ComfortMyPeople

The question I raise has more substance:
As far as I know, no brother who works as a nurse or doctor and who administers blood sporadically and following the instructions of a superior has to face any judicial committee.
Along the same lines, no one who sells products with blood - or tobacco - from time to time in a supermarket that is not of his property, necessarily loses the status of "good reputation" or of being a "good example".
The nuances that can emerge from the two examples I just cited are innumerable. But Furuli mentions a certain letter where there is no nuance: according to the letter, the witnesses should no longer behave according to their conscience in these matters, it is black or white.
So, the advice that I (and all the elders that I know) are giving, and the way to approach these situations that I raise, do not follow the instructions of that "unknown" letter.
I have the impression, from the phraseology of the letter that Furuli cites ("the Governing Body has decided") that he has collected the information from a site that seeks to discredit us. In fact, Furuli adds in a footnote on page 11:
4. This new policy was also communicated to the congregation members.
In other words, that apart from the elders, another instruction has been read to the entire congregation: well, no idea about this. I ask: do any witnesses to this forum remember if two years ago this new instruction was read at a meeting?

I'm sick of this religion, why don't I give up?
 
(Revelation 3: 1-4)
1 ‘I know your deeds,
I am fully convinced that the Master knows what is happening within our religion, as he knew what was happening in Sardis.
"that you have the name that you are alive, but you are dead"
I don't think at all that my religion is that bad
2 ... I have not found your works fully performed before my God.
Yes, I agree, there are things, many things, that I do not like about my religion, nor about the GB
4 ‘Nevertheless, you do have a few individuals in Sardis
And here is the main thing:
Why doesn't Jesus tell those few to leave, to leave, to abandon and form or join another religion? Well I'm not leaving either

I'm sick of this religion, why don't I give up?
 
(Revelation 3: 1-4)
1 ‘I know your deeds,
I am fully convinced that the Master knows what is happening within our religion, as he knew what was happening in Sardis.
"that you have the name that you are alive, but you are dead"
I don't think at all that my religion is that bad
2 ... I have not found your works fully performed before my God.
Yes, I agree, there are things, many things, that I do not like about my religion, nor about the GB
4 ‘Nevertheless, you do have a few individuals in Sardis
And here is the main thing:
Why doesn't Jesus tell those few to leave, to leave, to abandon and form or join another religion? Well I'm not leaving either

Not your fault. I knew what you were saying about it. I was just saying that when I watched it, I wasn't thinking of the GB at all. But I was thinking about who the FDS could have been in such historical situations, and how they would have shown themselves standing up for a relatively "true" Christianity. That's based on an old habit of reading European history about the years from 100 to 1800 and always wondering who Jehovah might have deemed "FDS" at the time, because, until the "Proclaimers" book, this was the basic idea. There was never a time when the FDS did not exist, was the idea.
Actually, it has been said in those exact words. But that message has become much more subtle in the last few decades.
It was a very interesting read. I learned a lot more about Furuli the "man" and what his conscience struggles with. It's hard for me to remove his ego and even his haughtiness from the picture. But I have also really grown to love certain Circuit (and District) overseers in the past who were obviously haughty because after you have dinner with them, for example, you realize they are humans like the rest of us with questions and concerns and even frailties. When I knew several members of the GB personally, seeing and hearing them daily for several years, I thought some to be haughty, like F.Franz, D.Sydlik, A.Schroeder, L.Greenlees and T.Jaracz, and I knew others to be just the opposite in personality, like J.Booth, J.Barr, R.Franz, and perhaps all the others. Other observers might have categorized them differently. But it also doesn't mean that the humble ones were always right in their views, nor does it mean that the haughty ones were always wrong in their views.
I don't see it as much of a problem when a person is reminded of a situation like one in ancient Israel where a King Saul, or even a King David, needed counsel from a loyal subject. Of course, David once killed a subject who showed too much loyalty to him and not to the anointed Saul. Some will set themselves up as God's messengers with a message about a flight to Australia for example, and some will bring a gift to the table in the form of 40 to 50 years of scholarship and experience at many levels in the organization who might sincerely wish to correct a straying "king" or "governorship." I know which person's "counsel" I would want to read first. Assuming it was done in the spirit of:
(1 Timothy 5:1) . . .Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers,
(1 Timothy 5:19-21,24-25) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
(1 Peter 3:15, 16) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ.
When I read Furuli, I was interested in what he left out in addition to what he included. I wondered if he would use certain scriptures, or appear to avoid certain scriptures. What would he say about the generation, 1919, blood, Hebrews 13, Revelation 2&3, 1 Cor 15:25? Could I pick up on any influence from Greg Stafford, Ray Franz, Fred Franz, George Chryssides, Jason BeDuhn, Gerard Gertoux, etc.? Some of the questions that I put in the margins would require a second read, and I'm not sure I'm up to it right now.
Somehow I took only 2 days to read his book and I immediately found myself behind schedule by more than 4 days for more practical things I wanted to get done. How did that happen? I might just take a breather for a few days myself. See you all on June 1st.

The question I raise has more substance:
As far as I know, no brother who works as a nurse or doctor and who administers blood sporadically and following the instructions of a superior has to face any judicial committee.
Along the same lines, no one who sells products with blood - or tobacco - from time to time in a supermarket that is not of his property, necessarily loses the status of "good reputation" or of being a "good example".
The nuances that can emerge from the two examples I just cited are innumerable. But Furuli mentions a certain letter where there is no nuance: according to the letter, the witnesses should no longer behave according to their conscience in these matters, it is black or white.
So, the advice that I (and all the elders that I know) are giving, and the way to approach these situations that I raise, do not follow the instructions of that "unknown" letter.
I have the impression, from the phraseology of the letter that Furuli cites ("the Governing Body has decided") that he has collected the information from a site that seeks to discredit us. In fact, Furuli adds in a footnote on page 11:
4. This new policy was also communicated to the congregation members.
In other words, that apart from the elders, another instruction has been read to the entire congregation: well, no idea about this. I ask: do any witnesses to this forum remember if two years ago this new instruction was read at a meeting?

