JW Insider

(Exodus 18:17-23) 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. 20 You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. 21 But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. 22 They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”
A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.
Also, you might have referred to this case:
*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.
This full situation always reminds me of this:
(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).

Some time around 1971, that prophecy changed from 1932 to 1944. This changed in --you guessed it-- 1971! I'm assuming that Fred Franz had caught the contradiction himself. This is definitely his writing, below (and likely above, too) as he was the only one allowed to define the 2300 evenings and mornings, the 1290, 1335, etc. I never caught this before that the timing was so close to the timing of the elder arrangement being brought back, so that the 2300 days no longer made sense as the time when the elder arrangement was abolished.
*** w71 12/1 pp. 724-725 pars. 27-29 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today ***
When did those 2,300 evenings and mornings begin? By knowing this we can find out when they end and thus when Jehovah’s “holy place” is “brought into its right condition,” or, “shall be restored to its rightful state” . . . At the earliest this was on June 1, 1938, when the official magazine of Jehovah’s anointed remnant of underpriests at His sanctuary, namely, The Watchtower, published Part One of the article entitled “Organization,” so as to state more fully the theocratic requirements for it. When we calculate according to the Jewish lunar calendar that was used at the time of Daniel’s vision centuries before the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar were introduced, June 1, 1938. . .
28 If we thus count from the critical period when theocratic organization was being more fully installed in the congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses, when did the 2,300 days end?
29 Remember, this is a prophetic period. So a prophetic year of 360 days is involved. (Rev. 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14) So 2,300 days would amount to six lunar years, four lunar months and twenty days. That amount of time counted from Sivan 2 (June 1), 1938, would end on Tishri 21 (October 8), 1944, or, counted from Sivan 16 (June 15), 1938, it would end on Heshvan 5 (October 22), 1944. At that particular time world events were moving closer to the bringing of the beastlike Eighth World Power out of the abyss shortly after World War II, this time in the form of the United Nations organization, for world peace and security.

The understanding of the Elder arrangement and the recognition that there was a lack of evidence for 607 was long before COJ. Remember that the first Aid Book was released in 1969. More of it was done, but it ended at A-E. The entire book A-Z was released in 1971. The research that Franz had to do on Chronology and the Elder arrangement had already been done by 1969.
"Mindset" hmmm. Who knows? I don't think anyone ever got the sense that he thought negative about the GB. He took a leave of absense in early 1980 for health reasons. I'm sure it was mostly due to harrassment by a specific member of the GB, but I doubt that he considered that brother to reflect the entire GB, or the "GB arrangement." He was asked to resign from the GB in May 1980. From his book, it appears he was doing the best he could, and still supportive of the Society's arrangements right up until he was disfellowshipped near the end of 1981. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed he said anything about the GB until his own book was published in 1983.
I don't think Ray Franz would have wanted to appeal the DF if he was really negative. Why try to stay in something you don't like?  And personally I don't see it as inevitable that Furuli will be disfellowshiped. If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should then I think that the decision will reach to NY HQ, and they will try to avoid making any news over it. I think that the GB will understand this as a kind of a trap for them. There is the small world of academia, which the GB still rely on now and then for a certain level of credibility. but they will fear what they don't understand very well, and not with to disturb anything there. And, more importantly we are already in a world where a large percent of young JWs do online Google searches, so that his disfellowshiping would also bring unnecessary attention on the very thing they don't want. I'm sure it's preferable to try to let it blow over if it will.

I saw that. It takes a lot of self-control for me NOT to respond, as I find myself opening another window and dashing off a response before I even finish reading the entire post. Many don't get sent.
Responding to Australia Trek was primarily an exercise in discovering where he is coming from and trying to figure out his level of sincerity and flexibility on some of these ideas. Now that I have kind of figured it out, there won't be much more to see. I think I already understand Witness (and Pearl, too) pretty well, so I read her writing quickly and don't really engage. I don't see a lot of flexibility there, so I think I already have a good idea what to expect if I did engage with Witness. But I also appreciate that she has a few things absolutely right. I better stop talking or I'll end up giving my view on everybody.

