Ann O'Maly

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You don’t see a contradiction between your two statements above?

How so?

19 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Did it pain you to say ‘alleged?’

Not at all.

19 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 I think you are confusing justice with the French Revolution, where a denouncement in itself was enough to send one to the guillotine. 

Um ... what?

20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Until we see a conviction, we cannot assume that there were any.

Are you assuming his family is breezing through this unaffected? That this situation will only impact their lives if he is convicted? What planet are you living on, Tom?

Tom's right. He has been arrested, charged, and released on bail pending trial.

The nature of his felony charges is to do with child pornography.

I've been chatting with someone who knew him and his family personally. I'm not going to discuss details but I will say that, based on what this person claims s/he witnessed, JTR exhibited certain 'red flag' behaviors.

@4Jah2me I couldn't believe it either. I feel a little queasy. I kinda liked the guy.

It seems like he saw a storm coming.

Furuli's disfellowshipping has been reported in a Norwegian newspaper. Furuli and one of his local elders confirm it in the article.

SOURCE

1 hour ago, Nathaniel Compton said:

That's why he wrote the book to begin with, since he had already been removed as an overseer.

When was he removed? Any intel on the circumstances?

Reports on the internet grapevine say that his disfellowshipping was announced at his congregation's midweek Zoom meeting last week.

SOURCE

It was inevitable, and he knew it would end like this which, to his mind I guess, proves his point about the GB being autocratic, dictatorial, and 'disfellowshipping on the basis of human commandments' (p. 326-7).

I wonder what he'll do now. Write more controversial books? Fizzle out?

10 minutes ago, Witness said:

However, Jesus did give us guidance to discern a "faithful slave" from a wicked one.

Sure, a person can make a judgment on how he thinks a slave is performing, but it's subjective and his view may not align with that of Jesus when the time comes. And yes, Matt 7:15-20 is pertinent. People can also get used to eating poor quality food and think it's good. That's why the Bible teaches that it's Jesus who has to judge.

Furuli makes a good point after quoting from the Box on p. 25 of the July 15, 2013 WT about the hypothetical 'evil slave' and its comment, "Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave." On p. 79-80 he argues,

"The observations of The Watchtower accord with the grammar. And the conclusion that Jesus did not appoint an evil slave can also be applied to “the faithful and discreet slave” (literally: “the faithful slave, even the wise one”): Jesus did not appoint the “faithful and discreet slave.” In connection with both slaves, there are questions, and this shows that both situations are hypothetical. So the conclusion is that that there has never been “a faithful and discreet slave” in the sense used by the GB. But when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation, there will be many individual faithful and discreet slaves who are doing their job, and who are on the watch. And similarly, there will be many individual wicked slaves who will be punished." [bold mine]

As has long been argued by many before Furuli, Matt 24:45-47 is a parable that poses a question, and is not a prophecy about C.T. Russell (taught till 1927) or class of anointed remnant left on earth (taught till 2012) or an elite leadership at WTHQ (current teaching) that was appointed in 1919. If the 'evil slave' is hypothetical, so is the 'faithful and discreet slave.'

Under current teaching, any declaration that the slave has been performing faithfully and discreetly (or otherwise) is a future one when Jesus 'arrives' to inspect his household and he makes that determination one way or the other. Therefore, at present, the question of 'who really is the faithful and discreet slave ...?' remains unanswered.

25 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Those words are the key - past tense.

I have worked in different schools and currently work in a school.

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

All new sillabuses now teach absolutely shocking things which is downright pornea.

Are you an educational consultant to know that all new syllabi teach young children 'porneia'? Or have you seized on a couple of sensationalist headlines to form a generalized opinion about what you imagine is going on?

9 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

That being said, the whole "putting a boy in a dress" concept is jarring,

Hm. Do you find "putting girls in pants" jarring? Do kilt-wearing Scotsmen and men in kimonos disturb you too? 

35 minutes ago, Arauna said:

They are sexualizing young children in school.

Not in the schools in my area! And I have worked in several, as well as having had my own young children go through the school system. You must have been in a badly performing setting if that was going on. I hope you reported your concerns to senior teachers or the education authorities as this would be a serious safeguarding issue.

35 minutes ago, Arauna said:

It is part of population control.  Teach young kids that deviant sex is ok so they do not produce children..... and most important of all make them into atheists so they have no conscience.