I'm sick of this religion, why don't I give up?
 
(Revelation 3: 1-4)
1 ‘I know your deeds,
I am fully convinced that the Master knows what is happening within our religion, as he knew what was happening in Sardis.
"that you have the name that you are alive, but you are dead"
I don't think at all that my religion is that bad
2 ... I have not found your works fully performed before my God.
Yes, I agree, there are things, many things, that I do not like about my religion, nor about the GB
4 ‘Nevertheless, you do have a few individuals in Sardis
And here is the main thing:
Why doesn't Jesus tell those few to leave, to leave, to abandon and form or join another religion? Well I'm not leaving either

I'm sick of this religion, why don't I give up?
 
(Revelation 3: 1-4)
1 ‘I know your deeds,
I am fully convinced that the Master knows what is happening within our religion, as he knew what was happening in Sardis.
"that you have the name that you are alive, but you are dead"
I don't think at all that my religion is that bad
2 ... I have not found your works fully performed before my God.
Yes, I agree, there are things, many things, that I do not like about my religion, nor about the GB
4 ‘Nevertheless, you do have a few individuals in Sardis
And here is the main thing:
Why doesn't Jesus tell those few to leave, to leave, to abandon and form or join another religion? Well I'm not leaving either

In this world nothing is perfect because humans tend to overstep boundaries - even Moses did so.
But if we are really prepared to give our life for another (spirit of christ), then reading our bible and sticking close to jehovah would be our main goal - and spreading the core teachings of the bible, such as the kingdom government. This saves lives. No other actions are worth a reward from jehovah more than these. To humbly serve others.
Literal rebellion against any other human (turn the other cheek ), or earthly institution would not come up in our mind......BUT: this would not in any way mean that we tolerate any form of ' yeast'. Our conscience will help us to quickly quelch any form of wickedness or even speak up against evil,  when needed,  in a kind and loving way. This is possible within our small sphere of influence..... 
If this was the prevailing attitude (which is closer to perfection) in the entire organization, from top to bottom, everything would run better. But people are always overstepping boundaries due to imperfection. They go overboard or extend their influence.
Because : if you read the quoted scriptures above (several people referred to scriptures) about humility, not being contentious, then a TRUE Christian with a genuine humble spirit will self-regulate. 
Granted, self-control regarding bad inclinations is the hardest part of being a Christian..... and to my thinking receives too little attention.  We will do NOTHING out of egotism which can hurt our brothers or sisters and not overstep the invisible boundaries but stay in JEhovahs love. (The governing body and Feruli included).
If everyone had this spirit not even elders would be necessary. But jehovah in his wisdom knew that we are dust and set a precedent in first century Jerusalem and also gave us elders and ministerial servants........ because we as humans need some form of  facilitation. 
A world- wide organization needs some form of coordination and fiscal management as well as policy management.  Neglect of management direction brought the tolerance of child molestation accusations.  
If they manage too much they are called dictators.... if they manage to little they are called incompetent and degenerate regarding  morals.... the pharisees and self-appointed judges of our time are everywhere! 
Is it just a form of public rebellion?  Or has he seen specific abuses of people by the GB? (Not mistakes, but abuses of trust which can be proved....)
HERE IS MY OPINION: 
In my secular working life I have seen CEOs of global corporations move from one corporation to another.  Many have good degrees and without a doubt  walk around like gods ......with everyone in fear of them, pandering to them to obtain a favourable eye..... following every instruction to the letter...... or lose their jobs.
When these CEOs have made many arbitrary decisions, which bring the company almost to ruin, they usually leave just in time so someone else can pick up the pieces. They do NOT navigate companies through hard financial times perfectly because their chrystal balls are usually defective.  (I worked for the 4th largest logistics company in the world in 2008).  Yet, these CEO's CVs read like a dream, they were CEOs of several companies, maybe a fortune 500 company, and are celebrated, get millions of dollars  in bonuses, get astounding salaries, chauffeurs, trips with business air seats etc....... despite all the wrong decisions and attitudes.
They are truly a mini-government, fat cats with perks that will make the Sun king blush.
In contrast, simple men take a world-wide responsibility and in the process get a lot of respect (not worship). They have small personal perks which can never ever be measured up against a secular company.
They cannot change jobs when they have messed up or made a mistake. THey are more accountable than CEOs because they have to fix up their own mistakes and face the music........and eager worldly criticism.... AND on top of that are accountable to Jehovah.
Most people expect NO mistakes (always highlight even small mistakes) and they are always accused (by opposers) of setting themselves up as gods. People judge them so easily....... even though they are navigating us through highly  critical financial times and even critical spiritual times.  Did Jesus not predict that many would leave the faith and turn against brothers? I am sure there is  more is to come..... when brazen opposers stand up in the congregation and betray brothers. 
I can only encourage brothers to not be 'swayed' by these winds that bring cross-winds and storms before the end... Steadily stay the course.... eyes humbly focussed on the promised  target  - everlasting life. 

This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days.
This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step.
He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues:
# 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education!
# 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB don't claim to be, but a lot of JW believe they are.)
# 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable.
I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too.
I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era.
Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith but not our A. Smth) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.