(Exodus 18:17-23) 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. 20 You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. 21 But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. 22 They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”
A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.
Also, you might have referred to this case:
*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.
This full situation always reminds me of this:
(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).

(Exodus 18:17-23) 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. 20 You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. 21 But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. 22 They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”
A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.
Also, you might have referred to this case:
*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.
This full situation always reminds me of this:
(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved. The understanding of problems with 1914 were known since well before COJ. And yes, by members of the Bethel family, including several persons on the GB, and several in Writing. Also at least one in the Service Dept, who was later transferred to Writing after 1982. I can guess that there were (and are) many more that I didn't know about at the time
You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975. There never was a body of "governing" elders involved in real decision-making until after the GB vote in December 1975. And it was Ray Franz' proposal that spear-headed a GB that acted like a council. Like a kind of Sanhedrin. In his book he tries to minimize his involvement in pushing for that decision, but at the time I think he knew his 64-page proposal, if approved, would likely result in a real GB like the one today. And it did, even with the same committee structure he had proposed.
I think these are all good points. I think it's almost inevitable that a Governing Body of some sort will develop. And if it is scriptural to have a presbytery, or body of elders, in the congregations, then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)
And as the work becomes more international, the most efficient version of the body of elders, is a body of elders who can make decisions appropriate to the logistics and efforts and distribution requirements of a worldwide congregation.
I think what made both R.Franz and R.Furuli uncomfortable is when they realized it didn't work out to their own expectations.

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved. The understanding of problems with 1914 were known since well before COJ. And yes, by members of the Bethel family, including several persons on the GB, and several in Writing. Also at least one in the Service Dept, who was later transferred to Writing after 1982. I can guess that there were (and are) many more that I didn't know about at the time
You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975. There never was a body of "governing" elders involved in real decision-making until after the GB vote in December 1975. And it was Ray Franz' proposal that spear-headed a GB that acted like a council. Like a kind of Sanhedrin. In his book he tries to minimize his involvement in pushing for that decision, but at the time I think he knew his 64-page proposal, if approved, would likely result in a real GB like the one today. And it did, even with the same committee structure he had proposed.
I think these are all good points. I think it's almost inevitable that a Governing Body of some sort will develop. And if it is scriptural to have a presbytery, or body of elders, in the congregations, then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)
And as the work becomes more international, the most efficient version of the body of elders, is a body of elders who can make decisions appropriate to the logistics and efforts and distribution requirements of a worldwide congregation.
I think what made both R.Franz and R.Furuli uncomfortable is when they realized it didn't work out to their own expectations.

Some time around 1971, that prophecy changed from 1932 to 1944. This changed in --you guessed it-- 1971! I'm assuming that Fred Franz had caught the contradiction himself. This is definitely his writing, below (and likely above, too) as he was the only one allowed to define the 2300 evenings and mornings, the 1290, 1335, etc. I never caught this before that the timing was so close to the timing of the elder arrangement being brought back, so that the 2300 days no longer made sense as the time when the elder arrangement was abolished.
*** w71 12/1 pp. 724-725 pars. 27-29 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today ***
When did those 2,300 evenings and mornings begin? By knowing this we can find out when they end and thus when Jehovah’s “holy place” is “brought into its right condition,” or, “shall be restored to its rightful state” . . . At the earliest this was on June 1, 1938, when the official magazine of Jehovah’s anointed remnant of underpriests at His sanctuary, namely, The Watchtower, published Part One of the article entitled “Organization,” so as to state more fully the theocratic requirements for it. When we calculate according to the Jewish lunar calendar that was used at the time of Daniel’s vision centuries before the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar were introduced, June 1, 1938. . .
28 If we thus count from the critical period when theocratic organization was being more fully installed in the congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses, when did the 2,300 days end?
29 Remember, this is a prophetic period. So a prophetic year of 360 days is involved. (Rev. 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14) So 2,300 days would amount to six lunar years, four lunar months and twenty days. That amount of time counted from Sivan 2 (June 1), 1938, would end on Tishri 21 (October 8), 1944, or, counted from Sivan 16 (June 15), 1938, it would end on Heshvan 5 (October 22), 1944. At that particular time world events were moving closer to the bringing of the beastlike Eighth World Power out of the abyss shortly after World War II, this time in the form of the United Nations organization, for world peace and security.

