Ann O'Maly

Relax. You’ve done nothing wrong (this time).
Are you kidding me? He has more aliases than I do.
Imagine my rotten l**k. Here I have almost succeeded in the reappearance of the three amigos—Witness, Ann, and JTR—the original three of the thread the Librarian assigned to me, ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates,’ which I resisted because i didn’t want the job, but when my resistance proved futile, I warmed to the task and went after them with such ferocity that the same Admin that put me on it took me off—and many months later it became inspiration for my fourth book, ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates!’
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/917311
Ann suddenly reappears and what happens? JTR disappears to do penance! JTR, who never was apostate in many ways but who so closely resembled one that I couldn’t tell the difference. He’s gone!—only days before the story breaks that may or may not fit so nicely into ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates—Round 2’ should such a book come about.
Ann O’Maly, who is herself my inspiration of Top Cat O’Malihan—an alias I trotted out to mess with than pretentious buffoon AlanH—Ann herself appears as JTR disappears. I tell you, it is not right.
Incidentally, the cat in Top Cat’s profile photo is dead. It was my cat but when I took my daughter’s dog in because she was moving away as a need-greater—well, the dog has a thing about chasing cats. So I took the cat to my Dad’s house, who was just coming down with dementia and in time I stayed with him for a few months. He figured that it was one of the barn cats that he grew up with and kept leaving it saucers of milk around the house, just as he had done in his boyhood with the other barn cats. “Great, Pop!” I would mutter. “Here I want to pour myself a bowl of cereal and I can’t because you have put all the milk out in a dozen bowls for the cat—who never touches it!”
The cat was old by the time I took it to my Dad’s. It was a great comfort for him and would sit on his lap. He was looking for it one day and I knew he would not find it. It had crawled under the basement workbench, a place that it had never been before, to die. There really is something to the expression, ‘Crawl under a rock and die.”

Speaking of Kosonen, a few things remind me of him, too. Even the tone of offering unheeded "correction" but also this idea Furuli has:
There is also a need for an
independent group of elders to review all the human commandments that
the GB has invented and to remove those that are not based on the Bible,
and which have caused harm for individual Witnesses.
But Furuli's book is starting to sound more like a Raymond Franz sequel (on those few points where they agree). Comparisons between the organizational hierarchy and the Catholic Church are even stronger here than in Franz' books. He even seems to acknowledge (or idealize) that there was a short period of time that immediately followed when R.Franz presented the scriptural meaning of elder, etc., to Knorr and FW Franz, and they humbly accepted the loss of power and authority.
I could go on an on with commentary, but I'll try to save it until I'm finished. Else I won't finish.

So far, I can't help but see a strong parallel between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli's choice of words, style and even some of his entire talking points. I already had five R.F. marks in the margins (pdf) before even got out of the Introduction. And it started not to matter whether the R.F. stood for Rolf Furuli or Ray Franz, so I stopped highlighting those kinds of parallels.
Two of the parallels are so "eerie" that I wonder how aware Furuli is about how they sound. Here's one:
Ray Franz became associated with the term "captives of a concept" as a way to explain how and why the GB see themselves in a position that is so difficult to explain Biblically. Furuli hits several of Ray Franz' points in the same order that Franz presents them:
I do not question
the sincerity of the members of the GB. But it seems to me that they are
held captive by their belief that they are chosen by God as "the faithful
and discreet slave," and that they have been appointed over Jehovah's
Witnesses as their government with unlimited power.
Here's another one, that echos the theme of R.Franz' second book:
This letter shows that the members of the GB believe that they have
the right to . . .
overrule the consciences of individual Witnesses. But this is an attack on
the Christian freedom that Paul mentioned in Galatians 5.1.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily go to your point about Furuli's goals, because Ray Franz' style appeared to be much more reluctant about saying anything, but explained how he had been forced into a corner to explain himself due to rampant misinformation. This rang true with Ray Franz that he had never wanted to leave the organization, or try to do anything that would get him in any kind of trouble that would force anyone to try to make him leave, or try to undermine anything to do with current doctrines or teachings, after settling into his congregation. The problem apparently started only when the congregation wanted to use Ray Franz as an elder, and the local elders wrote the Society to find out if that would be appropriate. Until then there was apparently no reason to go after Ray Franz to try to get him disfellowshipped. So, "Chairman Ray" may have been the very opposite of your revolutionary. And Furuli is setting himself up similarly as a non-revolutionary.
One major difference is that Furuli has evidently taken a more proactive role, and pretty much admits to assuming that he won't be answered, just because they haven't dealt with him or his issues yet. You might have nailed it when you wondered just how he knows they are refusing to consider his "corrections." But I'm pretty sure that he knows. He knows what is inevitable, or at least what would have been inevitable if he hadn't got this book out there first.
A former circuit and district overseer can read the signs, especially one whose work has previously been welcomed into the hearing of the GB.

