JW looking clarity followup

[Tonus]

Perhaps you're right. But I choose to not take Raymond Franzs words as absolute.

I take no issue with that stance, it's a rightly cautious one.  But the timeline I gave in my last post is mostly independent of Franz's view of what happened.  It gives a very strong impression that the organization made changes to rules and policies specifically to find cause to remove a person.  Combined with the policy regarding shunning those who are disfellowshipped it is a very effective way of keeping dissenting voices out of the group.  That is considered a positive outcome in the context of a godly people shielding itself from satanic influence.  But outside of a religious context, we tend to view such isolation as a dangerous thing.  And even within religions, the silencing of dissention is only a good thing when it benefits the individual's group, but seen as a dangerous thing in any other religious organization.  Which is to say, you are required to take the governing body's word as absolute, even though you know that at least one of its members turned out to be an apostate.

That alone should make one suspicious at the least.  The truth as given by the greatest intellect in existence should not be so easy to twist or corrupt that we must be shielded from it by... fellow human beings.  Especially when they show that they're just as fallible as anyone else, yet demand unquestioning obedience.