JW Insider

I didn't see any complaint by Furuli that matched mine. The reason I have said that higher education is not a good value today has been the change in economics, at least in most Western countries. This has been true for years, if not a couple of decades, and gets worse as the educational institutions keep trying to maximize their costs and the job market gets continually worse. You also may remember that we have discussed the abuse by private companies that take advantage to price testing and application services (College Board) and the many financial institutions that abuse the student loan processes in their favor. My earlier complaint about Furuli is that he doesn't offer enough about the true negative side of higher education, including spiritual dangers, which he minimizes.

Perhaps you've done more study on this than I have. You probably know that the NIV has been "trashed" among several church groups, especially the KJV-only crowd. This is, in large part, why there is a common complaint all over the Internet that Zondervan published the Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex. Feb 17, 2020 - ... (NIV) was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. Bayside Church Melbourne » The NIV Conspiracy Jul 15, 2015 - The Facebook post mentions that Harper Collins also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex – and that's completely true. It's the ... Rikus Jansen - VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!! Hello beloved ... I'm sure you know that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. Bible Altered by Homosexuals and Satan Worshipers ... Jul 15, 2015 - ... that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex. There are literally hundreds of these references. But unfortunately the gay sex book was not published by Zondervan. Perhaps you have done more research into the other books on homosexuality published by Zondervan, but from what I can tell, most of them are about gay persons trying to live a celibate lifestyle and the potential conflict between grace and sin. This is also the gist of articles on this topic on Zondervan Academic. Harper Collins did buy Zondervan in 1988, well after Zondervan had already been publishing the NIV and books by "Christian-related" authors. Having a Christian books division does not stop HC from publishing whatever else it wants from other authors. It doesn't mean that the persons who run the Zondervan division agree with everything published by HC in general.

So true. I agree that in general modern Witnesses do not follow Watchtower history. But this doesn't mean that the Watch Tower publications aren't promoting the idea that we should follow the history. There's a long history of history in the WTS: CTRussell revisited his own history a couple times in the pages of the WT The Biography of Charles Taze Russell revisited his history from the late 1920's to mid 30's Rutherford revisited Watchtower history in the pages of the WT Knorr ran a serialized version of the WT history through several successive issues of the WT Those articles culminated in the history book: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (jp) Almost every "Book Study" book and book covering Prophetic explanations included at least 60 pages of Watchtower history, including the most recent ones Every Yearbook included at least 40 pages of Watchtower history for at least one country The 1975 Yearbook became an update of the jp book The Proclaimers book became an updated history book Three of the four major tour attractions at Warwick are all about the history of the Watchtower Society. (And the major displays at the Watchtower Farm are also about the Watchtower history.) Every year the Watchtower reviews milestone highlights in articles about the history of the Watchtower Society, including a related set of articles for several years now about things that happened "100 Years Ago" Like I said, though, there is nothing wrong with this, assuming the purpose, honesty and clarity are there. I'm sure you aren't saying that the WTS is "triassic" or in a "bubble" for repeatedly promoting this history. It's part of our current beliefs about how most of the prophecies were fulfilled.

I think that as a linguist he is very accomplished and definitely qualifies as a true scholar. I've said this before to Allen Smith as you might remember. He put a lot of work into that. The work is impressive in scope. But he came up with theories that are probably not true in general. A lot of useful material to consider when looking at a wider variety of translation options for some Hebrew verbs, but definitely not as formulaic rules, nor even as a new way reanalyze the Hebrew language. Persons with PhD's know, (and Allen Smith, as you will recall, claims to have 2 PhD's) that a PhD thesis does not need to come up with something that is necessarily proven to be correct in the long run. In fact, some PhD's are extensive tests of theories, and will often help their field by proposing something that can't be proven. This may help the next scholar who takes up the same, similar, or overlapping topics. You have been consistent about this, and I appreciate that. There are still "Allen Smith" and "Guest Allen Smith" posts on the forum that have been saying exactly this same thing for years. I was only referring to things that you actually said and asked here, nothing to do with the points you just made in this current post.

