# Challenge to GB Member Part II

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by M733 [M733] on November 03, 1999 at 12:16:02 {eZOTANvCI6Qd6.0xyhd2BnZmKbeXQ2}:

From M733 to the so-called GB member:

Your recent post implies that board members who focus on the question of your identity are misguidedly diverting attention to tangential or ancillary issues -- indeed, to irrelevancies.

I think most of us understand what the vital issues at stake are. If the issues were your sole concern, you could have quite easily posted to this and other boards anonymously. The relevant fact is that what gives your comments special weight and what garners the attention of board members is your assertion that you are a Governing Body member, a member who wishes to stimulate or effect reform in the Witness movement. Therefore, in claiming to be a Governing body member, you alone are responsible for making the question of your identity the decisive issue.

More is at stake as well: If you are in reality an imposter, any hopes you evoke of imminent reform or substantive change in the Watch Tower movement are mere flimflam -- the stuff of fantasy, not reality. Personally, I do not believe instilling false hopes in people is beneficial. Rather, the results can only be injurious.

In view of the circumstances, I forwarded the posts of the so-called Governing Body member to Raymond Franz for comment. I asked him if he would assist in verifying the authenticity of the so-called Governing Body member. Following, marked off by asterisks, are his remarks:

*************************************************************************
In answer to your inquiry, if the individual who, on the Internet, repeatedly makes claims to being a member of the Governing Body had supplied, or were willing to supply, evidence that his claim is valid, I would have no hesitation in attesting to his legitimacy. If that evidence were forthcoming, I would and could do this without in any way compromising his personal identity. That evidence has not been presented thus far. The individual represents himself as singularly circumstanced so as to be able to be of distinctive help to others, and of being exceptionally placed so as to be a potential force for needed improvement and reform at the highest levels. Since all this is contingent on and predicated on his claim to a unique position, that of being the only current Governing Body member willing to acknowledge serious organizational defects and to express views that are contradictory to the positions and policies currently held by the Governing Body, he should clearly be willing to avail himself of the means to corroborate his legitimacy by supportive testimony from a personally known former associate on the Body, one who formed part of that Body for nine years. Since the serious issue of fraud is involved, he should be willing to put that issue to rest for the good of all. If he is a lover of truth he should be concerned to do so without hesitation.

As stated, I am certainly willing to weigh evidence provided and, if it is sound, then to attest to the validity of the claims made. There are a number of points which I admittedly find puzzling, unable to explain or harmonize. The following are some of the more difficult ones which it would be helpful to clarify preliminary to the providing of such evidence:

In one posting the reason was suggested that this person's not having pursued the simple means outlined for putting an end to the dispute, was because to do so would disturb the "decent life" I now live and "bring up old pains." I have difficulty with the logic of this premise. It is well known that I am not living a life of reclusive and relaxed retirement but am occupied virtually on a daily basis with correspondence from persons in various countries who have a Witness background and who seek help. I am puzzled how anyone could reason that my having contact with a former, longtime associate on the Governing Body--one who had now arrived at conclusions paralleling my own--could be anything but heartening. I cannot comprehend any reasoning that would cause anyone to think the effect would be otherwise. I am thus left with the question, Why would anyone think so?

In an early posting by the claimed member the statement is made, "The bottom line is, I have no real way of proving who I am to your satisfaction. The only thing I could do would be to reveal my name with a photo ID and finger prints. That would spell certain doom for me in my situation. I am not at the age where I cannot [sic] just pack my bags and take a cab out of town to who knows where." It seems, however, that simple logic would make plain that this is not the case. There are a large number of questions that could be asked, the answers to which--if made truthfully and not evasively--would show intimate knowledge of Governing Body matters and establish the legitimacy of the claim made beyond reasonable doubt. They are questions that would not compromise the individual's personal identity--for the simple reason that they are facts which could be in the privileged knowledge of any or all legitimate members. It thus would seem that the idea that to answer definitive questions would inescapably cause disclosure of the individual's personal identity is without any sound basis in fact.

