Posted by M733 [M733] on November 18, 1999 at 14:28:35 {KEdmzBXaT6Qd6.0xyhd2BnZmKbeXQ2}:
[Start of Post "Ray Franz Addresses GB Post: 2 of 2"]
It bears repeating that nothing demonstrates more obviously the counterfeit nature of his claim than the method he has pursued. If he were genuine, legitimate, and actually wished to work toward betterment and reform on the Governing Body, there are few things that he could have done that would more effectively have torpedoed any hope of success than to go on the Internet and talk about it in a public forum. Having been at the international headquarters and on the Governing Body and having been the object of an inquisitorial process and hearing, I know the truth of that statement. He paints the picture of a Governing Body deeply concerned, even apprehensive, about what appears on the Internet and the participation of Witnesses therein. If that picture was true, his very first postings would have promptly been placed on the agenda for the following weekly meeting of the full session of the Governing Body. The members would have been questioned individually as to their innocence regarding such postings and he would then have had to either acknowledge himself as the source--in which case his expulsion from the Body would be a swift certainty--or play the role of the hypocrite and lyingly deny participation. Even in this latter case, in order to shield and preserve his lie he would, from then forward, have to make constant effort to insure that all his expressions were definitely pro-organization, pro-status quo, carefully guarded so as not to express any sentiment reflecting in even a minor way the viewpoints found in his postings, particularly his posting of an "open letter" to the Governing Body. Any potentiality for his being a force for betterment and reform would have disappeared. The mere fact of his putting that type of material on the Internet thus shows all his professions of concern for protecting his anonymity to be counterfeit. In reality, he has no reason whatever for concern to protect his anonymity. Since the Governing Body member he pretends to be is nonexistent, he cannot be anything but anonymous.
As has been seen, along with circular reasoning, a major problem characterizing these writings is that of chronic inconsistency. In many postings he has expressed that, in his extreme caution to avoid action toward him by the Governing Body, he needed to be able, if asked, to deny any personal contact, direct or indirect, with me, Ray Franz. This is presented as a major concern and as having potentially serious impact upon his ability to carry out his plan of action and effect the reformative steps he has in mind. Thus, in his latest statement he objects at length to the posting of the material via M733 which contained my statement and which also urged him to avail himself of the means for establishing his credentials. His complaint is that this was done on "a public forum" and that it would obstruct the very process he had embarked on to demonstrate his legitimacy. It would make it difficult for him now to communicate with me in a way that would still allow for him to "deny direct or indirect contract with [me] if the question should arise" in the Governing Body.
Consider the gross inconsistency in these statements. Before his latest writing, no one had publicly stated or even intimated that he had had any contact with me, directly or indirectly. Ros had not done so. My statement via M733 did not do so, only extending an invitation to receive questions regarding his credibility. M733 also did not do so, simply urging that this person make use of the available means for authenticating his claim. So at that point no one had made any public statement or given any public evidence that he had had contact, either directly or indirectly with me. Now, as of November 16, there is such public evidence, available to thousands of persons, including those on the Governing Body if they were interested. From what source has this come? Not from any of the sources earlier mentioned. One person and one person only is responsible for this publicized evidence of his making such contact and his conduit for doing so, and that person is the same individual who has expressed his grave concern to be able to deny such contact, who has said that if such direct or indirect contact were to be made evident on the Internet it would certainly lead to dire consequences for him, igniting an intense Governing Body search to identify him. It was the professed "Governing Body member" himself, who, in his most recent posting speaks openly of sending "a message to Ray" via Ros, and repeatedly implies disappointment that "he has not responded to me," "I have not heard anymore from Ray or M733," "it is now about a week, and I have heard nothing from them."
Surely a person capable of such extreme inconsistency and illogical thinking would be ill-suited to accomplish anything of consequence or value in the upper levels of the leadership of an international organization. He professes humility and of being free from interest in being a "somebody," but when a posting appears through M733 that confronts him with the real issue and urges him to avail himself of the means for settling the matter for the good of all, he "wonders" about the "motivation" of the person who posted the message for me, suggesting a possible desire "to be seen as important or be given special recognition by trying to prove something here." Similarly, he speaks of his "plan of covert communication with Ray that would still allow me to deny direct or indirect contact with him." This takes on the nature of an oxymoron since, though "covert," how could the communication not qualify as "indirect" communication with me?