Harper Collins published the Satanic Bible and also a book about "gay sex." The common fake complaint on the Internet is about these two books especially. When Harper Collins bought Zondervan, it still didn't mean that the Zondervan suddenly became the publisher of those two books published by HarperCollins. However, it is very likely that discussions about homosexuality as a issue related to religion have been published by Zondervan. And, for clarification, Furuli didn't publish someone else's works. Neither did the Watchtower when they often quoted Zondervan publications.

I assumed you were just trying to get people to respond to you because they would have sourced these quotations differently. But the only thing I'm going to try to correct is the spelling of "Rolf" not "Rulf."

So right! The conversation about Furuli is interesting in that it's about a man's struggle related to conscience, knowledge, and various realizations of imperfection in human organizations and bureaucracies. Shouldn't be a surprise to any of us. Perhaps with his experience at so many levels of responsibility within the organization, and in educational organizations, he more easily sees how things are allowed that shouldn't be, and things aren't allowed that should be. Perhaps he sees how a person who has given a lifetime of effort, might feel underappreciated now that he's at the age for feeling a sense of "what have you done for them lately." Perhaps he is in a position to feel "deserving" of more accolades than most, and as he gets older he finds that instead, "no good deed goes unpunished." Various things he worked hard for (freedom of higher education, for example; promotion of the NWT) are being turned against him. I think it was expected by some that he would struggle, partly because he was too focused on defending even the minutest details of unprovable doctrines. Furuli was trying to do things for the WTS that the WTS itself was not that interested in doing: Let's prove that our pronunciation of YHWH is exactly right. Let's prove that the NWT is the best translation out there. Let's do our best to prove that a certain year for Artaxerxes 20th year was 10 years different from the evidence just so that we can make a certain WT doctrine work out more exactly. Let's prove that a certain year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was 20 years different from the evidence just so that we can make a certain WT doctrine work out more exactly. So he fought some unwinnable battles and was not appreciated for them, at least not to the extent he probably thought was fair. And it didn't matter to that many Witnesses. What does matter to the average Witness are things quite unrelated to scholarship and prophecy, like: Is there a a religion that teaches straightforward doctrines that set us apart from the world in general? And sets us apart as dedicated to God? Does it teach basic spirituality and love of God, and condemn war and nationalistic politics, and unchristian holiday celebrations? Does it promote esoteric, unclear, or contradictory doctrines like the Trinity and Immortal Soul, and a God who would promote eternal torture? Does it focus on high moral standards so that I can generally expect the persons I associate with to have the same moral outlook as I do? Does it have characteristic features that we would expect of a religion that tries to imitate the first century congregation in a twenty-first century environment, including worldwide preaching? Does this religion attract and improve people so that I am happy to associate with fellow believers anywhere in the world, and feel good about sending charity to those in trouble after natural or man-made disasters? I am aware there might be persons who have a more correct view of chronology, or persons who see a specific doctrine differently, or even a different view of prophecy in general. Perhaps I see people from a church down the street from me who go in and come out all friendly and loving and happy to meet each other, just like with my friends at the KH. But I also can tell that I could never be as comfortable there as I would be among people related to me in a faith. People for whom the answers to the questions listed above fit what I've learned about the Bible. I see the Furuli book as a way for some to just tear down the organizational structure, probably not with a view to improving the organization, but for destroying it. If it has any value, though, it will acknowledge that there is room for improvement without anarchy. I thought that R.Franz' book (I only finished one of the two) was the same. It was being used as a "bomb" when it was best used as a tool to fix or reduce the chance of repeating problems associated with: certain presumptuous and haughty attitudes, Mexico/Malawi, the 1914 generation, improper prying into marital relationships, fixing the alternative service issue. For the most part, the WTS used it to make good adjustments. Hopefully, Furuli's book has some of those same values. He certainly seems to have followed a lot of R.Franz style and even matches up on several specific points of agreement, points of argument, and several doctrinal points that match up exactly between them.

