Talk:Raymond Franz/Archive 1

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)

Trying to have an impartial debate dealing with a subject based upon faith is an effort in rank futility and frustration. Based upon faith, every muslim, christian, and new age hippie are all completely correct in their arguments. I question all of the following peoples "neutral" positions. Simply on the grounds that they are obviously not.Viswamitra 10:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that that "Raymond Franz" page was completely one-sided. For one thing, Jehovah's Witnesses do not get disfellowshipped for talking to someone disfellowshipped or who has disassociated him/herself. They are counseled not to associtate with such persons because they are not good associates in that they have stopped following the Bible. But in no way are such persons disfellowshipped. About the claims of him and his friends being harrassed, the organization does not harrass, their goal is to help those who are straying from Bible principles and the way God has outlined in the Bible for his servants. The organization needs to talk with the subjects who are deviating from the Bible. If they do not want to repent and refuse to follow the Bible, then they will be disfellowshipped. This is right and proper as in the apostles' time those of the first century christians who refused to repent and get back on track following God's Word would also be shunned. Also, true Christians are supposed to be united as Jesus taught. 1 Corinthians 1:10 says: "Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought..." So yes, those who maliciously and knowingly attempt to disrupt the unity of those in the organization by going against Bible teachings can and should be disfellowshipped for apostasy.

This happens time and time again, when some are "kicked out" of the organization for unrepentant wrongdoing, they are angry and even insulted and as a result they spread falsehoods about the organization but the fact of the matter is that they were disfellowshipped for going against what the Bible teaches and not being remorseful. Those who have sinned seriously but who express genuine repentance are not disfellowshipped but they are helped back on to the right course according the the Bible. And then also, even when someone has been disfellowshipped or has disassociated themselves, when they show repentance, they are reinstated and again can be called one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is also in line with the Bible.

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I want to say that if what Franz wrote can be assumed to be accurate about his experiences,then he contributed to his ordeal.Granted,Franz is entitled to his own views,but his views should not be held paramount to his pursuit to do the will of God.That humans can err does not mean that the Bible has changed.He only could not accommodate others thoughts but wanted to establish his.He only met with the natural consequence.It was like when God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and bad,and they decided to exescise their free will to eat from it.They met with the consequences of their action.

Some editors overlook the concern for NPOV and remove its tag. Please note the explanation of NPOV guidelines as my reason for keeping this tag, despite my editions that include citations. The NPOV_tutorial says: "Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV." (italics mine) Justin

Some NPOV will come from citing Watchtower articles around the time Franz was disfellowshipped. I will try to get my hands on these. Otherwise, section Inquisitions and Expulsions needs citations -- even has an uncited quotation :( Justin 12:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had a problem with the term Inquisition in this section for a while, but I was unsure of how to change it without causing a problem. George 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Jehovah's Witnesses can be and ARE disfellowshipped for talking with a disfellowshipped person.

I would have to say all this fuss over whose right or wrong really reminds me of how it was growing up in the JW religion. I will have to let you all onto a little secret though, organization was totaly against what charles taze russel was fighting for. The fact remains that JW's have a remarkable history of providing false phrophecy,lack of assistance to helping their own peaople and lies about joining the united nations. If you have respect for anyone, It should be for raymond franz, because he did this in part for the harm done by this religous enigma and to help people to really think of how the damage is done.

• Having been around the Organization for 46 years, let me assure you that JWs are disfellowshipped based on their associations. I personally know of a couple where the wife was disfellowshipped, and the husband was instructed to have no conversation beyond a bare minimum with her or risk being disfellowshipped as well.

• This article reflects Franz' experience. As such, it's silly to attack the page for being pro or against the religious teaching of the Society. Let his experience stand, and others get from it what they will.