The question I raise has more substance:
As far as I know, no brother who works as a nurse or doctor and who administers blood sporadically and following the instructions of a superior has to face any judicial committee.
Along the same lines, no one who sells products with blood - or tobacco - from time to time in a supermarket that is not of his property, necessarily loses the status of "good reputation" or of being a "good example".
The nuances that can emerge from the two examples I just cited are innumerable. But Furuli mentions a certain letter where there is no nuance: according to the letter, the witnesses should no longer behave according to their conscience in these matters, it is black or white.
So, the advice that I (and all the elders that I know) are giving, and the way to approach these situations that I raise, do not follow the instructions of that "unknown" letter.
I have the impression, from the phraseology of the letter that Furuli cites ("the Governing Body has decided") that he has collected the information from a site that seeks to discredit us. In fact, Furuli adds in a footnote on page 11:
4. This new policy was also communicated to the congregation members.
In other words, that apart from the elders, another instruction has been read to the entire congregation: well, no idea about this. I ask: do any witnesses to this forum remember if two years ago this new instruction was read at a meeting?

No. I don't. But I called up an elder who would know. I thought. He didn't. I called another.  I called my father (elder, but never on HLC).
Two out of three say that the "official" position was that it is still a matter of conscience. One says he heard about a letter that he has not seen, but which was supposed to be read, not sent, to specific Witnesses who were employed in hospitals, especially nurses. He says he knows of a nurse who ended up disassociating over it. He suspects that it became a potential legal nightmare and the "project" [his word] was never completed.
I have the impression that if there ever was a letter, it was not supposed to be seen or read in the congregations. There is too much of a chance that it would end up in a court after some potential "snafu" with a JW nurse that ended up in the death of a patient.
If true, this would actually be worse. I'm having trouble believing it, too. But there have been parallels.

Well that's what we are doing right now. Just finishing season 2.
I think you may have misunderstood me. My fault probably. I wasn't thinking of the anointed or FDS through the ages, but of the FDS in modern times. I was thinking of the "power" the old and new set of GB/FDS have which could be compared to the king. The current GB/FDS "rule" over more than 8 million people.  In anything they do, they, like the king, have God's backing. If anyone speaks against them, it's like speaking against God. This has been said many times in our publications, of course not in these words.
Yes, of course. And whenever this is discussed, the GB tries to make sure that this is understood. But then on the other hand, when there is talk of "God's visible" organization, the GB are at the forefront of that organization. It's like no one really knows where to draw the line, and I think that's the crux of the problem.
You kind of address it here:
And you further address the dilemma here (bold mine)
So what's the solution? A book?? 😁 (I don't think so. Although I must admit I am looking forward to reading it)

I am wondering what he thinks he is going to achieve with his book. I think some of us have had similar ideas to him, but were we thinking of publishing a book about it? Who does he think his audience is going to be? As soon as any Witness gets an inkling of apostasy, no matter how highly thought of he is, or whether he was a circuit overseer or not,  they will likely not read it. The only people that will probably read it are apostates, those hovering on the edge, or scholars like you and me on here 😂. So a very limited audience. (Look at Tom, he writes good books, they are not controversial (only a little bit) but because of his limited audience he will never make a living with them). I mean does he think he will change anything? For that to happen, every Witness would have to write a letter, as somebody on here already suggested. That is the only way anyone at HQ will listen. Interestingly, a few weeks ago in service I was talking to new couple from our hall (it was before the pandemic). They are from up north, both having HQ connections. Anyway, the conversation turned to the recent restructuring and re-organizing and the selling of KH. Since they were close to all kinds of information I though I would ask them about all this merging and sell offs. I knew that "equalizing" was not the only  reason. They gave the usual reasons like some halls were not being used to full capacity, thereby money was being wasted etc. So I asked them how come halls were not at full capacity? The husband said that people move etc. however, the wife came out with something interesting, and I was surprised she even said it. She said that there are quite a lot who have left. I asked her to clarify and she said; left the truth. I told her that I was sure part of the reason was that people are finding out things they would have never learned before the days of the Internet. They both agreed and we left it there. I don't think any of us wanted to carry on the conversation....

There used to be a local speaker in much demand who truly had a gift for speaking. He would twirl the globe he had brought up to the platform, quote Matthew 24:14, “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth” and then put his finger down upon this or that spot representing some local king’s sovereignty: “This good news of the kingdom WILL NOT be preached in MY part of the inhabited earth,” with the air of—who do you think is going to prevail?
He was a great speaker, a good man. But I visited his congregation once when he was conducting the Watchtower. He explained all the questions, and so blatantly ‘over-explained’ everything that I wondered how anyone could stand it. ‘Just ask the questions’ is what you should do, and make your own comments very few. There was no bad motive—he had just become a little full of himself—building upon an obvious talent.
Most often it is something more innocuous. There was another conductor who had some mannerisms—I hate mannerisms!—in fact, that’s where ‘Tom Irregardless’ comes from, he says it so much that I named him that—who would throw in after almost every one of his expressions, words to the effect of ‘That’s helpful, isn’t it?’ Once he announced the dates for the upcoming circuit assembly, and added, ‘that’s helpful, isn’t it?’ ‘I guess it is,” I thought.
It’s people. I love people. These days I find I don’t really like them very much unless they are a little quirky. Sometimes people misunderstand it as ridicule. It’s not. I present it in the spirit of Paul trying to rid himself of a ‘thorn in the flesh’ ‘No way!’ God told him, “I look good when you are a clod, because it is evident that no way could you be doing this on your own.”

