JW Insider

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.

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]
 

The idea that it is found in Matt 24 which also involves the situation at the time of the END is clearly a much better reason to highlight a special meaning to these verses. (The verses about the differences between the persons who would prove themselves to be an unfaithful and indiscreet slave as opposed to the persons who would prove themselves to be a faithful and discreet slave.)
But, of course, it's not in Luke 21. It's in Luke 12. Luke tends to spread out a lot of the things that Matthew has Jesus saying in Matthew 24, and puts those words in slightly different contexts as found in Luke 12, Luke 13, Luke 17, Luke 19, Luke 21. The differences between Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are also of interest:
(Luke 12:35-48) 35 “Be dressed and ready and have your lamps burning, 36 and you should be like men waiting for their master to return from the marriage, so when he comes and knocks, they may at once open to him. 37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on coming finds watching! Truly I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. 38 And if he comes in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them ready, happy are they! 39But know this, if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also, keep ready, because at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.” 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
(Matthew 24:41-25:1) . . .. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. 45“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be. 25 “Then the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. [etc, virgins, bridegroom, midnight call, lamp oil, marriage feast.]
Both versions of the illustration spend more time discussing what would constitute an UNFAITHFUL and INDISCREET slave. Luke takes it even further and presents Jesus' discussing varying levels of unfaithfulness and indiscretion. Perhaps this is one reason that Luke's version is rarely ever discussed in the publications compared to Matthew's?

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.

To me this serves as good reason to think 24:45-47 is as the brothers say it is. Matt 24 and 25–both chapters devoted to end-time prophesy in which conditions will get really terrifying—and right in the midst of it is some nice little sappy story the moral of which is ‘always do your best?’ I think not.
We lean into punches when we could just as easily duck them—and then the big slob’s own momentum would send him hurling over the edge. I don’t know why we do this.
When confronted with a charge that this new teaching is not the same as an old, say, “Oh, we changed that.” I see no reason why not. It is only opponents who think this not permissible—we don’t say it (nor do reasonable people) What is “the light that gets brighter” and “tacking” if not an admission that things change? They are not the essential things, is the point, the core beliefs that everyone who became a Witness did so on that account, and the core beliefs—that distinguish us from any other religion—that opposers forget all about, and thus reveal they haven’t a spiritual bone in their bodies, as they harp on trivial matters of human imperfection, and imagine that Santa Claus should be running the show—showering presents on everyone and asking nothing more than a vague ‘be nice,’—which people define any way they like.
The trick also is not to sanitize the present. It is to de-sanitize the past. It is to say, if opposers think they have caught someone in a ‘gotcha’, “So what’s new?” Show them all the crazy things done in Bible times.
We don’t desantize the past nearly enough, I think. If we did, it would make it so easy to deal with faux pas of the present. Instead we chastise Dinah for hanging out with the riff raff and dismiss her brother’s retribution as ‘just one of those things.‘ To be sure, Jacob was displeased. But Eli was also displeased with his louts of sons and it turned out differently for him.

“How has your day been going?” I said to my dog. “Rulf!” it replied.

Is this how we know that it should not be each Christian who should act as a true Christian neighbor to fellow humans? Because it is in the form of a question?
(Luke 10:29-37) . . .: “Who really is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jerʹi·cho and fell victim to robbers, . . .But a certain Samaritan . . . took out two de·narʹi·i, gave them to the innkeeper, and said: ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend besides this, I will repay you when I return.’ 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself.”
By our current logic, the good Samaritan would be the faithful and discreet slave, and those fellow Jewish persons who ignored the victim might just be hypothetical.

That's good.
And that's why I bring it up. These other issues don't bother me. Still, I think we should be honest about them and only discuss these issues when it seems that some Witnesses believe we need to hide our past, or tell new people that something was really nothing. However, if you want me to be bothered about the religion in general, then show me where I should support war and nationalism and Trinity and hell-fire. I know that there are some arguments a person could make on a few of our major doctrines, but the overall sense I get from the Bible on those issues matches up to the Witness view. Also, I don't consider chronology to be a major issue, nor do I think that the GB is the FDS. But I have nothing against the usefulness of a GB, and I think they should be a part of the FDS.
As usual, you bring up CSA, and I agree that our moral standards should prove to be higher than elsewhere. But perhaps Jesus should have had less prostitutes following him, too. I'm more concerned about the level of emphasis, focus and correct counsel on CSA and other moral issues. I don't claim we are better than everyone else on every issue. But I like the most recent policies, even though I spoke out against the weakness of previous polices.

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.   

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.