198.200.132.69 00:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

=

I'm new to this discussion but here goes. I noticed an important point that dirtyvarmit touched on in his post above, namely, his question about Franz being a part of the annointed slave class through whom the word of God is supposed to be dissiminated. If he was indeed a member of this class then how can his understanding of God's word be questioned since he is in fact a member of the group whose understanding of the Bible is not to be questioned??? Also, I'm considering in connection to this question comments posted later in this section about being disfellowshipped for persisting in a thought that hasn't come from the slave class. If indeed, at some time, there is a difference in Biblical understanding among those of the slave class then how does one know for sure which understanding is correct? And yes, I'm familiar with the procedure outlined at Acts 15:2. Nevertheless, if the light does indeed keep on getting brighter and brighter so that understanding is clearer as time goes on, what if the understanding of the slave class eventually clarifies itself to agree with the side that was disfellowshipped for persisting in their beliefs? And if a member of the slave class did not persist in a belief that the rest of the slave class feels is wrong but would eventually be shown to be right (with brighter light), then how would that belief ever come to light unless it continued to exist somewhere in the thought of one of the slave class??? It seems to me that if a person is of the slave class and they have a thought about Biblical understanding that, for some reason, keeps persisting but that, for some reason, is out of harmony with the thoughts of other members of the slave class, then the reasonable and prudent thing to do, (in light of the belief that 'brighter light' will eventually uncover the truth), is to wait until the light shines bright enough to clarify the dissention rather than engage a power struggle over beliefs. If you really trust that the light will eventually be bright enough to shine through the dissention, there's no harm in leaving Biblical understanding unclarified (and publishing that the understanding is currently unclarified) for a time. After all, Jehovah's Witnessess have no problem falling back on the "unclarified" excuse when then have to backstep over inaccuracies that they've published. Why not just come up front and say "We're unclear on that point right now."??? - January 14, 2007 - Tokilamknbrd. == Even in the bible, those outside the arrangement and organisation of God were not saved, yes, even though they had good intentions of worshipping God but refused to get along with the arrangement of God, a good example is the "ARK OF NOAH". Yes God pointed to it as the only source of survival for the people of that time, it may have been true that some disregarded this arrangement of God for survival, but they perished! so too, professing to worship God in isolation will not help one, even though the person have good intentions to do so, it violates paul's admonition in hebrews 10:24-25, how will encouragement comes if they don't serve God together? so think about this.God is not an authour of disorderliness and confusion but of PEACE!those in the apostolic days studied the scriptures, compared what they saw and heard from the apostles with the scriptures, and made a decision to be a part of God's earthly organisation by getting baptised, yes that was true of the "BOREANS" AS Acts of the Apostle reveals.Yes that is true of today too, when God will destroy the wicked human society, he is going to save ONLY those among his earthly organisation approved by him, that is why people are warned to get out of satan's organisation namely "BABYLON THE GREAT" WHICH IS THE WORLD EMPIRE OF FALSE RELIGION (Reveation 18:4)Please give a thought about this.

MA

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)

Trying to have an impartial debate dealing with a subject based upon faith is an effort in rank futility and frustration. Based upon faith, every muslim, christian, and new age hippie are all completely correct in their arguments. I question all of the following peoples "neutral" positions. Simply on the grounds that they are obviously not.Viswamitra 10:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that "Raymond Franz" page was completely one-sided. For one thing, Jehovah's Witnesses do not get disfellowshipped for talking to someone disfellowshipped or who has disassociated him/herself. They are counseled not to associtate with such persons because they are not good associates in that they have stopped following the Bible. If they continue to do so they are punished by reprovement which is normaly private and or public, meaning there privileges " Speaking on stage, preaching in groups outside of the congregation, giving answers to questions that are asked " are taken away. If that doesn't solve the problem normaly they are dissfellowshiped because they fear the persons will intimidate the dissfellowshiped person. About the claims of him and his friends being harrassed, The watchtower and bible tract societys goal is to help those who are straying from Bible principles and the way God has outlined in the Bible for his servants. The organization needs to talk with the subjects who are deviating from the Bible. If they do not want to repent and refuse to follow the Bible, then they will be disfellowshipped. This is right and proper as in the apostles' time those of the first century christians who refused to repent and get back on track following God's Word would also be shunned. Also, true Christians are supposed to be united as Jesus taught. 1 Corinthians 1:10 says: "Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought..." Many of Jehovah's witnesses would argue that this is a maliciously and knowingly attempt to disrupt the unity of those in the organization by going against Bible teachings, and that it can and should be cause for disfellowshipped for apostasy. Apostasty is funny thing if you are a Jehovah Witness, because there whole religon is founded by apostates. The governing body are all apostates to there own religion. For Raymond Franz was not only part of the governing body buy also was one of the anointed, and he now is labeled an apostate meanwhile the rest of the governing body hides there apostasy with these 2 words New Light. If he is a apostate I say to you so is the rest of them.