There is a rumor that the WTS does not care too much about its past but keeps its focus on the future, and this is sometimes given as the reason why there are misquotes in the WT about our own past history. This is often true. Sometimes we even use the following reference in Luke: (Luke 9:62) . . .Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.” The problem is that it isn't true. In fact, we might be the primary religious organization in the world that makes so many references to our own modern history. Especially the history leading up to 1914, and the events of 1919 though the early 1920's, along with major milestones like 1935, 1950, 1958, etc. Most major WTS publications, and even many of the magazines, have some reference to WT history. (And I don't think there is anything wrong with this, especially if done honestly and clearly.) In fact, even most of the research I was asked to do at Bethel was about looking into doctrinal things from our past history. I say this because we are so quick to commend anyone who brings up our own history in a purely complimentary way, but we often quickly dismiss someone as stuck in the past, or too focused on the past if they do the same in a more honest and transparent way. So that said, Russell introduced the pyramid schema to teach a lot more than just the end of the Gentile Times. In fact, it was not really so much about the end of the gentile times as some might think, anyway. Because it had very little to do with Jews going back to Palestine to re-ignite a Jewish government there in 1914. It was mostly about how 1874 was the beginning of Christ's presence. But it was also a supposed symbol of perfection to be used in teaching about Adam, Jesus, the ransom, atonement, etc. Here's what Russell said and taught in his first book about a certain pyramid: . . . the Great Pyramid of Egypt—an object of wonder and amazement to the most learned scientists of today. Its construction is in exact accord with the most advanced attainments of this "Brain Age" in the sciences of Mathematics and Astronomy. It teaches, positively, truths which can today be only approximated by the use of modern instruments. So striking and clear are its teachings that some of the foremost astronomers of the world have unhesitatingly pronounced it to be of divine origin. [p.165] In these illustrations we use the pyramid figure to represent perfection, because of its fitness and because of evident reference to it in the Scriptures. Adam was a perfect being, pyramid a. Notice its position—on plane N, which represents human perfection. On plane R, the plane of sin and imperfection or the depraved plane, the topless pyramid, b, an imperfect figure, represents fallen Adam and his posterity—depraved, sinful and condemned. [p.228] The figure of a pyramid not only serves well the purpose of illustrating perfect beings, but it continues to answer the purpose of illustration in representing the oneness of the whole creation, as in the fulfilment of God's plan it will be one when the harmony and perfection of all things will be attained under the headship of Christ, the Head, not only of the Church which is his body, but also of all things in heaven and in earth. Eph. 1:10 [p.242] And in his third book: We have never attempted to place the Great Pyramid, sometimes called the Bible in Stone, on a parallel or equality with the Word of God as represented by the Old and New Testament Scriptures—the latter stand pre-eminent always as the authority. We do, however, still believe that the structure of this Pyramid, so different from that of all other pyramids, was designed of the Lord and intended to be a Pyramid and a witness in the midst and on the border of the land of Egypt. (Isaiah 19:19) It certainly tells a very different story from any other art or relic handed down from its remote times. Its wonderful corroboration of the Divine Plan of the Ages is astounding to everybody who really grasps it. It should be read with just as fresh interest as in the first edition, because its lessons have not altered or changed. We trust that new readers will get the same rich blessings from this Volume that old readers have received, and that thus we may glorify God together and rejoice in His provision of light and comfort on the way to the full ushering in of the glorious Kingdom of God's dear Son. And the entire chapter from that book, as summarized in the chapter heading below, showing that the Jewish Times were just one of the many topics supposedly indicated: STUDY X THE TESTIMONY OF GOD'S STONE WITNESS AND PROPHET, THE GREAT PYRAMID IN EGYPT General Description of the Great Pyramid—Why of Special Interest to Christians—The Great Pyramid a Storehouse of Truth—Scientific, Historic and Prophetic—Bible Allusions to It—Why, When and by Whom Built—Importance of Its Location—Its Scientific Lessons—Its Testimony Concerning the Plan of Redemption—The Plan of the Ages—The Death and the Resurrection of Christ Indicated—The Downward Course of the World, Ending in a Great Time of Trouble—The Nature of the Trouble—The Great Reformation Movement Marked—Length of the Jewish Age Indicated—The "High Calling" of the Gospel Church Shown—The Course of the Church's Consecration—The End of the High Calling Marked—Date of the Second Advent of Christ—How Restitution Blessings for the World are Indicated—The Course of the World During the Millennial Age—Its End—Contrast of the Two Conditions, Human and Spiritual, as Indicated in the Pyramid—The Pyramid Refutes Atheism, Infidelity and all Evolution Theories, and Verifies both the Plan of the Bible and Its Appointed Times and Seasons. "In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt." Isa. 19:19,20 And, of course the basic point, in that same chapter, in addition to the "times and seasons": Then Jehovah will show himself a great Savior; and he has already prepared the Great Pyramid as a part of his instrumentality for convincing the world of his wisdom, foreknowledge and grace. "It shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts [a witness to his foreknowledge and to his gracious plan of salvation, as we shall presently see] in the land of Egypt: [p.317]

