JW Insider

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.
 

I see, in my opinion, that the parables of the slave/ steward could have three senses:
1
According to the Bible, in a sense I am a steward, or supervisor of my family. I have to take care of it, feed it and take care of it.
2
(1 Timothy 5:17) "Let the elders who preside in a fine way ..." shows that in each congregation there must be some who supervises and cares for the rest of the congregation: a steward group of elders.
3
In the final age it would be neccesary a global stewardship
The analysis of the next passage alone yields much information on this matter, the administration or stewardship of the "house of God":
(Revelation 7:9, 10) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.”
1) A large number of people would be saved from the final Great Tribulation
    Each one in her house, living only according to her criteria or conscience? Let's see
2) They ALL dress the SAME way, in white in the eyes of God
    So there should be a unified behavior and conduct, not based ONLY on individual consciousness
3) They speak in unison, they have a common message
    They "shouted" the same message. There is nothing worse than a detuned choir.
4) The basic doctrinal body would be the same
    They worship one God and see the value of the Lamb.
5) Something that would make this unit difficult is that they come from very different backgrounds
    "of all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages,"
How could Mt 24:14 be accomplished with the outcome of Rev 7:9-10 without direction, organization, supervision or stewardship?
Over there I am listening to one, there in the background, who says that Christ from heaven takes charge, with the holy spirit, that there is no need for greater supervision. Am I right?
if someone thinks like that, let's consider:
In another apocalyptic prophecy we read that
    (Daniel 11:33). . those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many. . .
    (Daniel 12:10). . . And the wicked will act wickedly and no wicked will understand. Only those having insight will understand.
It seems that the prophecy indicates that there would be TWO groups of worshipers: the PEOPLE, the MANY on one side, and THOSE HAVING INSIGHT on the other. And this second group would help to obtain knowledge to the first one.
Yes, it would be necessary to teach others not the basic truths of the Gospel but what the angel said:
    "(Daniel 12: 9)" these words must be kept secret and sealed until the end time "
"These words", which should be understood with the help of "those having insight", refer to such profound thoughts of Daniel's prophecy that even the prophet himself was unable to understand (Daniel 12:8  "I heard, but I did not understand"
Thus, this last world stewardship seems very necessary, since unifying an international crowd with similar behavior, with similar beliefs, that have a united message, would be impossible without such leadership. And Daniel adds a smaller group that oversees that teaching.
 
So stewardship applies, in my opinion, to any Christian who has to be a steward: on my family, on my congregation, and on the entire world brotherhood.
------------------------------
(Matthew 24:48) . . .“But if ever that evil slave says in his heart. . ." this is for another day
 

Regarding to the illustration of the "faithful slave" (Mt 24) or "faithful steward" (Lu 12) we find a quote that I think is pertinent in the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians VI: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html
CHAPTER VI. Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
These commentaries of certain Ignatius from the end of the 1st or early 2nd century show us an UNSPECIALIZED, but generic, use of the "slave class", that is, it does not represent a group or class with a specific mission, but that any member of the congregation -mainly the "episkopos" (bishop) of the same has the commission to supervise it.
 
I think this idea it was first mentioned for @JW Insider, and something similar is said in Furuli's book: there wasn't any specialized class attending the household in those days. 
Neither did Ignatius wait for the last days to arrive for the declaration on the "faithful slave" to be fulfilled. Already in those days it was necessary that any Christian with supervisory responsibilities be that, prudent and faithful.
By the way, Ignacio already believed he was living in the last days:
11:1 These are the last times. Henceforth let us have reverence;
 

At the beginning of Furuli's book there is a paragraph referring to a certain letter sent to {the congregations? the elders?} The paragraph in question says:
The letter of 15 June 2018 changed this situation:
We would like to inform you of an updated policy with regard to
whether a Christian may administer a blood transfusion if he is directed
to do so by a superior. The previous policy was that it would be a matter
for a personal, conscientious decision whether to obey such an order.
However, after carefully reviewing the matter, the Governing Body has
determined that administering such a transfusion is so closely linked
with an unscriptural practice that one unquestionably becomes an
accomplice in a wrong practice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate
for a Christian to administer a blood transfusion under any
circumstance.—Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:28, 29.4

I would like to mention that I cannot find this letter. I have looked again in the letters to the elders section of our branch in Spain, but I have not found it. I am not saying at all that Furuli is not truthful, only that I cannot find this letter. Maybe someone could help me out ...
 

