Threat of 1980 Rebellion/Schism--Real or Perceived?

Advertisement

Viewed 2238 times

    M neverendingjourney posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:34:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 804 of 1144
    Joined 1/29/2007

    The way Crisis of Conscience lays it out, despite their reservations on doctrine, Ray Franz and Ed Dunlap would have been more than happy to live out their lives within the JW ranks without causing any disturbance. Ray was contemplating resigning from the GB and living out his life quietly somewhere outside Bethel. Ed preferred to remain in Bethel due to his advanced age. Neither sought to express their reservations about JW doctrine to anyone outside of their tight-knit circle. Starting a new religion certainly was out of the question.

    Ray Franz took a leave of absence early in 1980 and all hell broke loose. Within a matter of weeks several high-ranking Bethelites had been disfellowshipped for apostasy. Ray then became the subject of the inquisition and was asked to resign from the GB and leave Bethel. The wheels were put in motion, however, and shortly thereafter Ray was excommunicated...for sharing a meal with his employer who had recently disassociated himself from the JWs.

    If the events occurred just as Ray describes, the Society's actions were completely illogical, not to mention irrational. The way in which Ray was treated led him to write the only exposé of the inner workings of the governing body ever published.

    It seems the shrewder move would have been to keep these men in Bethel where they could be monitored. The GB could have sent the loyalty-above-all message simply by stripping these men of their authority.

    The Society’s actions only make sense if the threat of a schism was real. No doubt they took muscular preemptive action against the perceived threat, but what prompted this response? From what I can tell, rumors began to circulate about disagreements Ray and Ed had with WT doctrine, but this was nothing new. As Ray points out, Albert Schroeder had been taken to task a few years earlier for presenting a different view on “this generation” from the platform.

    Unless there’s something more to the story, the Watchtower’s actions were completely irrational, illogical, and ultimately counterproductive. If Ray were still a JW (as was apparently his wish), we’d have no Crisis of Conscience. None of us would know that doctrinal changes require a 2/3 supermajority. We’d be left to speculate about the nature of GB meetings that the manner in which they’re carried out. The WT shot itself in the foot, and for the life of me I can’t figure our why.

    Is there more to the story? Was the threat of a rebellion, schism, apostasy, or whatever else you want to call it real ?

    M No Apologies posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:13:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 824 of 890
    Joined 9/20/2002

    You're assuming that the WT leaders were rational people... What are you basing this on?

    No Apologies

    Think About It posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:22:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 376 of 3159
    Joined 1/20/2010

    "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."- Sun-Tzu (Chinese general & military strategist ~400 BC)

    Think About It

    M neverendingjourney posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:29:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 805 of 1144
    Joined 1/29/2007
    You're assuming that the WT leaders were rational people... What are you basing this on?

    I don't assume WT leaders are rational. One potential answer is simply this: the men on the GB are completely irrational and acted accordingly.

    Why did Nixon have his goons break into the Watergate Hotel when his reelection bid was never seriously challenged? Because he was paranoid and irrational. Why did McCarthy initiate a witch hunt against "communist sympathizers"? Because he was irrational, power-hungry, and an attention whore.

    Another possible answer, however, is that the GB began to sense their grip of power slipping away and decided to bring the hammer down. Private conversations revealing doubts about official JW doctrine don't seem to justify such a response.

    My interest is in trying to figure out whether there is more information out there from other sources that substantiate the latter explanation or whether the former is all there is to it.

    diamondiiz posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:59:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 389 of 1522
    Joined 3/15/2009

    COC is a great book but it doesn't reveal that much new material that you couldn't find outside of it. After a bit of research it doesn't take a genius to see that GB isn't inspired by anything other than their combined uneducated dumbness. The GB like other cult leaders are after total control and obediance from each other and their flock. Any one questioning them will be the target and that was Ray's and others outcome. They feel too high and mighty to reason that their actions may bite them in the ass later. After all, 1975 BS blew up in their faces but the cult didn't fall apart and the blame went on suckers who put trust in the leaders while the leaders were free of any guilt - surely that helped their ego that they could push out even one of their own without feeling threatened.