However, there are those that fit the discreption of apostates. Those would be the ones who have perverted the teachings of the bible to there own benifit which for example a church that supports homosexuals. Clearly it states that men who lie with other men shall not inherit gods kingdom. Furthermore there are some who are "kicked out" of the organization for unrepentant wrongdoing, they are angry and even insulted and as a result they spread falsehoods about the organization but the fact of the matter is that they were disfellowshipped for going against what the Bible teaches and not being remorseful. Those who have sinned seriously but who express genuine repentance are not disfellowshipped but they are helped back on to the right course according the the Bible. And then also, even when someone has been disfellowshipped or has disassociated themselves, when they show repentance, they are reinstated and again can be called one of Jehovah's Witnesses, which is also in line with the Bible.

• Re: homosexuals and the Bible: If Jesus completed the Mosaic covenant, then quoting Levitical law is dishonest in the context of modern Christianity. "Abomination" is equally applied to man lying with man as it is to eating shellfish - and neither are applicable to JWs today, according to teaching.198.200.132.69 00:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

  Revised

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The whole world needs to stop going back and forth about tired old old watchtower false propaganda. The truth is that Ray Franz is an apostate an he knows it and all who defend him are apostate or apostate defenders. Lets just save all this rukus and arguing till the last day. Then is when we will know who's right or wrong. If The WTBT has misled and lied about God and his son Christ then all the WTBT followers will be saved because they have been misled, and god knows the true intentions of the heart. But if the WTBT has been right about everything that Ray franz has argued and caused so much rukus over then God will punish all the apostates and their followers who defend propaganda such as raymond franz. There is no point to go over and over about something that not even the greatest bible scholars are sure about because we are all inperfect and thats the truth of the matter. Let the end come and God will say who was right and what group will survive his day. As for now all that we know is that the WTBT has been around since along time ago and if they are still around and getting stronger it's for a reason. Raymond Franz on the other hand is a has been an ex JW and he's a looser and all who belive in a Looser will amount to just that. Ray is such a looser that he has managed to start a movement that he himself contradicts with the fact that most of his life work has been for WTBT. So if he's so right then the WTBT has gotten the best of him and he's a looser for spending more than 40 years waisting he's time defending something he now doe's not belive in. I tell you if i thought for a minute that someone or some organization is misleading me and the world I would not be dumb enough to stick around for forty years, again just a looser...204.100.56.221 18:57, 3 February 2006

To Jehovah's Witness user 204.100.56.221. Please refrain from vandalising pages, regardless of your own bitter, highly inaccurate and subjective views. PS. Also, buy a dictionary, and learn to spell your favourite ad hominem word; it's spelled loser, not 'looser'. Central 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was removed by an anonymous user because "Sources and quotes are listed. NPOV tags must be justified by opposing facts not just carelessly inserted." I inserted the tag because, even with citations, Franz's autobio is the only opinion in this article. I am in the middle of revising this article to include more sources and quotes, but after re-reading Wiki's NPOV guideline, I do not see why this user would remove the NPOV tag since it sounds like their complaint should have been to remove the Citation tag. Very illogical to justify removing NPOV because of sufficient citations.

Raymond franz should not be a link on the Jehovah's Witness page because he has no bearing on their past or current beliefs or activities. He is simply another individual that disagrees with and opposes the Witnesses. Many have and many will continue. THe fact that he was a member of the governing body, the fact that he wrote a book etc. is of no consequence to Jehovah's witnesses faith or activities. He should not be linked to the JW page. He is ultimately inconsequential.