I do agree with this. For several years running I was called upon to give talks in the District Convention. Most of them were family-oriented talks that you looked for a brother with a family to give, even if he wasn’t pioneering, which I wasn’t. They ceased after I turned one down, facing a perfect storm of calamities at the time. During that time, I might cook up my own illustrations, but I would never dream of adding my own scriptures. I knew it was not me that everyone had come to hear.
On the school talks that I give now, sometimes I take small liberties—seldom reading extra verses, but sometimes incorporating excerpts in passing. It is all clearly within the pattern of the fine words, done sparingly, and nobody makes a fuss over it. One conductor, though, observed: “You actually didn’t address the theme of the talk” “Oh—I changed that,” I said, and so unexpected was the reply that he almost fell over himself laughing. This was not “adding to doctrine,” or anything—don’t misunderstand—it was merely adding a personal touch to a student talk and everyone understood that. 
I gave a funeral talk in another congregation where one elder, a fine man but known to be a stickler, asked if I was using the Society’s outline, and I said that I wasn’t. He was most concerned because I was neither an elder nor servant, and I hadn’t even known up front whether I would be permitted to give the talk, only the widow had requested me—her husband had been my best man and we had always remained close. After the talk, though, he was content and made no waves. The talk did all that a funeral talk should, plus was personalized as only a best friend might do.
So there might be a few instances where you are the speaker and people wonder how you will handle this or that small part. But they would clearly end at the circuit level, and even at the congregation level, you would be very sparing of what was personal.

At the beginning of Furuli's book there is a paragraph referring to a certain letter sent to {the congregations? the elders?} The paragraph in question says:
The letter of 15 June 2018 changed this situation:
We would like to inform you of an updated policy with regard to
whether a Christian may administer a blood transfusion if he is directed
to do so by a superior. The previous policy was that it would be a matter
for a personal, conscientious decision whether to obey such an order.
However, after carefully reviewing the matter, the Governing Body has
determined that administering such a transfusion is so closely linked
with an unscriptural practice that one unquestionably becomes an
accomplice in a wrong practice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate
for a Christian to administer a blood transfusion under any
circumstance.—Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:28, 29.4

I would like to mention that I cannot find this letter. I have looked again in the letters to the elders section of our branch in Spain, but I have not found it. I am not saying at all that Furuli is not truthful, only that I cannot find this letter. Maybe someone could help me out ...
 

There is no misunderstanding of Furuli here. He distances himself very well from the 1975 speculation. Not completely, but he apparently understood it a little better than some District Overseers in the United States. I'm wondering if part of it wasn't the understanding of the verb modal "would." He pins a lot of the correct understanding on that English word. In the United States there may have been more people who read the word "would" as having a slightly stronger meaning.
I have also used the words, "the time is short," in talks as a circuit and district
overseer. But I have never asked the audience to stop with this or that because the time
is short. As the district overseer from 1972 to 1974, I was the principal speaker at all the
circuit assemblies in Norway, and my talks would naturally influence the view of the
Witnesses regarding the year 1975. In 1966,when the book Life Everlasting in the Freedom
of the Sons of God was published, there was a course for circuit servants at the branch
office. When we discussed the book, I remember that the branch servant said that we
should never say that Armageddon would come in 1975 or before that year, because we
cannot know that. He pointed to some words on page 30 of the book: "It would not be
by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah
God for the reign of Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of the Sabbath' to run parallel with the
seventh millennium of man's existence." The verb "would" shows that this is a possible
but a hypothetical situation. I still have the notes for my talks, and the viewpoint that I
presented in my talks was as follows: 'We do not know when the end will come. But we
are eager to see if the 6,000 years of man's existence run parallel with the 6,000 years of
Yehowa's day of rest! If we can free some time and do more in the preaching work,
even become full-time preachers, while we are looking at the unfolding of world events
down to 1975, that would be very fine. But we should not commit ourselves to the year
1975 or another year. But as we do today, we should have balanced plans for ourselves
and our family that go beyond the year 1975, while we live normal lives and serve
Yehowa wholeheartedly.' [emphasis mine]
My uncle who was in Circuit work at the time, got a different sense of the word "would" in his meetings/training which came from the D.O. in his case. C.Chavez son of D.O. (aka Allen) and scholar JW have both claimed "jp" correctly ties JABrown GT to 2520, It doesn't. Yet, actual parallel zw. 7th mil and JC's 1k yr reign? No connex!