    M ldrnomo posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:03:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 628 of 1515
    Joined 9/8/2007

    The WTS are experts at shooting themselves in the foot. They fall in a tulip field and come out smelling like sh!t.

    LD

    M leavingwt posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:24:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 6061 of 14213
    Joined 6/16/2008

    Unless there’s something more to the story, the Watchtower’s actions were completely irrational, illogical, and ultimately counterproductive.

    They really do think God is running the organization. As such, trying to explain things in a rational way is not productive, IMHO.

    Ray would not OBEY. He would not go along with leadership. As such, the 'rules' demanded that he be punished.

    M leavingwt posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:27:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 6062 of 14213
    Joined 6/16/2008
    COC is a great book but it doesn't reveal that much new material that you couldn't find outside of it.

    Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

    Please point us to a book/source that provides details of GB meetings.

    Waiting. . . . . . . . . .

    diamondiiz posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:29:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 390 of 1522
    Joined 3/15/2009

    Leavingwt:

    COC dealt with much more than just GB meetings.

    Is GB more worried about what one man says about their secret meetings or flood of evidence presented about their scandels and doctrinal changes? Much of the book deals with doctrine and history and how it afected Ray and few others which is a stronger part of the book IMO than GB meetings, wouldn't you say? But most of that historical evidence can be researched outside of the book which is what I meant and not that I implying there was nothing new to be found in Ray's book.

    M feenx posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:46:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 349 of 384
    Joined 10/24/2007

    I agree with leavingwt.....

    IMHO it's quite clear that dubs pretty much think they're invincible. Which is ironic since they preach so hard that at the time of the end all will undergo persecution. So of course ANYTIME a dub is "persecuted" (which is really more like someone calling one on their sh*t) it's a clear sign of the times. But in all reality they walk as if on water themselves. They're so convinced they can't be touched that I wouldn't be surprised if none of them ever gave it a second thought. I'm sure they just wanted this "apostate" and unclean "thing" away from them. They also know that word spreads fast in the org., so the longer there is no action, the more talk there will be, which means more work for them to contain it. So the easy thing is to simply cast him out. And because each and every high ranking member of the org is clearly genius material, I am positive the thought that Ray Franz would write a book about his experiences, at all, was preposterous. Let alone that this book would actually get the attention and readership that it has over the years was probably inconceivable to them.

    F yknot posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:01:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 6076 of 9299
    Joined 8/24/2007

    I can't account for the goings on at Bethel during the period......

    However in my congregation we were experiencing a 'Berean' period around that time. I went from 3 Saturdays a month concentrating on being good organizationally to be concerned about not being followers of men, discerning the context and taking in accurate knowledge so that when the end did come we were not led astray. The pointing out of WTS nonsense like mediatorship was highlighted and quotes like the watchtower was not inspired nor sought to be dogmatic were expressed. We were to be discerning in all things for it was conceivable that Satan would infiltrate the Org........ and thus is how I perceived and explained away the 80s..... Secret apostate, disgusting thing in the inner sanctuary.

    Now of course I see the politico of it all!.......

    dissed posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:59:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 1268 of 1930
    Joined 9/1/2009

    They reacted to the perceived rebellion in their midst.

    There were groups that were leaving the JW's and organizing. My old congregation of Carnarsie, Brooklyn, had over 60 DF'd for apostasy.

    The GB had become paranoid and over reacted to a few in Bethel.

    What they failed to recognize was that people, everywhere, independently of each other, were coming to the same obvious conclusions the WT was wrong on certain points.

    So the GB couldn't be at fault, it had to be a rebellion organized, trying to take over the WT.

    Remember, this was after Knorr died, these were 'new boys' now on their own, the chosen ones leading the JW's as God's comunica to the world.

    imho

    Mad Sweeney posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:32:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 581 of 6964
    Joined 11/2/2009

    Another possible answer, however, is that the GB began to sense their grip of power slipping away and decided to bring the hammer down.