Great logic. So Judas et al. should be removed from the bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.25.36 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I stand corrected. --MalcolmMacMillan 02:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Malcolm. I'm glad that made sense(!). --bUcKaRoO 15:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I added the following comment, and it was deleted. I placed under Offical Apostasy after Franz's quote:

It is relevant to note that the terms related to "apostasy" are not intended to be "denigrating" according to their use in the Bible (2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 1 Timothy 4:1). For example, the term "wicked" is not intended to be "denigrating" either according to its use in the Bible. On the other hand, the terms related to "Inquisition" are not biblical terms, and their are intended to be "denigrating" since they refer to the well-known historical period known as "The Inquisition". Mr. Franz refers about the term "apostate" as being a "denigrating label", and at the same time Franz uses the expression of "apparent Inquisition". Disfellowhipping is biblical according to 2 John 9-11 among other biblical verses, stated directly or indirectly. Cristorly (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually JW's are strongly discouraged from participating in any online debate or having anything to do with online material focused on Jehovah's Witnesses unless it is on their official site, [1]. Therefore, anyone who would be on here would not be a very good example of a "true Jehovah's Witness".

Image

What's going on here? We're not allowed to look at an image of the guy now? Can someone explain why this picture has disappeared?Grimhim 09:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back a while ago. I'm not sure why someone decided to delete the picture in the first place. Central 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

JW Template

Why are you removing it Central? joshbuddy^talk 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed that massive JW promo box, as there is a clear link at the bottom of the page to all the categories and that massive box is rather ostentatious and unnecessary, and also breaks the whole page up, and it is also mushrooming out of control being posted on all and every article and sub article, as if it were a clear-out-stock day for an end of production model. Wikipedia has a well-established categories section, and that is clearly linked to at the bottom of the page. There is no need for such inappropriate PR material and massive boxes, especially on sub-pages. I also noticed the original box category on the main JW article was one on Christianity based subjects, not exclusively JWs, why was this changed? It also sadly indicates very well the isolationist desire of the JWs' organization, and that should not be allowed to continue here on an open encyclopaedia. If any box should be here on this Ray Franz page, it should a small discreet one linked to other articles on mind-control groups, propaganda, totalitarianism power, or high control groups and their negative effects on individuals' freedoms and rights. If people are interested in the rest of the material on that religion there is a clear categories section with a mass of links at the bottom of the page, and also a clear link to the main JW article page, and they are highly sufficient for that purpose. There is no need for this excessive overkill that has appeared over the past week. I believe many of those added boxes should go because there are far too many and are excessive. Central 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be following the JW guidelines:NPOV for revisions Justin 12:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations and Nomenclature

I'm dicussing JW nomenclature and editing citations with RogerK at his Talk page. Please follow that link (and I hope they don't mind :). Justin 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My replies can be found on Justins talk page. --RogerK 01:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Published sources

This article must be based upon published sources, per Wickipedia guidelines. The truthfulness of Mr. Franz is not in question here; the article presents his published statements. If there are refutations of his statements, they must be from published sources, and not personal opinions, regardless of the veracity of the opinion. The results of personal research may not be included in this article, unless the results are verifiable from published sources. This means that you cannot edit the content of this article just because your opinion is different than published source material in this article. Such changes will be reverted.--RogerK 05:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is replete with unsourced statements. In this particular instance, "dissenting views" is placed in quotation marks, indicating that it may be found in Franz's writings. I could not find it; therefore I replaced it with sourced material. If I am in error, restore it with a citation. Had it not been placed in quotation marks, it could stand as a fairly good summarization. I deleted "senior" because I could not find that adjective in Franz's published statements about the incident. --RogerK 03:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In agreement

I have to agree with the last comment posted here. As a budding Christian who is faithfully reading and praying to Yahweh for understanding, I have encountered persons from a number of faiths--including Jehovah's Witnesses--who boldly state that they, and ONLY they, have true understanding of the Bible and God's plans for us. Despite the differences, I repeatedly hear the SAME things--it's uncanny! Everyone sees themselves as right and no one wants to be wrong. This is why above all else, I place my faith in God for his guidance. I pray this for Mr. Franz, JWs, Catholics, Baptists, COC, etc. Letsgetalong 02:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Letsgetalong