I agree that, by 1974, F.W.Franz was ready to start "walking back" the expectations he had been speculating about. When I came to Bethel in 1976, there was already a lot of whispering that FWF had lost some of his former glory as the Oracle. He had become the "King Saul" when people began to say: “When King Saul dies then things will change.” And this was in large part because he had spent so many years "doubling down" on 1975, whenever he was questioned about it. 
In 1976 F.W.Franz had produced a book called "Our Incoming World Government - God's Kingdom." It was released in 1977. There were whispers that this was his way of getting "back in the saddle" because it contained the kind of information that no one else at Bethel was supposedly capable of, or would dare try to produce. I have a very early copy of this book from one of the Bethel proofreaders (a sister). It contains a curious artifact in the margin, which always reminds me of how this book was seen by some Bethelites in 1977. It's just the simple question in red pencil: "ask?."  It wouldn't mean much to most anyone else, but this was probably the first book ever written by FWF that was sometimes "scoffed" at within the Bethel walls. I heard some of that scoffing myself. The question in the margin was not part of that scoffing. The book was scoffed at for statements like the following:
*** go chap. 8 p. 137 par. 36 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***
According to the Bible, those 1,290 days are the equivalent of three lunar years and seven lunar months. According to the lunar calendar, January 18, 1919, fell on Shebat 17, 1919. Three lunar years from then would lead up to Shebat 17, 1922, or February 15, 1922. Seven lunar months counted from that would end with Elul 16, 1922, or at sundown, September 9, 1922
Even fellow members of the Governing Body, at least two, and probably four or more (D.S./A.S./E.C./R.F) thought that the 1975 failure would be a chance to "start from scratch" with all these dates from 1918, 1919, 1922, etc. It was D.S. who used the exact expression that we should "just start from scratch" on chronology.
If you listened to FWF at Bethel breakfast you could see he was trying to regain his "throne" as the respected Oracle. And he was still taking subtle swipes at the idea of a Governing Body, as he had been doing since 1972 or so, and most directly in the September 1975 talk that The Librarian referenced above. Note how FWF, for the first time, changes Jehovah's title to "Governor" in Chapter 2, which is called "The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning."
*** go chap. 2 pp. 33-34 pars. 36-37 The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning ***
He . . .  with himself as the Supreme Governor. . . . Hence he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” He is the Governor who knows the end from the beginning. . . .
   In the very book with which the Bible begins, at Genesis 3:15, the Almighty Governor of all creation made known his basic thought . . . . In the very book with which the Bible ends, at Revelation 11:15-18, the rightful Governor over all mankind gives prophetic description of his take-over of his long-suspended governorship . . .
Other examples from the book are typical of the kind of writing from FWF, that even the proofreaders would likely have been hesitant to question if it looked like a possible mistake. I mention this because the following quote is the location in the proofreader's copy which has a red pencil question mark by the number 605, with the word "ask?" in the margin.
*** go chap. 3 p. 39 par. 4 Predicted World Changes up till God’s Kingdom ***
Human society so deeply divided politically as it is today, and has been since World War I, was not forevisioned indeed by shortsighted man. But are we aware that this political state of human affairs was prophetically illustrated more than 2,580 years ago, or about the year 605 before our Common Era?
I don't know if she ever asked. But you can just see the wheels turning in her head: 2520 prior to Oct 1914 was Tishri 607, so 2,580 years from 607 was Oct 1974. So Tishri 605 was 2578 years prior to Oct 1974, and this book is being proofread in late 1976 or early 1977. This would mean that if the Daniel 2 dream (referred to here) was very late in 605, getting close to 604, then this book might potentially be released a couple of months "less than", not, "more than" 2,580 years ago. No big deal. But wouldn't it be better to say "about 2,580 years ago" instead of "more than"? And why be so teasingly pedantic in the first place?
But where did he (FWF) even get the date 605 for the Daniel 2 dream? 
 The idea is from Daniel 2 about the second year of Nebuchadnezzar:
(Daniel 2:1) . . .In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams. . .
This is for another topic, but it's all about the controversy over whether Daniel would have begun counting from one of the major exiles, or from his own exile, if different, or from the normal way of counting the rulership of a king. Note the discrepancies below:
*** w00 5/15 p. 12 par. 17 Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
During the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as world ruler of Bible prophecy (606/605 B.C.E.), God sent him a terrifying dream. According to Daniel chapter 2 . . .
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.)
And this is based on the WTS chronology system, and doesn't even take into account the actual date of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, matching the Biblical record, and based on thousands of pieces of archaeological and historical evidence:
*** kc p. 188 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into exile.
In fact, FWF's 1977 book, just a bit further down from the 2,580 quote above, spells out the standard WTS chronology, except that I don't know where FWF got the info that Nebuchadnezzar was part of the overthrow of "632" seven years years before his WTS accession year AND twenty-seven years before his actual accession year. The first mention anyone knows of for Nebuchadnezzar is about 607 BCE (or 627 WTS dating) which is about 5 years after the assumption below:
*** go chap. 3 pp. 48-49 pars. 25-26 Predicted World Changes up till God’s Kingdom ***
In 632 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar shared in overthrowing the Assyrian World Power and thereby set up the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which ranked as the Third World Power of Bible record.—Nahum 2:8 through 3:18; Zephaniah 2:13.
About twenty-five years later, after Emperor Nebuchadnezzar was used as Jehovah’s instrument to destroy unfaithful Jerusalem, the prophet Daniel’s words applied: “Into [your] hand he [the God of heaven] has given, wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling, the beasts of the field and the winged creatures of the heavens, and [you] he has made ruler over all of them.” (Daniel 2:38) This was the case, because, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E., a typical kingdom of Jehovah God ceased to exist on earth.
FWF gave indications in 1977 and 1978 that he was not reacting well to the push-back on this 1977 book. His "morning worship" comments began to take smart-aleck  pot-shots at those who were not lapping up the "food in due season." The attitude was similar to the time when he expressed his anger at those who thought Jesus was the mediator of every "Tom, Dick, and Harry."   

