most are familiar with Franz, U. N. issues, and so forth.

    What really irritates me though is that some pretend to be super righteous zealots maintaining the GB is God’s one true channel, the one true link between heaven and earth, and will still go online, read these things, openly defying the commands of the so called ‘one true channel,’ and act nonchalantly about it, as if they are moral ‘Organization Men.’

    At the same time, these same ones will often use online monikers concealing their true identities or at least their names. One should seriously ask themselves whether such concealment and hiddenness can truly be representative of ones who represent the resurrected Jesus Christ on earth today, especially when they are suppose to be the “light of the world” (Matt 5:14),

    1. rotherham2 says:

      Hello Ivan,

      No one really has to go to an apostate site to read about the things that you mention. Many, who are non-witnesses, yet still opposed, often borrow these apostate presentations as their won arguments against them, and then we have every scriptural right to review what has been stated and to refute it as best we can.

      Monikers are a protection for those who feel the need to protect themselves, especially when they belong to a particular group that is popular target. Many have been harassed by webites who have found out who they are. Because Witnesses know that there are many ex-jws and opposers who might wish them some sort of negative demise, they freel it best to present the “massage” rather than the person, until such time that an element of trust is established in connection with the one they are talking with. I don’t think that an odd stance by any means.

      We realize the truth, or the “light”, as it were, of any matter lies within the facts, not in whether they can specifically identify the person presenting them.

      Regards,
      Rotherham

      1. rotherham2 says:

        Wow. Ignore those unfortunate typos, OK? We are not in the business of spreading “massage”, but rather the “message”. 🙂

      2. ivanmonroy1 says:

        Rotherham2:

        It is true sometimes material is appropriated from other sources, yet this doesn’t absolve the material or the person from so called “apostate” influence. And it is not as if Witnesses have no idea where these things are from, they are easily open to inspection, yet many simply chose to “review” them anyway. It seems fraudulent to say that it is wrong to look at these things when it is directly fed from an “apostate,” but it is OK when it comes from “apostates” indirectly. The source remains the same.

        With respect to the use of monikers and so on, I agree with much of what you say, but my point was really about the long history of Witnesses online. Most who interact with “opposing material” often conceal their identity or names in these specific contexts, and it is strange to do so considering the claim is that they are shinning “light” and “truth” on these things.

  3. rotherham2 says:

    Hello Mike,

    As far as Ray Franz goes, we will leave his judgment to God. God is the only one who knows the true motivation behind the books that he wrote. And we have basically been exposed to his arguments through the efforts of others to promote them, so it’s not a case of us sticking our head in the sand and not looking, but a case of dealing with things as they arise. I had the privilege of studying with two individuals to the point of baptism who were deeply involved in the writings of Ray, and was given direct permission from the CO to directly address the relevant points presented by Ray for the sake of helping the Bible student.

    But this does raise a question: What should a Christian do to be in harmony with 2 John 9-11?

    9 Everyone that pushes
    aheadd and does not remaine in
    the teaching of the Christ does
    not have God. He that does remain
    in this teaching is the one
    that has both the Father and
    the Son. 10 If anyone comes to
    YOU and does not bring this
    teaching, never receive him into
    YOUR homesh or say a greeting
    to him. 11 For he that says
    a greeting to him is a sharer in
    his wicked works.

    No matter what name we use to designate the above mentioned person, whether by the word “apostate” or a ????, does it really matter? The point is to be obedient to the word. How does one remain obedient to the above words of John?

    Regards,
    Rotherham

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      Rotherham,

      You say that only God knows the true motivation of ones like Franz, but is that consistent with this article and what your leaders have told us about apostates? Is he a greedy, money-making, twister of the facts or isn’t he?

      That’s nice that you got to “hear” about Franz’ arguments second hand. But did you take a peak at his book? Or did you encourage those who were studying to examine Franz’ documentation? Wouldn’t that be the same as peaking at pornography?

      Ivan-

      I would second everything you have said, including your side point about those who hide behind pseudo names and still claim to represent those who would staunchly disapprove of what they’re doing. And more so, they claim to be lights and represent Christ, but can’t seem to tell us their names, where they are from, etc.

  4. rotherham2 says:

    Hello Mike,

    As you mention, the article in question is not from the WT, nor would ever find such an article. Jehovah God is Ray Franz’s judge, no one else, and I will leave it at that.

    Although I was willing to answer the questions that the students had about Ray’s books, I did not encourage them to read them but this was something that they had chosen to do on their own.