Peter Gregerson

I've deleted this section after Falloutboyemokid claims "unauthorised copying from my website" and deleted the contents. There's no point in having a section heading without anything in it. --tess 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

supposed copyvios

A user has recently been blanking portions of this and other articles (including the reference section of an article, believe it or not), claiming they are copyright violations from a website. I have googled a few random sentences (in quotes) from the supposed copyvios, and gotten no results other than Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Given the user's blanking of a references/further reading section, this is either someone with an incredibly poor understanding of US copyright law or vandalism, but I'm AGFing the former. But the user's blankings should be reverted. Natalie 23:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes back to the edit on Feb 16, 2007 by SmackBot. --tess 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be added to a list of articles explaining the actual history of who JW's really are. As mentioned before those who leave the organization are compelled to blasphem about the organization. Those personal opinions should have their own space, because it is part of a prophecy fullfillment...but not along with a description of the organization--as they are no longer part of it. Please someone separate these into two different categories!

NPOV tag

this article is clearly referenced, and much of the source material used from ray's book is "quoted" as such. It cant be made any more obvious that anything HE wrote is HIS POV. unless anyone wants to take up a rational debate about POV on the part of the article's authors, The NPOV tag should not be replaced. --PopeFauveXXIII 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Request/Complaints

Can I open a page for me? I can do it but many will say who is him. He is trying to make him a personality. But do not worry I won't do it. Trying to make this man to be here without having any merit is giving a right to others to open wikipages of their histories. Inflating wikipedia with non-transcendental facts. Please remove this biography from here. We have enough places are in the cyberspace with unimportant facts to do the same here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.153.68 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Could you be more concise and reduce the information about this person.

It is incredible you talk more about Raymond Franz than the information you are giving of his uncle who had a more positive background. You had even published a photo of him with his information and Frederick W. Franz does not has a photo.

I think you should contact the Watch tower Society and they could give you a helping hand in creating more accurate bigraphies rather than use the testimony of apostates and spread information that could infest the mind of others. Enough have the Jehovah's witnesses with all the bad things people talk about them to use this forum to instigate more opposition against them.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.213.228 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to separate Mr Raymond Franz exposures from the one of his uncle and I did a mistake. Please more respect to the memory of Bro. Frederick W. Franz do not put Raymond in his article. He is a disfellowship and probably an apostate.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.105.133 (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion?

I didn't see in that paragraph where it said that he was disfellowshiped? And if he was disfellowshiped, shouldn't the subheading be called Disfellowshiped? Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He was expelled from the headquarters prior to being disfellowshipped from the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Authority Fairness

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. As such, it can not allow itself to use unauthoritative sources to state FACTS. Therefore, I disagree with the following wording from the article: "Franz began working in the organization's writing department and was assigned to collaboratively write Aid to Bible Understanding, the first encyclopaedic book published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Franz and his colleagues spent five years researching various bible translations and Bible commentaries, and submitted a great number of biblical topics to Knorr for approval.[7] [8] "

What is the problem with this? These statments are "demonstrated" or "proved" by what the same individual subject of the article says. No sources or citations are given to prove these statements other than what Mr Franz himself wrote. Therefore, the wording should be something like "According to his own account, Franz began working in the organization's writing department and was assigned to collaboratively write Aid to Bible Understanding", or something of the sort. Otherwise, Wikipedia loses objectivity abd fairness. The question is: How do I know, as an innocent reader, that Franz actually did what HE CLAIMS he did? I need Wikipedia to warn me this is what HE CLAIMS HE DID and not a corrobarated fact, unless some further corroborative source is cited.

I intend to change the article as described above so as to make it more accurate and reliable. If someone opposses to it for legitimate reasons related to Wiki Standards (and not for personals opinions on Mr Franz) I suggest that his or her reasons be written here, so as to consider them before I start fixing the article according to what has been explained.--Universal001 (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)universal001

I have no problem with qualifying with wording similar to 'Franz states'. However, if something is not likely to be disputed, it is not always necessary to provide additional qualifiers. The word 'claim' should also be used carefully to avoid suggesting that the persons' 'claim' is deliberately false rather than simply unverified. I don't believe there has ever been any contestation to the 'claim' that Franz worked on the Aid book. Franz 'claims' cited above seem entirely credible based on statements in JW literature about his position in the organization (e.g. yb72 p. 158, yb73 p. 257, w79 1/1 p. 11, yb80 p. 159).--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good point, Jeffro77. Before I start adding those sentences as "Franz States", I will carefully check whether the matter is disputable or not. I agree that the word "claims" is usually misunderstood, as you have pointed out. Of course, there are instances when no DIRECT corroboration is needed, specially if there are some INDIRECT corroboration, as it may be the case in what you have said at the end.--Universal001 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Universal001