Not your fault. I knew what you were saying about it. I was just saying that when I watched it, I wasn't thinking of the GB at all. But I was thinking about who the FDS could have been in such historical situations, and how they would have shown themselves standing up for a relatively "true" Christianity. That's based on an old habit of reading European history about the years from 100 to 1800 and always wondering who Jehovah might have deemed "FDS" at the time, because, until the "Proclaimers" book, this was the basic idea. There was never a time when the FDS did not exist, was the idea.
Actually, it has been said in those exact words. But that message has become much more subtle in the last few decades.
It was a very interesting read. I learned a lot more about Furuli the "man" and what his conscience struggles with. It's hard for me to remove his ego and even his haughtiness from the picture. But I have also really grown to love certain Circuit (and District) overseers in the past who were obviously haughty because after you have dinner with them, for example, you realize they are humans like the rest of us with questions and concerns and even frailties. When I knew several members of the GB personally, seeing and hearing them daily for several years, I thought some to be haughty, like F.Franz, D.Sydlik, A.Schroeder, L.Greenlees and T.Jaracz, and I knew others to be just the opposite in personality, like J.Booth, J.Barr, R.Franz, and perhaps all the others. Other observers might have categorized them differently. But it also doesn't mean that the humble ones were always right in their views, nor does it mean that the haughty ones were always wrong in their views.
I don't see it as much of a problem when a person is reminded of a situation like one in ancient Israel where a King Saul, or even a King David, needed counsel from a loyal subject. Of course, David once killed a subject who showed too much loyalty to him and not to the anointed Saul. Some will set themselves up as God's messengers with a message about a flight to Australia for example, and some will bring a gift to the table in the form of 40 to 50 years of scholarship and experience at many levels in the organization who might sincerely wish to correct a straying "king" or "governorship." I know which person's "counsel" I would want to read first. Assuming it was done in the spirit of:
(1 Timothy 5:1) . . .Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers,
(1 Timothy 5:19-21,24-25) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
(1 Peter 3:15, 16) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ.
When I read Furuli, I was interested in what he left out in addition to what he included. I wondered if he would use certain scriptures, or appear to avoid certain scriptures. What would he say about the generation, 1919, blood, Hebrews 13, Revelation 2&3, 1 Cor 15:25? Could I pick up on any influence from Greg Stafford, Ray Franz, Fred Franz, George Chryssides, Jason BeDuhn, Gerard Gertoux, etc.? Some of the questions that I put in the margins would require a second read, and I'm not sure I'm up to it right now.
Somehow I took only 2 days to read his book and I immediately found myself behind schedule by more than 4 days for more practical things I wanted to get done. How did that happen? I might just take a breather for a few days myself. See you all on June 1st.

This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days.
This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step.
He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues:
# 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education!
# 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB don't claim to be, but a lot of JW believe they are.)
# 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable.
I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too.
I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era.
Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith but not our A. Smth) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.

No. I don't. But I called up an elder who would know. I thought. He didn't. I called another.  I called my father (elder, but never on HLC).
Two out of three say that the "official" position was that it is still a matter of conscience. One says he heard about a letter that he has not seen, but which was supposed to be read, not sent, to specific Witnesses who were employed in hospitals, especially nurses. He says he knows of a nurse who ended up disassociating over it. He suspects that it became a potential legal nightmare and the "project" [his word] was never completed.
I have the impression that if there ever was a letter, it was not supposed to be seen or read in the congregations. There is too much of a chance that it would end up in a court after some potential "snafu" with a JW nurse that ended up in the death of a patient.
If true, this would actually be worse. I'm having trouble believing it, too. But there have been parallels.