    Naturally, in time, they discarded the books.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

    1. Don Ramsey says:

      I will be very blunt here. The things Ray Franz documents — documents!! not merely asserts!! — in his two books, are IR-REFUTABLE. ANY person, who can look at the photocopy documentation and other ir-refutable references that Ray presented in his books, and then STILL CHOOSE to follow the WT’s Governing body as some sort of channel of light from God, is, I truly believe, a Blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, an idolator, and a worshiper of men. One cannot look as SOLID evidence, which is light, and go back to darkness, without having blasphemed the Light of God conveyed through the documentation. Cults are cults, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a modern-day Cult and nothing more, and nothing less.

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      Rotherham,

      I don’t want to get into whether shunning all “apostates” across the board is biblical because its not the point of this post.

      My argument is with this specific article by this JW and whether he’s being truthful and consistent. And I’m also concerned with whether he’s in line with what the Watchtower teaches.

      If I can remember tonight, I’d like to pull some WT quotes which I think would utterly disprove what you said about motives. But if I’m wrong, then it would at least show that this JW and many many others are completely out of line in what they’re saying about Franz and other so-called apostates.

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      You said only God knows the true motives behind Franz’ books. And that’s great and I agree.

      But you’re definitely at odds then with this Anonymous JW writer and possibly with the WT and what they’ve said about apostates. But don’t hold me to the latter until I get a chance to look it up…if my wife lets me have some computer time 🙂

  5. rotherham2 says:

    Hello Mike,

    I haven’t read the article you reference and don’t really want to. I don’t happen to agree with that kind of venture if judgment is passed upon an individual, or on things you can’t possibly know the full details of.

    Do I believe that Ray was an apostate from OUR standpoint? Of course, but God is his final judge, not any one of us or the organization for that matter. God knows how culpable he is for what has written.

    However, I believe that what the WT has said about those that we speak of as “apostates” is a scriptural position. That’s why I asked you about 2 John 9-11. That’s why it is relevant to this discussion.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      Rotherham,

      If you don’t want to read the article, then there’s really no need for me to discuss this further with you. What I’m addressing is an epidemic-like attitude amongst JW’s (not necessarily you) and using this article (that you won’t read) as an example.

      Perhaps if I write a post in the future which addresses apostasy and how Christians should deal with them, then I’d be happy to discuss the biblical data.

  6. rotherham2 says:

    Hello Mike,

    I think it would be more fruitful for me to defend my own statements and the statements of those I believe comprise the faithful and discreet slave. You have called the WT into question here as to their view of apostates. That’s why I spoke up.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      Rotherham,

      You’re right, and I recall this writer’s opinions being quite consistent with what the WT has said regarding apostates, though a bit more abrasive I admit.

      Let me see about drawing up some WT quotes and maybe get your thoughts then, since that’s who you want to defend. My opinion is that the WT feeds the attitudes of ones like the writer of this article. But I’m willing to be corrected.

      1. rotherham2 says:

        Good. I’ll be waiting. But I would say that the Bible itself could end up feeding an over zealous apologist. Balance is required in everything, even when we read what the Bible prescribes.

  7. rotherham2 says:

    Is it disunity? Not necessarily. First, I don’t know the author. Second, I haven’t yet read the article. If the individual is actually sentencing Ray to death for his activity and placing judgment upon him or pretends to know his motives, then that’s not a good approach. It would be a lack of unity as to how to deal with apostates and their literature, but I also will not play the internet policeman and make sure every body does everything by the book, because I’m sure I’ve stepped over the line a few times myself. The problem is when you step over and you STAY over.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

  8. Mike Felker says:

    Rotherham-

    Lets start here so we don’t get lost in a sea of quotes:

    13 Jehovah hates sin, and so should we. Indeed, we ought to move as far away from wrongdoing as possible and not see how close we can get to it without being overcome by sin. For instance, we need to guard against succumbing to apostasy, a sin that would make us unfit to glorify God. (Deut. 13:6-9) Let us therefore have nothing to do with apostates or anyone who claims to be a brother but who is dishonoring God. This should be the case even if he is a family member. (1 Cor. 5:11) We are not benefited by trying to refute the arguments of apostates or those who are critical of Jehovah’s organization. In fact, it is spiritually dangerous and improper to peruse their information, whether it appears in written form or it is found on the Internet.—Read Isaiah 5:20; Matthew 7:6.(w12 5/15 p. 23-27)

    This is quite relevant because both you and the writer of the article appear to be “stepping over the line” as you put it, by even trying to refute my arguments. Is there something I’m missing here?