The article seems way too detailed for an encyclopedia article. Moreover, Ray Franz himself is the overwhelming source! Currently, the article has:

# of refs	Ref source	Note
6	refs by Watchtower	mostly for points unlikely to be contended (that is, filler)
1	blog entry	by some former JW
25	refs by Ray Franz himself	so the article is basically an autobiography by the title subject

The article is an affront to the Wikipedia standard! I'd happily rewrite it, but I'm doubtful that my work would be acceptable to Franz's readership. I'm hoping that in the next couple of weeks a consensus can be reached to rewrite the article, and maybe someone will tackle it and post a draft. Frankly, as it stands now, the article is liable for deletion or reduction to a stub. Ray Franz is notable enough to have an article, but it shouldn't seem to have been written by him.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the exact number of references to be a problem, so long as they present accurate and undisputed information. However, I do believe the very lengthy blockquote about Franz' views of apostasy should be removed and replaced with a summary of maybe a sentence or two - the article is about Franz, not about apostasy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If the matters being referenced were of encyclopedic interest, it would be a different story. As it is now, whole paragraphs are just utterly unworthy of inclusion. If Dunlap or Gregerson were an integral part of Franz's saga, the article fails to explain how or why they each deserve an entire section. It seems like they were parked here because they weren't notable enough on their own. As I said earlier, I'm not afraid to trim this but believe others might question my motives for doing so. I hope someone else will agree its necessary. If not, I will trim it, it will be reverted, we'll get others involved, and the article will end up bearing absolutely no resemblance to its current state.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the blog entry, per WP:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources?.
I'd greatly prefer that someone else do the major pruning here, but it cannot be ignored much longer.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Wow, this article is amazing; it must set a Wikipedia record! It currently has 37 references, and not a single one of them is prefered as a reliable source. There are 6 references from the organization that the subject is most closely associated with, and thirty one (31!) from the subject himself; yet not one single reference from reliable thrid party sources. I suggest "stubbing" the article until it can be rewritten properly with appropriate sources and references. What stands here now is seriously non-complaint with BLP policy. Doc Tropics 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: While I didn't actually Stub this article (which would still be fine), I did remove significant quantities of material that specifically failed to comply with WP:BLP. I don't believe that this "mass deletion" required concensus because it is a policy enforcement issue rather than a content dispute. If and when reliable third party sources are found to support the material it could certainly be restored. In the absence of such sources however, the material has been challenged and shouldn't be replaced. Thanks, Doc Tropics 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated hearsay

Someone has tagged as "dubious" the following statement under the Expulsion subheading: "On 20 May 1980 he met with the Chairman's Committee, and was played a taped audio interview of a married Witness couple who spoke about rumours of private meetings of Witnesses who were discussing various teachings of the Watchtower Society." The edit summary noted it was "unsubstantiated hearsay". Can someone expand on the problem? Like most of the narrative about Franz's exit from the religion, it's drawn from his Crisis of Conscience book, which is a first-person account of events. Penton's book cites much of the saga. I'm not aware that Franz's version of events has been discredited or disputed by anyone else directly involved, and it's not clear here just what is supposed to be hearsay. LTSally (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing detail