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many.
Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. 
There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too.
I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

I think you have tried to group me with those who think R.Franz was all bad. I think that R.Franz was also "right" and "useful" in several ways, but I also think he was too weak or passive to stand up for what he was learning to be right. I had thought he might have come to realize some of these things after leaving, but he admits to not having the confidence to stand up to F.Franz, the conservative "guardian of doctrine" in those days. He should have seen the ongoing problems of the "two witness rule" and that scripture did not treat is as so all-encompassing. I don't mean to go off on a CSA tangent but some of that is on R.Franz, for promoting the two-witness rule. He knew things were wrong and didn't kick up much of a fuss. He admits to having learned that the WT was wrong on 607, and therefore wrong on 1914, and therefore wrong about the "parousia" and "generation" theory. I think he bears some responsibility for just allowing the status quo to go on and create the mess it did on that "generation" topic for several more decades. 
But the point is that even the WTS saw some usefulness and things that were right in the book that R.Franz wrote. They changed some things that he had exposed. A person can be partly right and partly wrong, but it doesn't mean their concerns are not useful.
With Furuli, I agree that it's not fair to try to group him with others. But the comparison is very interesting to me because I think I know Furuli's thinking pretty well from reading a lot of his books and even having some back-and-forth with him on academic sites many years ago. And I heard the equivalent of about 70 15-minute talks by Ray Franz at the Bethel morning text over a 3.5 year period. (Don't tell Kosonen, but that's 1,260 days.)
To me, Furuli, like Franz, have some good points and some bad points. (I mean, who really needs to go back to the old 49,000 years of creative days?) But I'm not playing fair if I say that Furuli must have been very thoughtful and useful with his critique of "GB=FDS" just because I agree with him on that, but that he must still be stuck on the weak and beggarly things if he can't get over 607 BCE and the 49,000 years.
So anything I can grasp at to understand his current mindset is of interest to me.
 

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many.
Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. 
There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too.
I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

I wouldn’t exactly call it the pure language, but I am glad to see that it is catching on.
Just a heads-up, JWI, in case Allen comes around trying to impress you with his diploma from Bible 101. It is genuine, but not earned in the traditional way. He argued so unceasingly with the results of every test, quiz, term paper, and lab project, that we finally gave him a diploma just to get him out of our hair.

Perhaps a possible explanation for the Franz / Furuli similarities is that both situations, the time of Franz and the present, share the same problems.
I see a tension, an opposite force, between wanting to have a united, harmonious organization and allowing greater freedom of conscience and thought. Both extremes I think are bad.
Can you imagine going to a congregation that believes in the trinity, or in hell fire?
At the other extreme, it is a shame it is troublesome to wear a beard, not to wear a tie and that sort of thing.

There are many more points of overlap between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli on those topics where they agree. One might expect this to be natural since they studied the same topic and came to the same conclusion on a few of them. Perhaps it's just coincidence, except for the idea that some of the points were barely known outside of their exposure in Franz books. Perhaps even the similarities of expression and style are coincidental.
Or Furuli could have read Ray Franz' books and decided to try to debunk them as he had tried to debunk Ray Franz and C.O.Jonsson on chronology subjects.
It probably doesn't matter how similar they are. But anyone else who read both authors might have more points to weigh in on if they wish.

OK, "a while" is up. I indicated to someone in the other Furuli thread that I would follow up on the comparison between Furuli and Franz.
I'll start with just a repetition of what I put in the other thread, with only slight edits because it would otherwise be too far out of context here:
=============
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 [a] 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 [based on a rumor] may have 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 [not have been very] 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. TTH might have nailed it when he wondered just how Furuli 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.

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many.
Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. 
There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too.
I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

Okay, JWI has posted a new topic. I don’t want to catch any of you saying irrelevant things. I don’t want 4Jah talking about CSA. I don’t want Allen talking about Zondervan. I can post some of my vacation pictures, of course, but everyone else had better behave. You want me to blow you in to the Old Hen?