  9. rotherham2 says:

    The quote is made within the context of those who are apostates or claim to be brothers. Surely this does not apply to those we would meet in our ministry, whether on the internet or otherwise, who are critical of our teachings. If that were the case, we could not carry on a ministry that deals with objections. There is no injunction against witnessing to those we meet on the internet, even if they are opposed or are critical of our work as long as they are not claiming top be a brother or are an apostate from our view and we feel that they or their readers might benefit. I agree that it poses a great danger for those who are not prepared to do so, and most JWs are not. I personally might gain no personal benefit from it, which I could agree with, but then there is the “reader” that could possibly do so, or even you.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      Rotherham,

      The quote says, “apostates OR those who are critical of Jehovah’s organization.”

      Obviously, this wouldn’t apply to “seekers” who have questions or even objections. But I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply to non-ex-JW’s like me or Ivan who actively oppose and are critical of your organization?

      Are you suggesting that your leaders would give you a pat on the back with encouragement to continue to engage in active opposers to your religion?

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you’re here. But it seems you are being inconsistent and I think your leaders would agree. It’s just too bad we’re not able to ask them directly 🙂

  10. rotherham2 says:

    For instance, our Reasoning Book offers numerous responses to those who are either critical or disagree with us over certain teachings or practices. It helps us present reasonings for them to consider. This would be contradictory to the above quote if included those who are not apostates or claiming to be a brother.

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      Did I ever say the Watchtower too is always consistent? 😉

      I don’t think you really addressed what I just said though: apostates OR those who are critical. Perhaps the Reasoning Book is addressing common objections that are heard at the door. That is, unless you’re actually suggesting the WT is really engaging anti-JW literature? I doubt they give any of it a glance.

  11. rotherham2 says:

    Yes, that statement is made, but if you look at the very statement that precedes it, it is clear in which context it is presented. As a general rule , the WT would never ENDORSE what I am doing, however, it has not been forbidden either when it comes to those who are not apostate in nature. I often find that those who have a hard time defending their criticisms against us often default to quotes like this to try to get us to go away. If you want me to go away, just say the word.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

  12. rotherham2 says:

    On the internet, there is hardly a way to engage in talking to others about the truth without writing it down. It is certainly a different animal when it comes to “ministry”.

  13. theapologeticfront says:

    Rotherham-

    I disagree but let’s move on. The following quotes seem to be consistent with attitude displayed by the person who wrote the article. But that will be difficult for you to determine since you won’t actually read it. So I’m not really sure where to go from here?

    5 How do false teachers operate? Their methods reveal a cunning spirit. Apostates “quietly bring in” corruptive ideas. Like smugglers, they operate in a clandestine manner, subtly introducing apostate views. And just as a clever forger tries to pass phony documents, so apostates use “counterfeit words,” or false arguments, trying to pass their fabricated views as if they were true. They spread “deceptive teachings,” “twisting . . . the Scriptures” to fit their own ideas. (2 Pet. 2:1, 3, 13; 3:16) Clearly, apostates do not have our best interests at heart. Following them would only divert us from the road that leads to eternal life. w11 7/15 p. 15-19

    11 Peter further exposes the methods of apostates by stating that they “will quietly bring in destructive sects.” (2 Peter 2:1, 3) Just as the thief in Jesus’ illustration of the sheepfold does not enter “through the door but climbs up some other place,” so apostates approach us in stealthy ways. (Galatians 2:4; Jude 4) What is their aim? Peter adds: “They will exploit you.” Indeed, no matter what apostates may say to the contrary, the real aim of intruders is “to steal and slay and destroy.” (John 10:10) Beware of such strangers! W04 9/1 p. 13-18

    How do false teachers operate? Their methods reveal a cunning spirit. Apostates “quietly bring in” corruptive ideas. Like smugglers, they operate in a clandestine manner, subtly introducing apostate views. And just as a clever forger tries to pass phony documents, so apostates use “counterfeit words,” or false arguments, trying to pass their fabricated views as if they were true. They spread “deceptive teachings,” “twisting . . . the Scriptures” to fit their own ideas. (2 Pet. 2:1, 3, 13; 3:16) Clearly, apostates do not have our best interests at heart. Following them would only divert us from the road that leads to eternal life. How can we protect ourselves? The Bible’s counsel regarding how to deal with them is clear. (Rom. 16:17; 2 John 9-11) “Avoid them,” says God’s Word. Other translations render that phrase “turn away from them,” “keep away from them,” and “stay away from them!” w11 7/15 2:5, 6 – es13 p. 88-97