For clarification, many publishers on religious subjects used Zondervan publishing. Zondervan publishes the New International Version, a fairly good version with serious defects, but more positives than defects, imo. Harper Collins published thousands of really good books, and also distributed the Satanic Bible, among some bad ones. When HarperCollins bought Zondervan it did not immediately mean that Zondervan now endorses the Satanic Bible. This is an argument like those apostates who complain that the WTS uses a financial advisor at Chase-Morgan that manages funds and trusts made up of of investments that include stock or stake in tobacco companies and military contractors. For that matter, if consistent, you would be saying that the Watchtower does not do thorough research whenever it quotes the NIV. Here are two of several: *** nwtsty C3 Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of 2 Corinthians *** NIV Zondervan Study Bible, edited by D. A. Carson, 2015, explains regarding 2 Corinthians 3:16: “‘the LORD’ (i.e. Yahweh) of Exod 34:34, to whom the unbeliever must turn.” *** it-1 p. 1069 Hebrew, II *** As Professor Burton L. Goddard says: “In large measure, the O[ld] T[estament] Hebrew must be self explanatory.” (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, edited by M. Tenney, 1963, p. 345) And I'm not trying to imply that Furuli used Zondervan to get published. He is entirely self-published here, as he has been with all his past books.

These days a lot of people who do not have the time, money or wherewithal to become scholars, scientists, journalists, or specialists will still tend to find some vicarious thrill in presenting themselves as "scholars" because they love the actual scholarship of another person. Similarly, some consider themselves vicarious "journalists" (or at least "specialists") on many topics because they have found journalists, or more often "journalistic entertainers," who support their ideologies. (In the USA, this would include persons like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Alex Jones, Chris Cuomo, etc.) The "vicarious thrill" happens especially when a well-known professional scholar, scientist, politician, journalist or entertainer agrees with our own personal ideology or beliefs. The thrill is slightly higher when it's an unexpected source, as when a climate scientist admits a failure in the climate beliefs of the opposing ideology. Or when a respected academic source, or even "fundamentalist Christian" scholar admits that the Trinity was not a first century Christian belief. Over the past few years @scholar JW and "Allen Smith"/"Billy The Kid" aka @César Chávez have praised Rolf Furuli to such an extent that I was not the only one who wondered if both "scholar" and "Cesar" were not also enjoying a kind of vicarious thrill of being able to call their own ideological position "scholarly" because an actual academic scholar like Furuli gave them that foundation. And it no doubt appealed to the Watch Tower Society to find a person like Furuli for the same reasons and present his unique take on one of the neo-Babylonian astronomical tablets. And I would have to admit that for me personally I have sometimes been thrilled to discover that many archaeologists have uncovered items of interest to Bible believers that help indicate the historical accuracy of the Bible in the face of nay-sayers. And when it was first pointed out to me why the doctrine of the "1914 generation" was not supported Biblically, I was thrilled to discover that two members of the GB would admit right in front of me that they also didn't fully support it, and that at least 3 additional GB members had said similar things in writing or told to persons I trusted about that topic. And when it turns out that a Greg Stafford, or a Gerard Gertoux, also agrees in many ways about the 1914 doctrine, it could be seen as adding "authority" to my own beliefs. So, I am definitely not immune to the "argument from authority" which can often turn out to be a logical fallacy. But what