This article has been cut heavily since mid-2009. Conparing the current version with the article as it was in early 2009, it seems that much pertinent material has been deleted. The reference to the circumstances of Franz's disfellowshipping, namely his eating with a disassociated person, was among the material removed and obvioiusly needs to be reinstated. And although the section heading "Official apostasy" remains, there is nothing in that section directly linking Franz with "official apostasy", whatever that is — indeed the two sentences under that subhead don't even connect with each other. The article in its early 2009 form was probably too long and too reliant on his book, but its present form is a patently inadequate treatment of the subject. I'll add it to my "in" basket unless someone else wants to have a crack at it in the meantime. LTSally (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was deliberately reduced to a stub form due to a lack of references from reliable sources. Please note that the author's autobiography alone, without third party citations, is not really useful for quoting anything but his opinion. Secondary sources are generally required for factual matters, and much of this was outrageous hearsay and little more than gossip. Please don't restore the deleted material without better references, thanks. Doc Tropics 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Without analysing the changes you have just made, I note that you have removed material sourced to Rogerson, Beverley, Botting, Penton and Time magazine. All are reliable sources. Why? LTSally (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove any specific material with that edit; I reverted to a point in the history prior to the reinsertion of dubious materials which had previously been deleted by a consensus of editors. Please feel free to bring them up individually, but BLP has the most stringent standards of any policy on wikipedia, and material in biographies must be vetted thoroughly. Thanks, Doc Tropics 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles benefit from a range of reliable sources. You have removed all the sources I added and have deleted statements from those sources on events at Bethel prior to his departure and the circumstances leading to his disfellowshipping. You have also removed sources supporting existing material in the article that are now supported only by his own account. You have reverted to a poor quality version which includes the meaningless heading "official apostasy", which is not supported by any wording that follows. Instead of reverting all those changes wholesale and then demanding I bring material up individually, perhaps you might have dealt with any failings individually. The version you removed was more comprehensive and better sourced than the one you restored, under the weak claim that BLP standards are more stringent. LTSally (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated the third party citations you removed and removed the tag calling for external sources. The article was overheaded for such a small article, so I have reduced the article two sections — his Watch Tower career and his expulsion. If you believe there is material here that breaches WP:BLP ("outrageous hearsay and little more than gossip" you say), please identify it clearly without removing all the material from those reliable, verifiable sources. I'm still baffled at your call for "better references" after you deleted those I had added. LTSally (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Alive?

Another editor plonked the question 'Is he alive?' below the references section in the article - obviously that is not the right place to ask the question. So... is he still alive?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, according to the article he is, but that is also unsourced. Doc Tropics 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The absence of up-to-date information about whether he is still alive, doesn't mean that the article is unsourced. Unless you're suggesting he was never alive?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are credible reports on internet forums that Raymond Franz has suffered a stroke in the last day or two and is seriously ill. Please note that nothing can appear on the article page without citing a reliable, verifiable news source. BlackCab (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have scoured the net and no news source has said that RF suffered a stroke. The only reason I know about it was from a JW site which is anti-JW. As far as I know RF is still alive and the part about Cynthia pulling the plug on life support(and therefore RF dying) is comepletely unfounded. Andy5421 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Freeminds website notes his death. The site is probably not sufficient as a source for the article on the basis of WP:POORSRC. Hopefully mainstream media will report the death soon. BlackCab (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have experience making Wikipedia edits. However the organizer of our ex-JW group in Phoenix posted a link to Atlanta Obituaries at http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/atlanta/obituary.aspx?n=raymond-franz&pid=143464974&fhid=5304. Would this be a suitable citation? RandyG271. —Preceding undated comment added 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC).

I've added it to the article. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename

I suggest to rename this article to Raymond Victor Franz. The article about his uncle has the name Frederick William Franz. I think the name of this article also needs the second name. Do you have any contradictions? I would be thankful for them. Gufido (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No strong opinion on this, however per WP:COMMONNAME, "Raymond Franz" gets significantly more Google hits than "Raymond Victor Franz", and "Frederick William Franz" gets more hits than either "Frederick Franz" or "Fred Franz". Based on that, the two articles would both seem to be already under their most common names.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)rre

Unlike his uncle, who is often referred to in Watch Tower literature as FW Franz, Raymond Franz is only ever identified by his first and last names. Common searches would be only for that name. The current article name is therefore the most appropriate. BlackCab (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Book articles

I have added sections at Talk for both Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom requesting the articles be either expanded (with reliable third-party sources indicating notability), or deleted. Neither of the articles presents anything notable about the publications, and they don't present anything that isn't already at this article. Also, informal popularity of a book among former JWs does not in itself constitute notability. After some time, if the articles are not improved, I will raise AfDs for the book articles. If they are deleted, I will create redirects to this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I should think the CoC book can be expanded without too much problem. There is a reasonable number of references to it in other books and I'll get on to it when time permits. In Search of Christian Freedom attracted less attention from external sources and can probably be deleted when the time comes. BlackCab (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Crisis of Conscience

