Posted by M733 [M733] on November 18, 1999 at 14:27:24 {KEdmzBXaT6Qd6.0xyhd2BnZmKbeXQ2}:
[Start of Post "Ray Franz Answers GB Post: 1 of 2"]
As to the response by the individual who portrays himself as a member of the Governing Body, it was good, in the interest of fairness, that a clear opportunity was afforded him to settle the matter. My thought in offering to present decisive questions was done, quite frankly, not with the thought that he would be able to answer them authentically, but in the hope that he might make an open and honest disclaimer of his allegation. His response proves to be a non-response and simply maneuvers around the issues presented. I have not the slightest question that his claim is not genuine.
Several weeks ago, in October, I was contacted on the phone by "Ros" who said she had received an e-mail communication from a person professing to be a member of the Governing Body. After listening to her reading of some of his communication I expressed myself as doubting seriously that his claim had any validity. Subsequently he began making postings on the public forum of H20. I am not on the Internet, but the exposure granted to his postings reached the point where I began receiving numerous phone calls, as well as faxes of his postings, from various places in the U.S. and elsewhere, from persons inquiring as to the validity of his claim. The posting made via M733 was done in the hope of putting the matter to rest. I view time spent in discussing his writing as essentially time ill-used.
In his latest posting he alludes to sending "a message to Ray, before Ros left on vacation," and says, "He has not responded to me." Later, he brings in the posting on M733 and says, "The reason that we are not moving forward is not because of me. I have not heard anymore from Ray or M733." He says that the "gauntlet" was cast before him and he accepted (apparently in a private way to Ros, not in any public form), and then he states, "but the challengers became silent. It has been about a week and I have heard nothing from them." As stated by Ros, the facts are that after the appearance on November 3 of my statement via M733, the claimed Governing Body member posted her a message stating that he would be preparing a form of "farewell" letter and he also included a "message to Ray" which consisted of some form of vague apology. Ros states that within a brief time on that same day, he followed this up with another posting to her in which he said he was revoking the previous post and that his plans were changed; also that he would wait until her return from Spain before making any response. The simple fact is, then, that there was nothing to which to respond. Any "silence" was due to his own silence, due to waiting for him to respond. Only with the posting he has made two weeks later, on November 16, is there something to respond to, as is now being done. His presentation of the matter is therefore a distorted one.
On the basis of personal knowledge, including fifteen years at the international headquarters and nine years of Governing Body membership, the fabricated nature of his claim was evident from his initial posting onward, and only became more obvious as these continued. His latest writing simply adds to the evidence. It reflects the evasiveness, the shifting of the discussion away from the real points at issue, and the contradictory reasoning that have characterized his efforts throughout. Like all the others, it is a classic example of the flawed form of argumentation known as circular reasoning, one of various "begging the question" fallacies As one study describes it:
"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled .... the premise in question can in no way support the conclusion. The circular argument, it could be said, only pretends to establish a claim. Once you have recognized the structure of a circular argument, you will see that it says nothing more significant than, 'A is true, because A is true.'"
The sum and substance, the essence, of all the writings of the individual in question consist of this form of reasoning. The issue has never been as to who he is; it has consistently been as to what he is--whether he, whatever his name, is a valid Governing Body member or not. He presents the premise that he is genuine. The premise is an unproved premise, yet any merit or substance in what he writes is said is predicated upon that unproved premise, depends upon it as its foundation. If the premise--his claim to be a Governing Body member--is false then little if anything he has said has any genuine significance. It is mere words, a profusion of words.
When he writes about Governing Body matters on any subject his statements have substance only on one possible basis: his claim to be a Governing Body member. That is an unproved, unestablished premise. There is not a single statement or piece of information in all that he has written that would validate that premise. No documentation substantiates any of his writings. Each additional presentation he has made gives further indication that he is describing Governing Body matters and functions as he imagines them to be and is not writing from personal knowledge as to how they actually are. Whatever rare factual points that can be found in his writings are in the nature of information accessible to numerous persons outside the Body, including thousands of past and present workers at the Brooklyn headquarters, and a considerable number of congregational elders, or are available in the books Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom. When he does endeavor to discuss matters from an insider viewpoint he only demonstrates himself to be an outsider, lacking personal, direct knowledge of the reality.
When asked to provide evidence that the crucial, foundation premise at issue, his claim to Governing Body membership, is true, every thing he offers follows the same circular pattern. He asks readers to trust him, even to pray for his success in working toward reform. Why should they? Because he tells them he is what he claims to be, a Governing Body member. Their trust and their prayers are requested on the basis of an unproved, unsubstantiated premise. This is pure circular reasoning, a case of saying a) you should believe that I am what I say that I am, because, b) I am what I say that I am.