The individual may write expressions that laud the headship of Christ or may quote Scriptures on Christian qualities. But the vehicle and instrumentality he uses to gain his audience is a fabrication and he thereby discredits the very principles he lauds. He intermixes fiction and falsehood with Scriptural teachings, and any hopes of better things he may incite are based on illusion and figments of the imagination. It partakes to some degree of the practice described at Jeremiah 23:28, that of professing service to God while utilizing dreamed-up visions to attract listeners and induce them to place confidence in the messenger. A lover of truth would not resort to such tactics. He simply shows himself to be on the same level as those he makes the pretense of wishing to reform.---Matthew 7:3.
I have little doubt that if any of his messages were to reach Governing Body members they would receive at best only amused contempt. Whatever faults they may have, I retain enough respect for their basic intelligence to feel certain that not a single member would resort to such an illogical method of achieving a goal as that offered in these messages. Anyone who has not participated in Governing Body discussions would find it difficult to sense the prevailing spirit, to realize how remarkably little concern is given to opinions of "rank and file" Witnesses," so-called "grass roots" expressions. Whereas in some peripheral matter, such as the "unnatural sex" issue, they might give some weight to average Witness expressions, when anything touches on the matter of their authority or their position of being a divine conduit of direction, then an essentially detached, superior and unresponsive attitude is the rule. They are surrounded by large buildings that, placed one upon the other, would tower higher than the Empire State Building, and they have around them several thousand persons who are like submissive employees. They are aware of the global extent of the millions of persons who look to them as a divinely guided leadership. The probability that messages such as those posted would create extreme concern or apprehension for them is simply unrealistic. Rationally, since they of all people would know them to be a sham, they would have no reason to assign consequence to them.
While this specific type of imposture may not be repeated, that is no guarantee of freedom from exposure to other types. Simply expressing my personal feelings, in any such circumstance I could not but feel a sense of obligation to be quite certain of the validity of this kind of claim before contributing to its dissemination--at least as regards diffusion of the claim as having plausibility and possible merit. To exercise discrimination in that way is not a matter of prejudgment but of precaution, discretion, consideration for the effect on others. I find the warning at Proverbs 14:15 inevitably coming to mind: "The simpleton believes any message, a person of discretion treads a careful path." (New Jerusalem Bible) In this present case a phantom figure may come to take up residence in minds of readers, and if at some point in the future a new adjustment of any kind should appear in the Watchtower, then such ones may wish to assign the adjustment to the influence of a shadowy figure's efforts. The fact that the Governing Body discussions are secret and the reality of what takes place is unknown to outsiders, is the key element which the deception depends upon for its success. The impostor trades on, relies on, the inability of his audience to verify, on their own, the validity of his claims. If the individual portraying himself as a Governing Body member is deliberately perpetrating and perpetuating fraud he would unquestionably be a very cynical person. The possibility must also be allowed that he is self-deceived, a person suffering from a mental delusion, acting out a role of his own invention.
Perhaps my feeling of concern over the issue and its progression reflects some hypersensitivity about adding in any way to the perplexity and uncertainty so many former Witnesses experience. We read and hear regularly of people who become victims of con artists and, on analysis, it seems evident that they were susceptible to such victimizing primarily because of false hope, wanting the false claims to be true, wishing them to be reality. It is not unnatural for former Witnesses to wish for some major reform in their previous religion. Persons would be unfeeling not to wish that some of the harshness existent might be lessened or disappear. It is not strange that they might wish to be able to feel they are part of something that exerts considerable power toward the achieving of such goals. That hope and desire, however, surely needs to be governed by reality. Otherwise it is only wishful thinking and that kind of thinking leaves one open to false hope and false pretensions and inevitable disillusionment. If apology is in order, it would seem that the apology in this present case should be directed heavenward, not on the Internet, but in prayer. If we read and accept God's Word it seems clear that neither God nor his Son will bless projects that are an admixture of truth and deception. To attempt to link those heavenly persons to such a project, by utilizing Scriptural discussion and praise of the heavenly direction of God's servants to give plausibility and credence to the false claim, is the most reprehensible part of the matter.
Again, the various points set out are to make clear my personal feelings about this matter and not to try to enforce them on others. In this as in everything else people can do, and are free to do, as they wish. The responsibility for the resulting consequences is also theirs.