Again, children are supposed to taught about sex and relationships in an age appropriate way (I'll bite my tongue about certain inappropriate subject matter being discussed during WT studies in front of young children at the KH), and if a school is teaching young children about more adult sexual themes, then it's a safeguarding matter and should be reported.

Anyway, we're way off topic, but your alarming comments needed addressing.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The way I remember it, Allen showed the fallacies of AlanF and O’maly with their supposed objection to the time line of 607BC

😆🤣😂 Yes, Allen adeptly showed what a vivid imagination he had, how proficient he was with irrelevant c&ps (that's copy-and-pastes, Arauna), and how expertly he tossed around word salads. Be sure to give him my regards 😉

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I dare someone find the truth behind this supposed quote from Furuli’s new book.

“Today, the eight men of the Governing Body functions as a government for JW with unlimited
power. They have the power over the doctrines, the assets, and the money, and their words and decisions cannot be questioned. This is a situation that violates a number of Bible principles.”

This isn't in the book itself - not that I can find. I think the redditor assumed they were from the first few pages, but I suspect they are from Furuli's summary of the book. The quote is consistent with what he does say in the book.

9 minutes ago, Top Cat O’Malihan said:

AlanH

*AlanF

And while I'm at it,

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Steven M Ruse

*Steven M. Bryan

The largest star in our solar system is ... um ... the Sun. 😆

8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

 How O'maly got on board in this closed forum puzzles me.

Closed? It was all open when I started here many moons ago. I see they've moved the furniture around and plastered over some doorways since I last dropped by. A little disorienting but hey, this door was still open so here I am. Never fear, the only JWs I eat for breakfast are Neil and that Allen/Wyatt Earp guy (is he still posting?). 

@scholar JW Hi Neil 🙂 Good to see you're still kicking around. So, how do you feel about Rolf taking a stand against the Governing Body and rejecting the current Faithful and Discreet Slave doctrine (the FDS doctrine, @Arauna)? 

12 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

It would be so funny if this book says things that i have been saying on here for a long time. 

Some of his comments and analyses of scripture echo what 'apostates' have banged on about for decades. I'm particularly thinking of his conclusion here:

"The “faithful and discreet slave” refers to any Christian who is
faithful and on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge in the
great tribulation. It does not refer to a class that gives spiritual
food during Christ’s presence." - p. 72.

Quote

Is this only available as an e-book ?   Is it or will it be available in 'real paper copy' ? 

Yes, and don't know.

@Srecko Sostar Naive? Possibly. I assume that his thinking is, if the GB rejects his approach, then at least he's abided by the direction in God's word and can take the moral/scriptural high ground, he has a clear conscience before God, etc. 

@TrueTomHarley 

Quote

I would like to. Had I contact information, I would.

It's the Awatu email address in the Reddit post (it's previewed in my OP - you can see it).

@TrueTomHarley Ask him yourself 😆

Hi folks. Just breezing through.  I've not dropped off the end of the earth - I'm just *really* busy. Got a notification on my email saying the Librarian wanted to know if Leolaia's excellent article "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" was still available. The previous link is now dead, apparently.

Try here: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/jwcross.pdf 

Glad to see these discussions are still going. Hi and bye

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What is the opposite of a scholar?

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

A fool: Neil McF.

Fixed that for you. 

11 hours ago, AlanF said:

[... quoting the Insight book's statement] Evidently it is to this third year of Jehoiakim as a vassal king under Babylon that Daniel refers at Daniel 1:1.

There is no 'evidently' about it. Daniel specifies 'kingship,' not 'vassalage.' A king can spend a portion of his 11 year reign as a vassal to Egypt, Babylon or the kingdom of Siam, but he is still king from the time he's placed on the throne until the time he's succeeded by someone else or he dies. So when the book of Daniel specifies '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship,' it means '3rd year of Jehoiakim's kingship' - just as, when the book of Daniel specifies '2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (Dan. 2:1), it means just that, and NOT '20th year of Nebuchadnezzar's kingship' (cp. Daniel's Prophecy, p. 46, par. 2; w64 12/15, p. 756). Watchtower has to redefine simple terms like 'kingship' and 'second year' and make them mean something totally different so that the Bible conforms to Watchtower's ideas.