happens when Gerard Gertoux is rejected as a scholar due to a position on 1914, or a person like Greg Stafford defends JWs very well for years, but then leaves or rejects the Witnesses altogether? In the past few years, both "scholar JW" and "Cesar" have been asked what they would do if Furuli stopped believing as he did. Neither answered that question. But both of them, on this forum, seem to have been as supportive as possible of Furuli, up to a point. I don't think "scholar JW" will come back now that he has been asked this question directly, this time by Ann O'Maly. "Cesar" has been slowly weakening in his supportive position, as I'm sure he is discovering that some of the words he thought were being misrepresented were actually a very good representation of Furuli's actual words. Fortunately, for "scholar" and "Cesar," Furuli has not yet changed his position on 1914, and "scholar JW" immediately found that fact to be advantageous - because Furuli is finally (suddenly) an independent scholar. "Cesar" also still uses vague language to protect and defend Furuli. I believe it's because Furuli's scholarship on 1914 must be protected from his new theological reputation. As expected, this is not so different from what is done especially by ex-JWs and perhaps even some JWs for R.Franz and C.O.Jonsson for those who agree with their takes on theology or chronology, respectively. Some persons tend to want to overly protect the reputations of those men when it shouldn't matter in the long run. I think that some persons get overly involved in trying to make them out to be great Christians, when they never knew them, and only see through their own eyes "vicariously" through the books those men authored. This becomes more interesting with Furuli because 1914 is so tied up with the belief in the FDS who were recently identified with the GB (such as it was) back during that same 1914 time period. I don't expect Furuli to weaken any time soon on the 1914 doctrine because he invested his entire reputation on 1914 and scholarship, and it is his own reputation he is apparently trying to salvage among his fellow brothers and sisters. He wants it to be clear that he has never left the religion and that if he is kicked out it was only because some imperfect but sincere men did not like an important anomaly in his theology. The "optics" of that perspective might even save him from being officially kicked out in any formal or public way. But Furuli is rejecting what has seemed to become the most re-emphaisized "touchstone" of the modern theological themes in the Watch Tower publications: that of obedience to the FDS. It's an old theme but necessarily returning because it's now so much more tangible. Previously, the "obedience" to the FDS was a spiritual obedience through appreciation of an entire spiritual "process" that was intangible. The FDS was a world-wide living remnant of the 144,000 who were somehow (spiritually) supporting a small group of representatives of themselves through the largely unknown (and idealized) teaching and writing and decision-making processes at the Watch Tower's headquarters in NY. The "obedience" of the 144,000 to a core group of anointed, centered around NY Bethel, became a model that the rest of us appreciated, largely for the intangible spiritual factors. (It was even suggested that members of the 144,000 who had died, were still communicating with this small group of representatives of the FDS.) But then it became more tangible when it was adjusted so that this appointed slave became "8 men" that you could watch and judge for yourselves on your "TV" or internet screens. You can watch them make mistakes right in front of you. You can watch them say questionable things and realize more easily than ever that they themselves are struggling with some issues (finances, legal challenges, "overlapping" generation, changing doctrines). This begins to take away the once intangible spiritual sheen, even though most of what they say is still very much appreciated and there is no need to question it.