Is this how we know that it should not be each Christian who should act as a true Christian neighbor to fellow humans? Because it is in the form of a question?
(Luke 10:29-37) . . .: “Who really is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jerʹi·cho and fell victim to robbers, . . .But a certain Samaritan . . . took out two de·narʹi·i, gave them to the innkeeper, and said: ‘Take care of him, and whatever you spend besides this, I will repay you when I return.’ 36 Who of these three seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man who fell victim to the robbers?” 37 He said: “The one who acted mercifully toward him.” Jesus then said to him: “Go and do the same yourself.”
By our current logic, the good Samaritan would be the faithful and discreet slave, and those fellow Jewish persons who ignored the victim might just be hypothetical.

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.

That's good.
And that's why I bring it up. These other issues don't bother me. Still, I think we should be honest about them and only discuss these issues when it seems that some Witnesses believe we need to hide our past, or tell new people that something was really nothing. However, if you want me to be bothered about the religion in general, then show me where I should support war and nationalism and Trinity and hell-fire. I know that there are some arguments a person could make on a few of our major doctrines, but the overall sense I get from the Bible on those issues matches up to the Witness view. Also, I don't consider chronology to be a major issue, nor do I think that the GB is the FDS. But I have nothing against the usefulness of a GB, and I think they should be a part of the FDS.
As usual, you bring up CSA, and I agree that our moral standards should prove to be higher than elsewhere. But perhaps Jesus should have had less prostitutes following him, too. I'm more concerned about the level of emphasis, focus and correct counsel on CSA and other moral issues. I don't claim we are better than everyone else on every issue. But I like the most recent policies, even though I spoke out against the weakness of previous polices.

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.  

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 like this. They surely know it, and yet they do it anyway.
It is tremendously difficult to lead a large group of people. One person says: ‘Thanks for the new rule!’ His neighbor says, ‘Huh? Did you say something?’  I’ll bet they are amazed at how seriously some of their ‘offhand’ remarks are taken, as well as the lesser regard given for some of their more serious remarks. 
They don’t want to find themselves in the shoes of Lot, is my guess, whose sons-in-law thought he was joking. But I’ll bet they wrestle with just how strong to make various statements, knowing how different people respond differently. For the most part, they lay on counsel with a trowel—they’re not known for being subtle. But sometimes they are—as they wrestle with how to give adequate direction and encouragement, while not being “masters of your faith.”
I think we suck up to scholars altogether too much. There is nothing scholarly about the “unlearned and ordinary” men taking the lead in the first century, and there is no indication that they regarded their “ignorance” as a condition to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps from. When the “scholars” began having their day in the sun, the first thing they did is to infuse long pre-existing philosophies into Christianity, making it all but unrecognizable.
God gives his Holy Spirit to those obeying him as ruler, says Acts 5:32. It says nothing about their ‘scholarship,’ and one of the first things ‘scholars‘ do is refuse to obey. We should kiss up the them? I think not. “Okay, you did well, Peter and John—amazingly well considering how uneducated you are. Good job! But we smart people are here now, so shove aside and let us show you how to do it.” No.
In the overall world of scholarship, any ‘scholar’ believing the Bible makes a mockery of the word. The first thing ‘scholars’ do is to declare Adam and Eve a ludicrous tale for primitive peoples, thereby gutting the means to understand anything of importance—why death? why suffering? It all goes out the window. People are left clueless on the most important questions of life as they imagine themselves smarter than anyone else.
Not to put it down too much, of course. It is a gift that some will bring to the altar. But if those at the altar decline to spin that altar like the ‘Wheel of Fortune’ dial, hopefully the relatively few scholars that are JW scholars will be able to hold their peace. It is one component of Christianity—not nothing, but also not overriding. “Everything You Thought You Knew About Such-and-Such is Wrong!” is a headline that experienced ones have seen all too often.
As for me, I can’t believe how many pig-headed scholars have not come around to my point of view. I do have George Chrysiddes who wrote some nice things about Tom Irregardless and Me, and I ignored all my ‘stupid’ friends for a month when he bestowed his great favor. I am waiting on Rolf to join in with effusive praise. But other than that, these guys who squabble no less than we ordinary mortals have mostly not come around.

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.

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.

This is funny. Let tell us please, when and how will WT stop to promote "overlapping generation" scheme (very connected to "the end of World" ideology as was the 1975 too), and start to point to some individuals in organization who were over zeal in their attempts, how to explain and prolong life to "Generation of 1914" failed doctrine ?  

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.

Google rescinded offers for more than 2,000 people who had agreed to work as contractors or temps, The New York Times reported Friday. Last month, CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged to employees that hiring and investments would slow as the coronavirus pandemic created uncertainty for businesses across industries. Google’s reported decision to rescind offers from contractors and temp workers once again draws attention to a vast portion of the company’s workforce that does not enjoy the same benefits and protections of its full-time employees. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/29/google-said-to-rescind-job-offers-for-thousands-of-contractors-temps.html

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.

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.

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.