Binged two seasons last year. Might get back to it after a couple projects in the summer. I think you're right about the historical accuracy of the main characters. Dailyhistory.org says that it . . .
. . . does a very good job at incorporating many cultural elements that would have been contemporary at the time, including those involving the behavior of the characters and types of equipment they had during campaigns. Unlike many earlier historical dramas, this one looks more closely at the historical background of the characters, trying to imbue them in a cultural and historical context that would have been familiar to them but still entertaining to 21st-century viewers.
It never occurred to me, although it did make me remember how we used to read or watch this kind of history and wonder who might have been the FDS, if any, during that time period. That idea was based on the old definition of the FDS: any of the anointed remnant who were alive at any given time anywhere on earth. We used to say that there were always some anointed at all times, somewhere on the earth, who could be considered the faithful and discreet slave. Of course if there were even 100 additional anointed every year from 70 to 1870, at strategic locations around the world, that  would be 180,000 without even including the thousands mentioned in Acts, and without counting the upwards of 100,000 counted among Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses since 1870. So we dropped anything too specific about that old FDS theory. (I supposed that this old theory that there were always some FDS on earth at any given time, could have also been resolved with 18 overlapping centenarians.)
Good point. In fact, strictly speaking, Jesus is the only governor of the household of faith, or God's house. (Hebrews 3:5-8, 1 Peter 2:4-10) Of course, I don't wish to pile on with my own FDS view again, since we've discussed it ad nauseum, and in this case I would only be saying most of what Furuli is now saying. This should probably be a good time for those who wish, to look for ways to rebut Furuli's specific perspectives. 
I've often said the same thing here about how we try to be the best at fitting the first century congregation into a 21st century environment. It appears we are successful. But, as you imply, what if the one thing that makes us think we have the first century situation in hand is that we have what we think of as modern-day apostles? And what if we should not? It's so hard to imagine the organization or any religious organization without effective leadership, especially to help guide a worldwide preaching activity. I admit that it's hard to imagine any kind of religion our size without apostle-like figures who are probably looked up to by those around them as if they are the Paul, the Apollos, the Cephas, and the James of our day.
Is Jesus looking for a worldwide congregation where somehow all the teaching is already handled through the obvious content of the scriptures, and those taking the lead in each individual congregation are only taking the lead in teaching by example, offering encouragement, binding up the brokenhearted, doing good and charitable works, feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, showing hospitality? Even if this were the case, congregations become complex, and there is always someone with an idea toward a new doctrine, or who wants his ego stroked by getting people to support his side, making the biggest decisions. Also, we know that many of the world's religions have devolved into social clubs on the one hand with doctrines as loose as boats without rudders in a stormy sea. On the other hand some are so fundamentally rigid in their beliefs that doctrinal discussion can result in violence. It seems that a "true religion" even today, requires human leadership of an apostle-like variety. Is this just a lack of faith in what could be a solution that matches Jesus' words: None of you shall be called Leaders (much less, a Body of Governors) for one is your Leader, and all of you are brothers. Is it possible for everyone is a large religion to all treat everyone as superior to themselves. (Furuli praises a visit from F.W.Franz where his wife met him and thought he treated her as superior to himself.)
(Philippians 2:1-4) . . .If, then, there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any spiritual fellowship, if any tender affection and compassion, 2 make my joy full by being of the same mind and having the same love, being completely united, having the one thought in mind. 3 Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you, 4 as you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others.
After a few years in Bethel and among elders and publishers of many different responsibilities and positions, I find it nearly impossible to imagine a unity (being of the same mind and having the same love, being completely united) where even the Governing Body consider you and me and Tom and Furuli and Melinda and Allen superior to them in all humility. Perhaps I don't have the faith that something like this is workable.

Oh dear, things are so complicated....and yet there seems to be a pattern, and repetition of the same old, same old, wherever we are in the stream of time ....for centuries...... distant history and the more recent.

I will try to put my thoughts as concisely as possible. Bearing in mind they are nothing original I'm sure..
My hubby and I have started watching a period drama set in 9th century England. The whole series centers around a hero who is divided in his loyalties (to the crown and to the Danes). All the characters are based on some person in history, and I must say it is very well done (BBC) and depicts life as it probably was at that time pretty accurately.
Although people back then were much more savage, had no qualms about lopping someone's head off, they were also God fearing, albeit misguided.

The king, as many other kings before him and after him believes himself to be "God's king". Someone that God uses to carry out his will here on earth. Of course he is as imperfect as anyone, but on the whole he is very genuine, he really believes. There have been worse kings. But what struck me was how easy it is for someone....anyone.... to be deluded, especially when they take upon themselves the task of taking the lead as God's "chosen one", as someone through whom God works here on earth. But...and I've said this on here before, anyone like that depends wholly on the support of others. A king with no subjects, and no army is no king at all. He can wear his crown all day long and he is nothing. It only takes someone with a vision, intelligence, the ability of persuasive speech and a  band of usurpers to overthrow that person. Of course in practice its more complicated, but as we know,  all of history is made up of situations just like that. Empires have been built and have fallen not just due to battles, but mainly due to loyalties on which these battles are based.

Where I am going with this is that I can see a parallel with the FDS. I am not at all implying that the FDS are bad, or that they are not doing a good job as far as human imperfection allows, but what I am saying is that they are in a position of "God's king" (supposedly sanctioned by God himself) whereby they carry out God's will here on earth and administer God's subjects here on earth. So it seems absolutely nothing new at all. The only difference is the FDS are a group, a body of counsel, instead of one individual, and the "subjects" are also subjects of worldly governments, as "alien residents". As a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects".

In practical terms of course, it is necessary to have some kind of central body to organize the preaching work. But the pertinent question is, and also what is addressed by Furuli it seems (I haven't read the book yet) is: What did Jesus mean by the Faithful and Discreet Slave that was to feed his domestics? 
Or is the the same old again; the pattern of human governance, leadership, kingship, whatever you want to call it.... after all, people love to have a visible leader. People love to be advised, told what to do, guided.  The Israelites asked for a human king.

But is this what Jesus had in mind? Or is true Christianity supposed to be something else, something unique.

Again, there has to be organizational leadership in order for an organization to function, and there even has to be spiritual leadership, leading by example. But is it right for one man, or group of men, to have exclusive monopoly on the INTERPRETATION of scripture, but more importantly should this group have the right to insist that everyone accepts only their interpretation, and if not, they may be denied membership, or if they are already members it will be counted as "treason" and they will be ex-communicated (in our society we no longer chop peoples heads off) and ordered to live like outcasts, outlaws, banished and shunned by the whole community as they know it, including relatives. It sounds to me like something from my movie. Is this the model Jesus had in mind? I repeat, as a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects". Remove that support and they are "nothing". But didn't Jesus say we should support one another, and come to the aid of our brothers?

The term that figures most when any such things are discussed within Jehovah's Witnesses is UNITY. But what kind of unity did Jesus have in mind? Did he mean a people united in purpose, or did he mean a people united in thought against their will? Can unity allow for differing opinion and still be called unity. Or is it like a big body, a mass made up of individuals, but who are one. Like a giant Trinity, except not three separate entities but millions.