I think that JWs are pretty much the end of the line for most people who leave JWs these days. Most won't go back to any other church in a serious way, even if they have a history with another church, or relatives in that church. A high number will probably become stay at home Christians, and a large number will probably become agnostic, or apathetic. If you are thinking about whether persons like Furuli will end up dragging a few hangers-on with him in case he is DFd, I would guess it would only be in Norway, and probably not pull even 100 persons away from the WTS. (Not directly at least.) But Furuli will likely want to take the R.Franz route and just quietly allow Bible study among friends. That won't create a splinter group. A few more will leave apathetically because he will have created nagging questions that some will not have the wherewithal to deal with. Norway is already saturated with atheists and agnostics, and new churches don't grow very well. Old churches are mostly just for birth, marriage and funeral ceremonies.

You probably meant when Russell split off from some Second Adventists who were already ex-Millerite Second Adventists before Russell met them. They were already a mix of several eclectic beliefs, but far from 7th Day Adventists who were themselves a parallel split from Millerite Second Adventism (but with more continuity than other splits). This one is truer than most of us will admit. Wikipedia: The Church of God (Seventh Day) represents a line of Sabbatarian Adventists that rejected the visions and teachings of Ellen G. White before the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1863.

Looks like there are videos here that match up with the same kinds of videos that came out of Ferguson, Missouri. Where white persons were brought in from other places, even policemen, in order to instigate violence and looting. The assumption is apparently made that if looting can be instigated or exacerbated, that police violence against African Americans will be forgiven. This kind of "false flag" is used to delegitimize protests. Trump responds on Twitter by threatening to use the military to shoot the looters. Ironically, Trump was the person who recently released 1960's JFK documents that (inadvertently?) exposed the false flag plan by the American government to kill hundreds of Americans in Miami in order to blame it on Cuba to get sympathy for dropping bombs on Cuba. And just now, in the ADD manner of "Oh! Look! A squirrel!" Trump just literally tweeted a minute ago out of the blue: "China!" (Nothing else yet; no context.) I have no idea what's true and what isn't about these videos, or the ones from Ferguson, Mo, or Charlottesville, etc. But it does undoubtedly show a white person covering his own identity while breaking windows in the midst of the Minneapolis protests. There are other supporting videos, too.

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.

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.

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.

So true. I send off posts here that I don't always look at again until someone quotes from them to respond. (It's always the part they quoted that had the typos.) Then I look back and find half a dozen more typos in some of my own posts that I missed on the first reading. Yet, typos in someone else's posts just sort of jump 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.

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.

Several of the anecdotes that Furuli offers are exactly the type of anecdotes that have stuck with me over the years. Just a few days ago, I related the story about how my father, an elder, was giving a talk at a circuit assembly with the theme: "The time left is reduced." During this time period, assembly speakers had used a large visual aid with the number of months left to 1975. My father gave the talk according to the outline but as a reminder to always stay balanced he added a quick reference Matthew 24:36: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father." The District Overseer took my father aside (after the day's session), in front of the Circuit Overseer to counsel him for adding that scripture. The Watchtower had recently warned against using this scripture in a way that might appear to reduce the enthusiasm over 1975. Furuli gives a similar example: An Italian brother with a great knowledge of the Bible and related subjects told me that he gave a public lecture in his congregation. After the talk, two elders approached him and gave him credit for some details he had discussed that were new to them. But they also reprimanded him because he had quoted two scriptures that were not found in the printed outline of the talk. ''We must not add anything to the material that comes from the slave," were their words. This situation shows that many Witnesses today view the eight men in the GB almost as prophets and oracles. They are the only ones that can teach others the Bible, and we must follow them closely.