    The GB was new to power during this period and they didn't know how to wield it. Add to that the irrationality and belief that they were on a mission from God and you've got your explanation.

    And not to derail this thread, but why do people feel the need to diss Crisis of Conscience and/or Ray Franz?

    M Dogpatch posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:08:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 2760 of 3989
    Joined 12/26/2000

    I was there during the whole incident and for a few months after Ray left. My overseer was Tom Cabeen, and he and his wife were privy to the information and plans of the Governring body on a regular basis. Being friends and Bethel elders who worked together closely, he shared enough evidence with me about the whole story. Plus, I attrended all the Bethel elders meetings and took notes.

    Try these links:

    http://freeminds.org/organization/brooklyn-bethel/what-happened-at-the-world-headquarters-of-jehovah-s-witnesses-in-the-spring-of-1980.html?q=happened+world ( I wrote this a year before Ray did his book, so it was the first "expose'" by a former member. I sent 10,000 free copies all over the world.)

    The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:The Critical Years 1975-1997

    My Story - Trouble At Bethel - Part 2

    Randy's Letter of Resignation to the Governing Body

    Interview with Tom Cabeen

    Freddy, Klein and the Apostate Books

    (the above is the most fun to read)

    Randy

    Titus posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:44:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 122 of 1035
    Joined 11/25/2009

    I think that Ray Franz wrote his books just to earn the money.

    Sorry, Ray, but I downloaded your books in pdf for free.

    M wobble posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:58:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 2307 of 5745
    Joined 2/20/2008

    Titus , is your surname Assholes ? Ray wrote for the benefit of duped Dubs. His sadness at what he realised the borg was permeates the book.

    AS to the 1980/81 Bethel purges to expect a rational response from the GB to this problem is like expecting the English Royal family to have a humane response to the death of Diana.

    Both sets of people, the GB and the Royal family, are so removed from reality and normal life that they cannot act as normal humans would.

    Love

    Wobble

    JWoods posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:03:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 1996 of 4822
    Joined 6/23/2009
    The GB had become paranoid and over reacted to a few in Bethel.
    What they failed to recognize was that people, everywhere, independently of each other, were coming to the same obvious conclusions the WT was wrong on certain points.

    I was on a practically daily communication with Ed and his brother Marion in that day.

    The above is quite true - what might also be forgotten was how much Freddy Franz hated the whole governing body idea - he really wanted to be president in toto and was not ashamed to say so. Incredibly, even after his 1975 mess blew up in their faces.

    There were several others at Bethel questioning things, and many in the congregations. But most of this was due to the failure of 1975. The hard liners of the GB were convinced the sky was falling, but were also jockeying for individual rank and power.

    F yknot posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:10:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 6084 of 9299
    Joined 8/24/2007

    Oh Titus ......

    Why begrudge him?

    Big Sister hugs and kisses upon your forehead

    ____________________________________________

    back to the topic......

    Perhaps more and more letters were streaming in questions.

    I remember discussing the differences between interpretation and policy.

    I also heard lots of stories about the 'great disappointment' (ie 1925)

    F yesidid posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:04:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 1426 of 1971
    Joined 12/11/2002

    Sorry, Ray, but I downloaded your books in pdf for free.

    Gross hypocrisy Titus! You're not the slightest bit sorry.

    In fact your proclamation shows you are proud of your theft.

    Titus posted Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:06:00 GMT(2/22/2010)

    Post 123 of 1035
    Joined 11/25/2009

    If "Assholes" means, "the one who says his own opinion", then - YES, I am an Assholes (in plural, if you like that).

    Who is Diana, BTW?

    Tonky, you are so kind, every time I say what I think. Please, warn me if I am not allowed to say my opinion sometimes.

    But, thank you for your nice words and kiss.

      Close

      Confirm ...