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many.
Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. 
There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too.
I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

Mr Rook would not be so thin-skinned to see it that way. He would have had a good belly-laugh over it. You would have us believe that you were his friend? You did everything you could to separate him from his God. Remember, he was on my side of the Great Issue, not yours.
He came to have the same problem that Rolf is going to have—having “false friends” sucking him dry for info, kissing his feet with praise, ecstatic at the ‘dirt’ they think he is spilling, then turning around and saying he is delusional for not abandoning every last vestige of Witness belief—just like you do with JWI. At the same time, his genuine friends distance themselves. At least Rolf will find some companionship within the airy world of ‘scholarship’—no such luck for JTR.
It was worse for JTR. Rolf makes perfectly clear that he regards his faith as true. I gather that he is not too different from JWI, who has issues with some organizational matters, but has no problem acknowledging that there must be leadership and cooperating with it on that basis.  In contrast, JTR came across as a ‘spiritual terrorist,’ and it is only upon close examination—which the average Witness will be not inclined to do in view of his outrageous remarks—that one can see his love for Jehovah was genuine. Even his own kids deserted him—something he freely admitted—this despite the fact that he was not under congregation censure..
You simply cannot go about harshly criticizing ones held in high esteem—ones loved for their hard work and example—and expect to keep your friends. The loudest applause at any convention is at the question, “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel?” It’s like if some would come around and pretend to be my friends, saying the nicest things about me, yet they absolutely cannot stand my wife, and never fail to hurl abuses at her. Is that going to work with me? Will I be taken in? I don’t think so. And yes, the earthly organization is likened to a beloved human—a mother, as that AlanF, with the IQ of a Descartes and an EQ of the Sesame Street Cookie Monster, changed to ‘mommy,’ hoping to infuriate people.
I like to think with JTR it was a case of Psalm 141:5 and that he has time to undo the damage. Of course, you always have time to undo it with Jehovah if your turnaround is genuine, but I hope it is with family and friends as well.
“Should the righteous one strike me, it would be an act of loyal love; Should he reprove me, it would be like oil on my head, Which my head would never refuse. My prayer will continue even during their calamities.” 
I like to think it was that way here with a few who slammed him pretty hard but also made clear that the rebuke was not personal—and that he as a person had some very appealing qualities. I tried to do that, and I had some acknowledgement from him in ‘thanks’ emojis, not just upvotes. Others did this, as well—his spiritual brothers with his best interests at heart. I could well be a little too Pollyanna in reviewing how it has turned out—but his last few comments very neatly tie into a Pollyanna view—so that’s the one I’ll take. 
He wasn’t really wrong in the factual nature of anything he said—he was ‘wrong’ in how he had processed it. You can’t go about life being hypercritical. You have to be ready to move on. You can’t go digging through the diamonds to find the dirt. You have to be ready to forgive. It is an important theme of Jesus that he came to feel he ought more fully get his heart around.
You kept telling him how he could bask in a fine relationship with God while sticking it to the visible organization. He had too much common sense and honesty to fall for it. He knew that path leads inevitably to become fully part of the word—in time, doing all that the world does and thinking it can be offset with a smiley God emoji. 
Mark Smith’s book Secular Faith points out that the typical church member has more in common with atheists than with members of his own denomination of 100 years ago. That is what happens in the absence of an earthly counterpart to the heavenly organization. JTR knew that. That was among the things he meant when he lamented that he should have been closer to Jehovah.
Go ahead, you idiot—slap another braying emoji on this one. 

Only if the iron wants to be sharpened - therein lies the rub! 
Only associations, which are based on a sincere search for a better understanding or even love, can sharpen wisdom.

I have not yet offered any scholarships, but that may change.
I’m not sure where all this Zondervan stuff started, but I wish that somewhere Rolf could have pointed out the conflict-of-interest in putting Big Business in charge of distributing the Word of God. 
He might, too, have highlighted the feat of inventing an entirely new publication and distribution channel so that the poverty-stricken fellow in a developing nation is not stuck with some 200-year-old turkey of a translation that he can neither afford nor understand. 
He might also point out how such a channel means that rigorously translating a ‘trinity’ scripture will not doom the Bible in the marketplace, as it would in Zondervan’s case.
He might acknowledge that the GB can’t be all that bad to have pulled off such a stunt.