Yes. I am aware. I'm just surprised, especially after reading and studying and discussing his last two books. I am aware of your stated position about them.
I doubt that his views on chronology are firm. He gives plenty of evidence that he does not really believe they are firm. They are definitely not "established" in the least, except as weak theories he could never honestly defend. About all he ever established is that he was "clever" but incapable of dealing with the necessary issues related to chronology. Even amateurs like myself have had no trouble seeing through the scheme.
😊
Interesting. Perhaps he is in the process of sacrificing his association with Witnesses so that he will be the first non-Witness scholar in history to claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.
I have another theory as to what he is doing, much less interesting, but in total keeping with the evidence he has already documented about his ego, personality and track record. I'll see if it makes sense after reading his book (tomorrow).

"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore, the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be dissolved." - p. 135.   😲   I know what you're all thinking: 'This is fake news, a hoax. He'd never say that.' But the book is available from his own Awatu Publishers via email for $10 (see Reddit link below). It's was only released a little over a week ago and is a hefty 337 pages long. He relates his long history in the org., that his issues have been brewing over the last 15 years, and what he says gels with what I know from various other sources - some of which are off-grid. While Furuli still believes JWs are the true religion and many core doctrines are correct (including 607!), he blasts the current GB for losing their way, being power- and money-grabbing, amongst other complaints, and he scripturally dismantles the FDS doctrine. He thinks the organization should be restructured so that it is theocratic like in the good old post-1971 days (I'm paraphrasing) rather than hierarchical like the Catholic church (yes, he refers to the Menlo Park court case). He says he approached the GB in the spirit of Matt. 18, and added that,    "The Governing Body received the book, and the members were
informed that if the basic problems discussed in the book could be
settled inside the organization, the book would not be published.
The GB has refused to communicate with me and therefore the
book has been published." - p. 14.   He knows full well what will happen to him which, I guess, will prove his point about the GB being autocratic and beyond questioning or correction.    Did anyone expect this bombshell? I certainly didn't! 😆   Here's the link to the Reddit discussion:    

"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore, the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be dissolved." - p. 135.   😲   I know what you're all thinking: 'This is fake news, a hoax. He'd never say that.' But the book is available from his own Awatu Publishers via email for $10 (see Reddit link below). It's was only released a little over a week ago and is a hefty 337 pages long. He relates his long history in the org., that his issues have been brewing over the last 15 years, and what he says gels with what I know from various other sources - some of which are off-grid. While Furuli still believes JWs are the true religion and many core doctrines are correct (including 607!), he blasts the current GB for losing their way, being power- and money-grabbing, amongst other complaints, and he scripturally dismantles the FDS doctrine. He thinks the organization should be restructured so that it is theocratic like in the good old post-1971 days (I'm paraphrasing) rather than hierarchical like the Catholic church (yes, he refers to the Menlo Park court case). He says he approached the GB in the spirit of Matt. 18, and added that,    "The Governing Body received the book, and the members were
informed that if the basic problems discussed in the book could be
settled inside the organization, the book would not be published.
The GB has refused to communicate with me and therefore the
book has been published." - p. 14.   He knows full well what will happen to him which, I guess, will prove his point about the GB being autocratic and beyond questioning or correction.    Did anyone expect this bombshell? I certainly didn't! 😆   Here's the link to the Reddit discussion:    

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.
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. 

I wonder if he just copied Fred Franz' viewpoint?
See also
 

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.
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. 

"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore, the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be dissolved." - p. 135.   😲   I know what you're all thinking: 'This is fake news, a hoax. He'd never say that.' But the book is available from his own Awatu Publishers via email for $10 (see Reddit link below). It's was only released a little over a week ago and is a hefty 337 pages long. He relates his long history in the org., that his issues have been brewing over the last 15 years, and what he says gels with what I know from various other sources - some of which are off-grid. While Furuli still believes JWs are the true religion and many core doctrines are correct (including 607!), he blasts the current GB for losing their way, being power- and money-grabbing, amongst other complaints, and he scripturally dismantles the FDS doctrine. He thinks the organization should be restructured so that it is theocratic like in the good old post-1971 days (I'm paraphrasing) rather than hierarchical like the Catholic church (yes, he refers to the Menlo Park court case). He says he approached the GB in the spirit of Matt. 18, and added that,    "The Governing Body received the book, and the members were
informed that if the basic problems discussed in the book could be
settled inside the organization, the book would not be published.
The GB has refused to communicate with me and therefore the
book has been published." - p. 14.   He knows full well what will happen to him which, I guess, will prove his point about the GB being autocratic and beyond questioning or correction.    Did anyone expect this bombshell? I certainly didn't! 😆   Here's the link to the Reddit discussion:    

@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. 