    17 Another example of valueless words is found among the religious leaders of Christendom. These claim to speak in God’s name, but most of their utterances are not based on the Scriptures, and what they say is basically worthless. Apostates too speak valueless words, claiming to have greater wisdom than the appointed “faithful and discreet slave.” (Matt. 24:45-47) However, apostates speak their own wisdom, and their words are valueless, a stumbling block to any who might listen. (Luke 17:1, 2) How can we avoid being misled by them? W08 4/15 p. 3-7

  14. rotherham2 says:

    Hello Mike,

    I went through the cited scriptures in the quotes. I can’t find where the WT said anything that the scriptures didn’t already say about apostates and false teachers. If we repeat God’s views of what false teachers and apostates practice, what wrong have we done? Notice, they never finger anyone in particular. What they finger is a Biblical profile that is being exhibited by a person.

    But once again, as I mentioned before 2 John 9-11 becomes pertinent to the discussion.

    (2 John 9-11) 9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.

    Notice that it says that those who push ahead and do not remain in the teaching of the Christ, DO NOT HAVE GOD.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

    1. theapologeticfront says:

      Rotherham-

      I’d challenge you to read the article and answer whether or not this particular JW is being consistent in his attitude towards Franz as the WT is in their attitude towards ex-JW’s.

      If you don’t want to read it, that’s fine. We just may have to save this discussion for another time when we are addressing the WT’s view exclusively as it relates to apostasy and shunning.

      1. rotherham2 says:

        No one should pass judgment on another person as to their final outcome. However, if a person exhibits the attributes of an apostate, then they can certainly be regarded as an apostate. Ray Franz exhibited the attributes of one that matches the Biblical criteria mentioned in 2 John 9-11. He pushed ahead and did not remain in the teaching of the Christ. If one rejects the body of Christ, they reject Christ.

        I’m not sure what you are after here.

        Regards,
        Rotherham

      2. theapologeticfront says:

        Rotherham-

        Please read my article carefully and it should be readily apparent what I’m after. But again, this wouldn’t apply to you because you won’t read what’s in question.

      3. rotherham2 says:

        Keep in mind that the WT does not state these things about all who are EX JWs, just those who push ahead and do not remain in the teaching of the Christ. Many EX-JWs are not apostate because they are not PUSHING. it is the active engagement of working against the congregation of God that presents one as an apostate.

      4. rotherham2 says:

        Hello Mike,

        Ok, so I read the article. If this brother would like to be consistent with the WT, he would not mention names unless he was specifically asked about the status of a person. If asked, yes, from our standpoint, we can establish that Ray Franz qualifies as an apostate, but when it comes to judging motives or exactly what he thought he was trying to accomplish, no one can possibly know that for sure. Only God. Making judgments about Ray’s motive and goal would not be recommended and is not what I would see as a wise course of action. One can only quess.

        Regards,
        Rotherham

  15. rotherham2 says:

    Ivan said:

    ivanmonroy1

    Rotherham2:

    It is true sometimes material is appropriated from other sources, yet this doesn’t absolve the material or the person from so called “apostate” influence. And it is not as if Witnesses have no idea where these things are from, they are easily open to inspection, yet many simply chose to “review” them anyway. It seems fraudulent to say that it is wrong to look at these things when it is directly fed from an “apostate,” but it is OK when it comes from “apostates” indirectly. The source remains the same.

    Response:

    Technically, the source of all false teaching comes from the great apostate, Satan. The scriptures though specifically target not entertaining the thoughts of those who are apostates. I am sure God is quite aware that others who are not apostates will adopt some of these arguments in their efforts to resist the truth. Some though, in trying to disprove, have actually found the opposite result and have joined JWs in their purpose.

    Regards,
    Rotherham

  16. rotherham2 says:

    There are many arguments against the truth that are presented right within the Bible itself. Followed by arguments to the contrary by the inspired writers.

  17. ivanmonroy1 says:

    This all goes back to the “letter and spirit of the law.” While technically one can always find loopholes, use weasel words, and other methods that technically don’t violate the “letter of the law,” it clearly violates the “spirit of the law.”

    For example, the WT article says one shouldn’t concern themselves with arguments of “apostates or those who are critical of Jehovah’s organization.” One can see that they don’t specifically shun authoritatively against dealing with these arguments. Instead they discourage them. So while Witnesses technically can deal with arguments that are “critical of Jehovah’s organization,” the intent of the article is violated in doing so.

    If momma says “please go to bed at 10 PM” we know what she means. We aren’t suppose to say “well, she didn’t REALLY tell me to go to bed at 10, she only suggested it.”