He asks that readers show understanding of and sympathy for his difficult position, that they not make an issue of his legitimacy, that they accept as valid all the intricate, convoluted reasons he offers for his not simply and clearly establishing the validity of his claim. On what basis should they do this? On the basis of the unproved premise, that he is what he professes to be. His position essentially seems to be that it is proper and justifiable that he should be distrustful of all others and of their motives, while equally proper and justifiable that he simultaneously ask them---though deprived of confirming evidence--that they should not distrust him but rather put trust in him as one possessing the highest of motives. All of this also depends upon the unproved, unsubstantiated premise. If he is not what he claims to be then he is a fraud, a serious and reprehensible fraud, and readers therefore owe it to themselves--and to God, whom he links to his claims--to call upon him to verify the basic premise upon which he founds virtually everything he writes. To do otherwise is to be gullible, to invite deception. Love of truth requires it.
He asks readers what they would do if on the Governing Body and having recognized the falsity of organizational claims of divine channelship, particularly if they hoped to accomplish something before resignation or death. This, too, is a case of "begging the question," since the premise, that his circumstance actually differs from theirs, has never been demonstrated, substantiated. Whatever the answers of individual readers might be, I find it difficult to believe that any of them could make logic or ordinary common sense out of the course this individual has taken. Over and over again he voices his concern for ANONYMITY and somehow seems blind to the fact that he, not someone else, has obviously negated that concern by publishing on a public forum--not simply a message but--an "Open Letter to the Governing Body." This is the same person who, in an earlier posting, had stated that "If the rest of the Governing Body become convinced that a fellow member, me, is on the Internet, there will be no stopping them from an all out effort to expose me." Yet in his "Open Letter" he specifically assures the Governing Body members that he is indeed one of them. No person of ordinary intelligence could fail to see the impossibility of harmonizing the claimed concern for caution with the actual practice. It makes sense only if he is NOT what he claims to be for then it can be seen for what it is, a means for avoiding exposure as fraudulent. No person of ordinary intelligence would fail to realize that any claimed capability to effect some good at higher levels would immediately be vitiated, vaporized, by such a posting. If he were what he claims to be, to do so would not simply be ill-advised, it would be nonsensical. The comparison might be drawn of an undercover agent who says he must exercise extreme caution because he is in great danger of being discovered and who then proceeds to place ads in the New York Times, which ads, while anonymous, describe his undercover activity, identify where his field of activity is, and spell out his goals. An individual governed by such confused reasoning would, in any case, never be able to accomplish anything of genuine worth under any circumstance.
Any analogy between the fictitious person he professes to be and the man Schindler is lacking in the most crucial factors. Schindler was not some nameless figure speaking invisibly out of the mist with vague promises. He was a real, identifiable person that hundreds of Jews personally saw and recognized as one who had genuinely done something of a life-saving nature for them, not merely a purveyor of nebulous expressions. While there was no Internet at that time, Schindler, being a rational person, certainly was not foolish enough to put out statements through any public communication available to scrutiny by Nazi leaders, and in these speak of himself as the anonymous head of a manufacturing plant handling government projects, while at the same time calling upon anyone reading the statements to help protect his anonymity. Even in this there is no correspondence between Schindler and the supposed Governing Body member.
The hypothetical case he offers to illustrate how a question about some issue could cause his identity to be narrowed down to "2 or 3 GB members," and eventually identify him, is completely unrealistic. It shows great imagination, but the scenario is contrary to fact. No issue brought before the Body is ever something privy to "2 or 3 GB members." Any issue that qualifies for placement on the agenda for full Body sessions is to be considered by at least a quorum of the total membership. In nine years of membership, I cannot think of a single case that would fit the highly imaginative set of circumstances he erects to convince his readers that he is justified in evading questions on his legitimacy.
He has presented himself as having been on the Body for years, hence not a recent member. I am personally familiar with each of the members who fill that description: Barber, Barr, Henschel, Jaracz, Klein, Schroeder, Swingle and Sydlik. I met with them in full Governing Body sessions on a weekly basis, hence approximately 50 times a year, and met with many of them (Henschel, Jaracz, Klein, Schroeder and Swingle) twice that many times, since they were on the same Governing Body committees in which I was a member, attending the same weekly committee meetings. All this represents many hundreds of hours of close association and dialogue. This continued for a period of years. I can say with assurance that none of these men was the author of the Internet postings. The individual may claim ability to alter his writing style. But he cannot change his personality and the personality that clearly comes through in his writings is not that of a single one of the persons listed. The person writing is not Carey Barber, he is not Jack Barr, he is not Milton Henschel, he is not Ted Jaracz, he is not Karl Klein, he is not Albert Schroeder, he is not Lyman Swingle, he is not Daniel Sydlik. Additionally, as has been pointed out, these are all elderly men now, with ages ranging from their mid-70s to their mid-90s. Age does not necessarily reduce writing ability, but, just as personality comes through in one's writing, so also age does influence and is reflected in the way things are stated, the outlook conveyed. The writings of the professed member convey nothing of the perspective of such persons. In many respects they have a rather juvenile quality to them, certainly in the reasoning employed. I have no doubt that if any of the men listed were, in fact, to write on the subjects and with the extensiveness that this individual has written, I would not only be fully assured of such one's profession to be legitimate but almost certainly also know which of them was the author. To the contrary, the more he writes the more he demonstrates that he is, unfortunately, an impostor.
[Continued in next post]