It has been suggested that Crisis of Conscience merge with the Franz article. I oppose that. Crisis of Conscience has enough specific external references to prove its notability as a standalone article. It also goes into more depth than is needed on the Franz article. BlackCab (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the content of the other article is biographical information about Franz. It would be entirely suitable to put the more-specific information about the book in its own section in this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Biographical information takes up one paragraph of the Crisis of Conscience article. The remainder is solely about the book and his rationale for writing it. BlackCab (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

His reasons for writing an autobiographical book are necessarily biographical. I think it would be best to get some other editors' opinions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with BlackCab on this point. I think the CoC page has enough to stand on its own. Vyselink (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2011

JWs certainly don't believe their Governing Body to be infallible". I concur. Ideas (doctrine) that are held as "the truth" shall continue to be so until otherwise proved wrong. It should be noted though, that, the most fundamental of JWs doctrine mostly have never been altered or slightly altered in light with new understanding brought by updates of biblical translation as function of archaeology or linguistics. Often, those "false" teaching which gather an enormous amount of attention are not central to their doctrine but rather, perception and interpretation cooked by JWs "fanatics" themselves base on their inaccurate assessment of the wisdom their publication intended to speak.

This is in response to this comment: "JWs are disfellowshipped based on their associations","a couple where the wife was disfellowshipped, and the husband was instructed to have no conversation beyond a bare minimum with her or risk being disfellowshipped as well". The key concept their is ASSOCIATION. When a JW is disfellowshipped, it effectively put an end the SPIRITUAL ASSOCIATION he/she has with the organization and therefore to all its member including those of his/her own family. However, other form of association continues. Husbands (and other male member of the family) who are not congregation elder are likely to get into pressure. A JW husband but not an elder doesn't have the spiritual authority to bring his disfellowshipped wife (or any member of his family) back to the truth, yet, he is the spiritual head of his family. That is why he is "instructed to have no conversation beyond a bare minimum", which means all activities, particularly conversation, must not include spiritual conversation. All other are permitted. The problem arrives when a JW husband performs his spiritual duty to his family (excluding disfellowshipped member) such as Discussion of the Daily Text, Prayer before each meals, family book study, studies in preparation for congregation meetings, etc., where the family used to do united and in the privacy of their home. Few husbands fail to observed his spiritual limitation and continue to perform their accustomed family spiritual activities, doing so, acting contrary to "the truth". Activities like this doesn't continue unnoticed because other family members who are conscientious to the truth will inform congregation elders. Thus, the husband is hereby consulted, then instructed, then admonished, and eventually, depending on his being remorseful, public reproof or disfellowshipping. It should be noted that, the husband will be disfellowship base on his conscientious and willful action contrary to "the truth". The process does not takes place in haste, for congregation elders will put enormous effort to be reasonable with the JW husband base on scriptural soundness of observing this limitation. In fact, the husband will be enjoined with love and perseverance on this matter so as to help him in his spiritual dilemma. It actually takes a long time and painstaking scriptural discussion before a JW husband is handed the lightest decision. And even more the heavier one.

Apostate in JWs means a person (physical or spiritual) is acting in rebellion against Jehovah God and His Organization. There is no emotion attached. In fact, among those JWs who become wayward, those who are labeled apostate can and will never become part of the organization forever. Thus in severity, from lowest to most severe, being an apostate tops them all. It should be noted that few vocabularies used and understood by JWs are sometimes detached by what conventional thesaurus or encyclopedia define. It is thus beneficial to get familiar with this term in the context of how they are used in doctrines by JWs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEO SERAVILO (talk • contribs) 8 October 2011

This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss your opinions on Jehovah's Witnesses and their beliefs and practices. Encyclopedia articles stand on their own merits. They do not require an understanding of the lingo used by certain groups or religions to flavour the meaning of common English words. Nor are they here to reflect the peculiar views of those religions. And please do not insert unsigned comments within the comments of others. BlackCab (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)