Looks like partly a copy and paste. But not, evidently, to give a different perspective. It seems quite possible that the words could have been that way in a 5/24/2020 edition and not in a 5/25/2020 edition. I say this because the book gives evidence of rushed last-minute organization and some sloppy editing. There is a lot of unnecessary repetition, and a couple of mistakes and typos. Sometimes with such e-books the author has the opportunity to make changes on the fly and continue editing as early copies are going out. Here are the closest quotes to yours. Yours matches the supposed quote at https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/05/26/in-new-book-a-prominent-jehovahs-witness-trashes-the-faiths-governing-body/ Today the members of the GB have all power in connection with the doctrines, the assets, and the money. No one has the right to question their decisions or their words. And this collides head-on with the words of Paul in Galatians 5:1 (NWT13): And in another place he says: I believe that the members of the GB are sincere persons. But they have taken a position among the Witnesses that violates many Bible principles. They have become a government with all power. And in another place he says: During the last part of the 20th century, the members of the GB gave themselves more and more power at the expense of the bodies of elders . The GB functions as a government for JW with unlimited power over the doctines [sic], the assets, and the money. And in another place he says: Because no one can call the members of the GB to account, they have been able to lead the organization in the direction of their choice-they have formed the organization into their own image. The present organizational structure, where the members of the GB believe that they have both the obligation and the right to be a government for Jehovah's Witnesses, has created great problems. And in another place he says; The problem, however, is that the definitions of apostasy are self serving because it is the GB who defines what "Jehovah's arrangement" is. And the definition is that the GB serves as a government for JW with unlimited power. Thus, any opposition to the GB is per definition apostasy because it "is undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement." In spite of the fact that the GB has the upper hand, my conscience has driven me to write this book, and I leave the judgment to Jehovah. And in another place he says: Because I have had responsible positions during these years, I have witnessed how the organization has gradually become more and more autocratic, until we have the situation today with the GB functioning as the government of JW with unlimited power. And in another place he says: If a Catholic man . . . becomes a member of a JW congregation, the man becomes a part of an organization that is more hierarchical and more dictatorial than the Catholic Church. This is a situation that violates several Bible principles. And in another place he says: This situation shows that many Witnesses today view the eight men in the GB almost as prophets and oracles. They are the only ones that can teach others the Bible, and we must follow them closely. So all the words are there, some in different places, and it would take some cutting and pasting to produce the exact same sentence in the quote you found. But that quote does not manipulate the meaning of Furuli's quotes, so I suspect they may have easily once existed in the Introduction (or another place?) as you quoted them. Or the site was very sloppy. Either way, what Furuli actually said sounds very similar, overall.

Probably true, Tom. I already knew that I would probably agree with plenty of his arguments related to his current view on the FDS and higher education. But so much more that he says, has already been said in so many words over here on this forum. Some of it very recently. The areas where many of us have long defended the Witness position with respect to war, neutrality, the two different hopes of salvation, use of God's name, identifying principles of the true religion, the value of a leadership body with respect to efficiently carrying out a worldwide preaching work, etc., etc. You'd think that he came over here and picked up a few ideas, although I'm sure he had already come to these positions through the WT publications and his own experience in defending them. On higher education, he tends to present it a bit too positively, without enough warning about some of same dangers that have hurt Witnesses, sometimes spiritually, sometimes economically. I think he is too focused on how well it worked out for himself, and perhaps schools in Norway are more serious than some of the party destinations that attract students in the United States. To him most higher education is Biblically neutral, and he tends to promote higher education for those who can make room for it. A lot of Witnesses (remember JTR?) have complained about the "dumbing down" of study habits and the lower levels of effort put into really learning scriptural and spiritual matters for ourselves. His issues with the NWT 2013 are also identical to things that have been said here in that regard. Furuli is not terribly consistent with his favorite subjects and pet peeves, but he has managed to explain the issues in very practical terms better than I've seen before.

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.