Is the GB like Moses? No, the greater Moses was Jesus. Jesus fulfilled everything. Jesus began a totally new era of people for God with the first Christian congregation, which lasted practically only a few 100 years. The GB or so called FDS cannot  be modeled on anything or anyone but the Christian congregation. But not even that, because the Bible was still being written. Now we have everything, now we just have to listen and obey Jesus and God as outlined therein (the Bible).

I think most thinking people will question what gives someone the right to claim they are God's spokesman, or the mouthpiece of God, or as Geoffrey Jackson put it; "guardians of THE doctrine".
Certainly you need to have some credentials under your belt, and some history behind you to even be halfway believable.
Modern day witnesses have had a 100 years or so of history. Yes, there have been ups and downs, doctrinal disappointments, wrong expectations, wrong interpretations and yes people have been stumbled, discouraged, chased away. But on the whole Jehovah's Witnesses have managed to remain as close to the 1st Century Christian congregation as humanly possible. I know, I can compare.
Have to go, got the second return visit on on ZOOM, whooho!
 

I brought it up because it's one of several places where Furuli's book provides the exact type of anecdote I am familiar with. These types of interactions were evidently memorable and important to Furuli, too.
But you might recall that among Witnesses it started with a basis in the Watch Tower publications. We have all the evidence that the initial speculation and the promotion of that speculation came directly from the publications and later from talking points from Circuit and District Servants (Overseers). Of course, the Watchtower had used the date 1975 to promote speculation about what might likely happen in the mid-1970's, not 1975 specifically.
Individuals, especially Circuit and District Overseers, and evidently FWFranz himself, speculated that this meant 1975 itself was just about the last possible year for Armageddon. Franz' early articles made it clear that, at most, it could only be a matter of weeks or months, but NOT years after October 1975. In other words, F.W.Franz promoted speculation that this system could not go beyond October 1977 because then it really would be "YEARS" after 1975. Mostly circuit and district overseers, those who held themselves out to be very careful readers of what the Society was actually saying here, were pointing out to audiences that if you read very closely, and with discernment, you will see that this is what the Society wants us to realize: That it's VERY unlikely that this system would go even as far as past 1975, or even if it did, it would only be a matter of months past 1975, not years. Therefore, we were supposed to speculate that Armageddon would come in the mid-1970s, not 1975 specifically. But the term "1975" became the shorthand for "mid-1970s" and this speculation about the mid-70s naturally became focused on the specific year 1975. So much so that when 1975 ended, almost all the talk of the mid-1970s ended then, too.
That initial speculation that was promoted at the summer conventions in 1966 was followed up with speakers assigned to promote more speculation at the Circuit Assemblies in 1967. Then the "months, not years" Watchtower came out in 1968, and it was the same Watchtower that indicated it was wrong to use Matthew 24:36 to balance the enthusiasm about 1975/mid-70s. In 1969, it was predicted that young ones should not plan to go to college, and especially not anything like a 4-year college degree because they would not likely finish that degree in this old system. And, of course, it was also predicted that no young ones would every grow old in this system. They definitely would not be able to start a career in this system. By 1973, the publications were praising those who were selling their houses to spend the remaining months in full-time service.
There might have been a few cautionary statements at the beginning, but they died out quickly, and we were told not to "toy" with scriptures that made cautionary statements in 1968. . It was not until 1974 that some of those more cautionary statements came out. My father gave at least one of these Circuit Assembly talks every year from 1967 to about 1972. He used Matthew 24:36 as a cautionary statement, even though he was not supposed to do that, according to the 1968 "months, not years" Watchtower.
By 1974 it was obvious that things were not really going as planned. (Inside Bethel, FWFranz was beginning to talk about 1974 as the likely year, even more likely than 1975) so when 1974 wasn't seeing things happening quickly even FWFranz himself began giving cautionary talks.
An experiment that might tell you something of the timing of these cautionary talks is reflected, I think, in the number of times Matthew 24:42, 24:36 and Mark 13:32 was quoted in the Watchtower:
“Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."
1964 ONCE 1965 through 1974: ZERO TIMES!!! 1975: TWICE 1976: ONCE 1977: ZERO 1978: ONCE 1979 - 1993 ZERO And how about the same for Matthew 24:36:
(Matthew 24:36) (Mark 13:32) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, . . .
1965: TWICE 1966: ZERO 1967: ONCE 1968: TWICE (but including the article against using it!)  1969 through 1973: ZERO TIMES!!! 1974: ONCE 1975: FOUR TIMES!! 1976: ZERO 1977: ZERO 1978: ZERO Such important scriptures nearly skipped from 1966 to 1974!!! Only brought up again in 1974 and 1975.

My maiden name was De Villiers.  My forefathers were also  of Huguenot stock that went to South Africa in the 17th century and started the wine industry. There is a famous farm in Cape area called La Rochelle which was named after the area in France my forefathers came from.
They fled to Holland when the Edict of Nantes was made void and persecution came overnight. They then went on to settle in the Cape. I have a book with my family history in south Africa....the genealogy was updated after my children were born.
What I find interesting is that Huguenots were also in the area you come from.... and your family were part of these persecuted protestants way back then.
I visited a fort built around 1650s in Florida USA. It was built by the Spanish when they had control of Florida.  It looked similar to the fort in south Africa built at the same time for sea defence.
I felt sad when I learnt there at this fort that a group of Huguenots which landed in Florida were massacred there by the Spanish.  
Seems like your family (I do not know the last name) fared better in the north of USA.
My family Crest has the lamb and fleur-de-lis symbols which indicate that they also participated in the crusades..... but I did not care to investigate this - not important.
What is interesting about your family history: it goes back to time of Russel.
Do share some more interesting titbits
 