In a very recent post the individual makes the statement: "If I certify my credibility as a Governing Body member it will cause great harm, not so much to me, but to many within the organization who are working for reform. If the rest of the Governing Body became convinced that a fellow member, me, is on the Internet, there will be no stopping them from an all out effort to expose me." Here I find myself forced to ask, does he mean this? If so, what possible reason would the individual have for writing a letter directly addressed "To my fellow members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses"--a letter which the writer describes as an "Open Letter" to them? Why would he post this knowing that it would appear on a public forum, in fact stating in this very letter the probability that some Bethel member would visit a web site containing the "Open Letter" and saying that he is "banking on one of them making sure that you [the Governing Body] get a copy of this Open Letter"? Why would he say in the letter "When you get my post, you will realize it is from me"? It creates a sense of confusion. Is he saying that he wrote an "Open Letter" directed to them as from a fellow Governing Body member, is counting on their receiving it, but that he actually does not want them to become convinced that it is really from a "fellow member" of the Governing Body, since if they took the letter seriously and believed that a "fellow member" were on the Internet this would cause them to make an "all out effort" to expose him? Again, the dilemma faced is, how can the statements possibly be harmonized?

In the Open Letter the writer says to the Governing Body, "I will not be surprised if we discuss this issue in our next session." He is quoted as saying to Ros that "He anticipates that an inquisition of the Governing Body members which might result from this episode would most surely involve the question, have any of them (GB members) had any contact with Raymond Franz. He does not want to be placed in the predicament of having to lie about it." Again, it is difficult not to feel nonplused by the logic of such reasoning. If an authentic Governing Body member actually wrote an Open Letter such as the one this individual has posted and, in fulfillment of his hopes, this letter reached the Governing Body, what would it matter whether the individual had contacted me or not? The "Open Letter" itself contains bluntly stated views that have regularly been characterized in the Watch Tower publications as "apostate," and connection with that letter would be far more damning than an individual's having had some unspecified contact with me. The writer portrays the Governing Body as deeply concerned about what appears on the Internet. If so there could be no question that the "Open Letter" came to their attention. Clearly, in the "inquisition" he is quoted by Ros as anticipating, the question that would then be put to each member of the Body would be--not, "Has any of you had contact with Raymond Franz"--but "Is any member on this Body responsible for this posted 'Open Letter' with its critical and adverse comments?" The individual quoted as stating he would not want to have contact with me because he would not want to "be placed in the predicament of having to lie about it" if questioned. The question is thus forced, would he feel differently about being placed in the predicament of having to lie about this authorship of the "Open Letter"?

Clarification of these points would aid greatly in contributing toward an unbiased assessment of the validity of his claims. But whether he chooses to do so or not, I am willing to cooperate in providing questions capable of eliminating any uncertainty. In view of this, he can know that a way is open to him to quickly and simply put an end to the controversy. He need only express his willingness to cooperate in providing the answers that will readily attest to his legitimacy. He certainly owes this to those to whom he has represented himself as being a conscience-guided, Christ-oriented Governing Body member, and whose trust and prayers he has requested on the basis of that claim. I think it must be agreed that extensive rhetoric, platitudes, or self-evident verities could never accomplish this validation.
**************************************************************************************

As indicated above, Raymond Franz is willing and could pose a variety of questions that would confirm the authenticity of the so-called Governing Body member, without compromising his specific identity. If the writer is truly whom he claims to be, there can be no legitimate objection to such questions. As Raymond Franz stated: "He certainly owes this to those to whom he has represented himself as being a conscience-guided, Christ-oriented Governing Body member, and whose trust and prayers he has requested on the basis of that claim."

Follow Ups:

- *Challenge to GB Member Part II Observer 16:21:42 11/03/99 (0)
- *Challenge to GB Member Part II proplog2 15:49:53 11/03/99 (0)
- *Challenge to GB Member Part II Enoch 15:11:48 11/03/99 (0)
- *Challenge to GB Member Part II Why GB Isn't GB 14:21:07 11/03/99 (0)
- *Challenge to GB Member Part II Farkel 13:37:05 11/03/99 (7)
  - **Challenge to GB Member Part II FRED HALL 14:04:57 11/03/99 (6)
    - ***Challenge to GB Member Part II Shamrock 20:20:33 11/03/99 (0)
    - ***Challenge to GB Member Part II Farkel 14:11:02 11/03/99 (4)
      - ****Challenge to GB Member Part II FRED HALL 14:25:02 11/03/99 (3)
        - *****Challenge to GB Member Part II Shamrock 21:09:38 11/04/99 (0)
        - *****Challenge to GB Member Part II ROFLMAO 14:48:38 11/03/99 (0)
        - *****Challenge to GB Member Part II SpudMama 14:32:11 11/03/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Challenge to GB Member Part II

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]