    Semantic loopholes and other exploitations are deceptive and every objective, honest person, knows what those WT articles really mean.

    1. rotherham2 says:

      Hello Ivan,

      They mean what they say within the context that they are presented. The context of that paragraph should be obvious enough.

      Regards,
      Rotherham

  18. ivanmonroy1 says:

    I’m curious, how is Ray Franz an apostate in the sense that he abandon the teachings of Christ?

    2 John 7-11 has to do with denying Christ has come in the flesh, which is a “teaching of Christ.” This phrase can either meaning teachings ABOUT Jesus or teachings BY Jesus. Giving the comments about his flesh, the former is probably likely. Regardless, the point being made is Christ-centric. Based on this particular text, how is Ray Franz an “antichrist”?

    1. rotherham2 says:

      Hello Ivan,

      From our standpoint he certainly did not remain in the teaching of the Christ. He clearly undermined the element of an authoritative, governing element/body within Christianity.

      Regards,
      Rotherham

      1. ivanmonroy1 says:

        What Franz did was expose the self-appointed group which confers governing rule upon itself for what it is–a fraud. He disclosed the innermost workings and structures of this association and revealed its true character. Such is not an “undermining” of Christianity, but an “undermining” of that which purports to be the only true dissemination of it.

  19. Frankleeh says:

    What doesn’t surprise me is that many ‘defend JWs’ sites do not have a comments section. This is probably how they get around the ‘I don’t associate with apostates’ accusation.

    The interesting irony is that if this person read Crisis of Conscience, then he is self-implicated as ‘associating with apostates.’ If he didn’t read Ray Franz’s book, he has no right to be making a judgement on its contents.

    Most of the crap this individual is spouting is factually incorrect. Are we surprised?

    Frank

  20. Octavio says:

    Ray Franz was a sincere christian who noticed that the behavior of the governing body is unscriptural. This is why the governing body had to improve one of their policies to shun him. Before 1981, those disassociated ones could speak with any witness, so the governing body noticed that Ray Franz continued to be in association with Peter Gregerson, who left the Society by writing a letter of disassociation. Accordingly, the governing body decided to shun all the disassociated ones so as to disfellowship Ray Franz. One day, the elders of Ray’s congregation saw Peter and Ray lunching, so this was the best excuse they found to disfellowship him.

  21. Frank says:

    When you say, ‘improve,’ Octavio, for whom was the ‘improvement’ made? The Bible book of Daniel uses the term, ‘frame mischief by law,’ is this perhaps an improvement on ‘improvement’? That this legislation is man-made is clearly evident by its fruits over the years. Many a time has the Society had to dumb-down the true nature of such policies when questioned about them in court rooms.

    Ray and Peter were just its first victims.

    Frank

  22. Octavio says:

    In fact, the Watchtower’s tactic of intimidation comes from Rutherford’s age. For instance, Olin Moyle (like Walter Salter) exposed the moral contradictions of the Judge (Rutherford). Then, Rutherford used the pages of The Watchtower to injure Moyle. Then Moyle sued the Society and this had to pay 15000 dolars for the damage. After this case, The Society has learnt that it can’t injure anyone directly by publicly mentioning names.

  23. Octavio says:

    If we were to follow the Watchtower concept of obedience to an authoritative governing body, men like Martyr Luter or John Hus would be apostates, because they did not remain under the governing body of that age which were the Pope and his Cardenals. ……Ohh, but witnesses would reply: Since 1919, Jesus established his sole channel of comunication as the only authoritative element, namely: The leaders of the Watchtower Society. This is why men like Olin Moyle, Raymond Franz and James Penton are considered apostates. If we were in the Dark Ages, I do not doubt that the Governing Body would execute all the so called apostates.

  24. Frankleeh says:

    Thanks for the URL, Octavio. Actually I am familiar with the Moyle case. Rutherford also publicly announced at a convention that Moyle was a wicked enemy of the WT. It was because of this and the articles of which you speak that the suit came about.

    Many Witnesses are incorrectly proud of the WTBTS’s record of court wins. Any religion can win a case via the First Amendment of the USA as government can have no interference with religious government in almost all things. Not insignificantly, this is illustrated by the suit the WTBTS shared with Jimmy Swaggart over paying taxes.

    Moyle is one of the few the Organisation didn’t get away with.

    Frank

    1. Octavio says:

      We also have the recent case of “Candace Conti v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York”, where The Watchtower loses because local elders protected a molester following the instruction of the Governing Body.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s