"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore, the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be dissolved." - p. 135.   😲   I know what you're all thinking: 'This is fake news, a hoax. He'd never say that.' But the book is available from his own Awatu Publishers via email for $10 (see Reddit link below). It's was only released a little over a week ago and is a hefty 337 pages long. He relates his long history in the org., that his issues have been brewing over the last 15 years, and what he says gels with what I know from various other sources - some of which are off-grid. While Furuli still believes JWs are the true religion and many core doctrines are correct (including 607!), he blasts the current GB for losing their way, being power- and money-grabbing, amongst other complaints, and he scripturally dismantles the FDS doctrine. He thinks the organization should be restructured so that it is theocratic like in the good old post-1971 days (I'm paraphrasing) rather than hierarchical like the Catholic church (yes, he refers to the Menlo Park court case). He says he approached the GB in the spirit of Matt. 18, and added that,    "The Governing Body received the book, and the members were
informed that if the basic problems discussed in the book could be
settled inside the organization, the book would not be published.
The GB has refused to communicate with me and therefore the
book has been published." - p. 14.   He knows full well what will happen to him which, I guess, will prove his point about the GB being autocratic and beyond questioning or correction.    Did anyone expect this bombshell? I certainly didn't! 😆   Here's the link to the Reddit discussion:    

"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore, the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be dissolved." - p. 135.   😲   I know what you're all thinking: 'This is fake news, a hoax. He'd never say that.' But the book is available from his own Awatu Publishers via email for $10 (see Reddit link below). It's was only released a little over a week ago and is a hefty 337 pages long. He relates his long history in the org., that his issues have been brewing over the last 15 years, and what he says gels with what I know from various other sources - some of which are off-grid. While Furuli still believes JWs are the true religion and many core doctrines are correct (including 607!), he blasts the current GB for losing their way, being power- and money-grabbing, amongst other complaints, and he scripturally dismantles the FDS doctrine. He thinks the organization should be restructured so that it is theocratic like in the good old post-1971 days (I'm paraphrasing) rather than hierarchical like the Catholic church (yes, he refers to the Menlo Park court case). He says he approached the GB in the spirit of Matt. 18, and added that,    "The Governing Body received the book, and the members were
informed that if the basic problems discussed in the book could be
settled inside the organization, the book would not be published.
The GB has refused to communicate with me and therefore the
book has been published." - p. 14.   He knows full well what will happen to him which, I guess, will prove his point about the GB being autocratic and beyond questioning or correction.    Did anyone expect this bombshell? I certainly didn't! 😆   Here's the link to the Reddit discussion:    

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

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

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

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

International convention?
Albanian national dress?
Yes, Librarian is a little grouchy today. 
And what happened to the middle lady's other leg? Maybe that's why the Albanians are propping her up.

International convention?
Albanian national dress?
Yes, Librarian is a little grouchy today. 
And what happened to the middle lady's other leg? Maybe that's why the Albanians are propping her up.

I don't know how feasible that would be legally and without encroaching on the 1st amendment. If somebody was baptized as a minor and disfellowshipped as an adult, couldn't it be argued that, as an adult, that person ratified their earlier contract by willingly submitting to congregation rules, consenting to have data held on them (e.g. report slips), accepting privileges, etc?

That's because the discussion wasn't about a minor prioritizing working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit. The discussion was about a JW father withholding his child's driving permit to coerce him into getting baptized on the basis that, if he wasn't ready to handle a car, he wasn't ready to make a lifelong dedication/commitment to the Sovereign of the Universe and the Org that claims it exclusively represents Him.
I agree that Anthony Morris III and the father in my scenario are comparing apples and oranges when trying to equate the responsibility that comes with dedication and baptism (or marriage) to that of having a drivers permit ... which makes using that kind of coercive tactic with one's children all the more distasteful - my point all along.
 
 

Eoin, dragging you back to the point here: if you overheard the kind of conversation between a father and son as I posted above, would you not conclude that the father was trying to coerce or blackmail his child into marriage? If not, why not?

I can see that. 
You agree that getting married has lesser gravity in the great universal scheme of things than baptism, right?
What if you overheard this conversation between a father and his mid-teen son?
"But dad, while I like the girl and we're friendly, I do not feel ready to make a lifelong commitment to her. I'm too young to get married."
"Oh yeah? Not ready? Well let's hold off on your driver's license, hey?"
"What? Dad? You're kidding, right? I'm 16. I'm ready to drive a car!"
"No, son. You're ready to handle a car but not ready for marriage, huh? You explain that to the girl's family." 
"What the hell, dad?"
Is the father being reasonable with his son?
Isn't the father using some form of coercion or blackmail to induce his son to get married?
If this isn't a form of coercion or blackmail, what is it?