When I first came to this site I chose the name "The Bible's Advocate" to discuss some doctrinal issues. But I never used it. I "temporarily" chose the name "JW Insider" because I also wanted to share a couple dozen trivia items that I figured no one else would be sharing. But I never got around to sharing the trivia items. By now, I'm stuck with "JW Insider" although I don't really like the name. And I also decided that the trivia items were . . . well . . .  too trivial to worry about.
But I figured I might start sharing a few more things and see how it goes. (My family has a long history with the Watchtower Society, some going back to Russell's time. Since my great-grandfather was on the convention speaking tours with Russell and Rutherford, you can still buy his picture on eBay along with several of the other associates of Russell. In fact, some original items were even given over to the Society for exhibits.)
I thought about this again because I'm reading a very thorough historical book on Russell titled "A Separate Identity, Volume 2" by B.W.Schulz and R.M.de Vienne. In fact, I've got nothing to share that can compare with the page after page of information about Russell from that book. So much of it is completely new to me and even a bit surprising. I wish I had been following the blog run by the author, too, because I notice that when I went back for something I had bookmarked to read, it wasn't there any more. I'll try to promote the book again here. I think people here will enjoy it.
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/87187-just-read-a-good-portion-of-b-w-schulz-new-book-separate-identity-volume-2/?tab=comments#comment-144581
So if you came here for some of the trivia that I was going to share, sorry. I don't have anything to compare.
Well, I can share one thing that few people know. But I have never looked into it that closely myself. Much (most?) of the land that the Watchtower Farm owns in Wallkill used to belong to my relatives. I shared a fact before that Brother Booth (GB) once owned the farmland where they built the original Gilead School in Lansing. But the Wallkill story is of interest to me because there's a plaque up there in Wallkill associated with an old Huguenot related church with one of my relative's names on it. (Crispell)
I think it's now part of the Reformed Church of Shawangunk which borders on the North side of the Watchtower property there, within eyesight of the Kingdom Hall at Bruynswick Rd and Red Mill Rd. (They are across from each other, on separate sides of the Wallkill River.) I don't know if they still do it, but it was once the Watchtower's responsibility to care for a part of the historical church's property, including the plaque.
Of course all this is meaningless as it relates to the Watchtower itself, but it's part of a story about the movement of religion in the earlier part of the 1800's in the United States. These earlier relatives of mine were the first people to bring the French Huguenot religion up to New York (from around Charleston, South Carolina). There are still a couple of Crispell cousins in Wallkill, and even a Crispell School there, however, many of the Crispell family settled on the Wallkill River where the settlement was called New Paltz. I might have mentioned once before that an elderly woman at the Historical Society in New Paltz once dug an old family Bible out of a vault for me that had Dutch relatives listed, going back to the 1600s. (The French and the German and the Dutch began intermarrying in the 1800's here in this area.)
 

These examples, like most mistakes involving chronology, just show how easy it is to be mistaken. Our desire to believe something affects how careful we are about the evidence. I'm sure the person who found Bengel quote this was very excited about how it proves we were right all along about the old generation theory.
But that theory was finally dropped, although the danger is still there to let it happen again. I'm certainly not saying I have not been fooled, more often than I'd like to admit. But I'm trying to be much more careful about things now. The WTS has not been wrong very often on most other topics, but chronology is one of those things that we still carry on from traditions that go back nearly 150 years now. I doubt they will get fixed all at once.

True. And that Revelation book was written at the same time as the 1989 article when a lot of these "hints" of world disaster from outsiders were highly prized. I think that change you mentioned was made around 2006. But it reminds me that the Society put out a new edition of the "Truth" book in 1981 even though we never did much with it. The time for the original "Truth" book (1968) had already passed, and this update was well nigh ignored compared to the original. And the edits were all focused on getting rid of the quotes from scientists or authors who had directly or indirectly pointed to 1975. (But replacing them with just enough space to replace only those parts so that most of the pages could be reprinted without redoing the pagination of whole book.)
So it's a matter of just how many selective quotes were selected from those "some scientists."  After a while the purpose of those quotes tells more about the selector than the scientists, especially because we could have found just as many or more who believed that science would resolve life-threatening problems.
Back when we believed it was important to remind people that man had been on the earth for 6,000 years, the publications even looked for quotes that dropped that hint, and then italics might even be added to make sure readers noticed the reference to "6,000 years." Here's one from 1975:
*** g75 8/22 p. 20 Is the Industrial Way of Life a Failure? ***
Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm declares that the current sicknesses of industrial society can be dealt with “only if the whole system as it has existed during the last 6000 years of history can be replaced by a fundamentally different one.” [Italics ours]
Fromm saw no particular significance in the number 6,000. But we certainly did.
It's a little bit like the way the Watch Tower publications used J.A.Bengel, above, completely out of context on his point about the Hebrews believing a generation was 75 years. First of all the statement was completely false. And his context was only that it fit the time from Jesus' birth to the year 70. If you read the entire reference, you can see that it's just as much about how Jesus' words would fit the period of 40 years from the year 30 to the year 70. And that it would fit the 75 year idea, too.

The idea of 75 years, supposedly found in the Seder Olam, was not there in the original Seder Olam (Rabbah) from the year 169 CE. It's not even in the most expanded version of the Seder Olam (Zutta) from 804 CE. (I took the picture from his 1862 version of his work on New Testament words. The 1877 version had changed Hebrews to Jews, but still contained false information about the supposed 75 years:

The footnote (2) in the above is not about the 75 years but about how in the 40 years leading up to Jerusalem's destruction in 70, that there were earthquakes and famines and pestilence and war, just as Jesus had predicted.
I point this out because it shows how easy it is to start selecting specialists and scholars (even if one needs to go back to 1862) to find a "fact" that isn't even a "fact" to support chronology. It seems important to me, because of the potential for doing this all over again with 2034 or the "devil in the details" behind Splane's chart.