I agree that, by 1974, F.W.Franz was ready to start "walking back" the expectations he had been speculating about. When I came to Bethel in 1976, there was already a lot of whispering that FWF had lost some of his former glory as the Oracle. He had become the "King Saul" when people began to say: “When King Saul dies then things will change.” And this was in large part because he had spent so many years "doubling down" on 1975, whenever he was questioned about it. 
In 1976 F.W.Franz had produced a book called "Our Incoming World Government - God's Kingdom." It was released in 1977. There were whispers that this was his way of getting "back in the saddle" because it contained the kind of information that no one else at Bethel was supposedly capable of, or would dare try to produce. I have a very early copy of this book from one of the Bethel proofreaders (a sister). It contains a curious artifact in the margin, which always reminds me of how this book was seen by some Bethelites in 1977. It's just the simple question in red pencil: "ask?."  It wouldn't mean much to most anyone else, but this was probably the first book ever written by FWF that was sometimes "scoffed" at within the Bethel walls. I heard some of that scoffing myself. The question in the margin was not part of that scoffing. The book was scoffed at for statements like the following:
*** go chap. 8 p. 137 par. 36 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***
According to the Bible, those 1,290 days are the equivalent of three lunar years and seven lunar months. According to the lunar calendar, January 18, 1919, fell on Shebat 17, 1919. Three lunar years from then would lead up to Shebat 17, 1922, or February 15, 1922. Seven lunar months counted from that would end with Elul 16, 1922, or at sundown, September 9, 1922
Even fellow members of the Governing Body, at least two, and probably four or more (D.S./A.S./E.C./R.F) thought that the 1975 failure would be a chance to "start from scratch" with all these dates from 1918, 1919, 1922, etc. It was D.S. who used the exact expression that we should "just start from scratch" on chronology.
If you listened to FWF at Bethel breakfast you could see he was trying to regain his "throne" as the respected Oracle. And he was still taking subtle swipes at the idea of a Governing Body, as he had been doing since 1972 or so, and most directly in the September 1975 talk that The Librarian referenced above. Note how FWF, for the first time, changes Jehovah's title to "Governor" in Chapter 2, which is called "The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning."
*** go chap. 2 pp. 33-34 pars. 36-37 The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning ***
He . . .  with himself as the Supreme Governor. . . . Hence he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” He is the Governor who knows the end from the beginning. . . .
   In the very book with which the Bible begins, at Genesis 3:15, the Almighty Governor of all creation made known his basic thought . . . . In the very book with which the Bible ends, at Revelation 11:15-18, the rightful Governor over all mankind gives prophetic description of his take-over of his long-suspended governorship . . .
Other examples from the book are typical of the kind of writing from FWF, that even the proofreaders would likely have been hesitant to question if it looked like a possible mistake. I mention this because the following quote is the location in the proofreader's copy which has a red pencil question mark by the number 605, with the word "ask?" in the margin.
*** go chap. 3 p. 39 par. 4 Predicted World Changes up till God’s Kingdom ***
Human society so deeply divided politically as it is today, and has been since World War I, was not forevisioned indeed by shortsighted man. But are we aware that this political state of human affairs was prophetically illustrated more than 2,580 years ago, or about the year 605 before our Common Era?
I don't know if she ever asked. But you can just see the wheels turning in her head: 2520 prior to Oct 1914 was Tishri 607, so 2,580 years from 607 was Oct 1974. So Tishri 605 was 2578 years prior to Oct 1974, and this book is being proofread in late 1976 or early 1977. This would mean that if the Daniel 2 dream (referred to here) was very late in 605, getting close to 604, then this book might potentially be released a couple of months "less than", not, "more than" 2,580 years ago. No big deal. But wouldn't it be better to say "about 2,580 years ago" instead of "more than"? And why be so teasingly pedantic in the first place?
But where did he (FWF) even get the date 605 for the Daniel 2 dream? 
 The idea is from Daniel 2 about the second year of Nebuchadnezzar:
(Daniel 2:1) . . .In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams. . .
This is for another topic, but it's all about the controversy over whether Daniel would have begun counting from one of the major exiles, or from his own exile, if different, or from the normal way of counting the rulership of a king. Note the discrepancies below:
*** w00 5/15 p. 12 par. 17 Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
During the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as world ruler of Bible prophecy (606/605 B.C.E.), God sent him a terrifying dream. According to Daniel chapter 2 . . .
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.)
And this is based on the WTS chronology system, and doesn't even take into account the actual date of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, matching the Biblical record, and based on thousands of pieces of archaeological and historical evidence:
*** kc p. 188 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into exile.
In fact, FWF's 1977 book, just a bit further down from the 2,580 quote above, spells out the standard WTS chronology, except that I don't know where FWF got the info that Nebuchadnezzar was part of the overthrow of "632" seven years years before his WTS accession year AND twenty-seven years before his actual accession year. The first mention anyone knows of for Nebuchadnezzar is about 607 BCE (or 627 WTS dating) which is about 5 years after the assumption below:
*** go chap. 3 pp. 48-49 pars. 25-26 Predicted World Changes up till God’s Kingdom ***
In 632 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar shared in overthrowing the Assyrian World Power and thereby set up the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which ranked as the Third World Power of Bible record.—Nahum 2:8 through 3:18; Zephaniah 2:13.
About twenty-five years later, after Emperor Nebuchadnezzar was used as Jehovah’s instrument to destroy unfaithful Jerusalem, the prophet Daniel’s words applied: “Into [your] hand he [the God of heaven] has given, wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling, the beasts of the field and the winged creatures of the heavens, and [you] he has made ruler over all of them.” (Daniel 2:38) This was the case, because, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E., a typical kingdom of Jehovah God ceased to exist on earth.
FWF gave indications in 1977 and 1978 that he was not reacting well to the push-back on this 1977 book. His "morning worship" comments began to take smart-aleck  pot-shots at those who were not lapping up the "food in due season." The attitude was similar to the time when he expressed his anger at those who thought Jesus was the mediator of every "Tom, Dick, and Harry."   

Not your fault. I knew what you were saying about it. I was just saying that when I watched it, I wasn't thinking of the GB at all. But I was thinking about who the FDS could have been in such historical situations, and how they would have shown themselves standing up for a relatively "true" Christianity. That's based on an old habit of reading European history about the years from 100 to 1800 and always wondering who Jehovah might have deemed "FDS" at the time, because, until the "Proclaimers" book, this was the basic idea. There was never a time when the FDS did not exist, was the idea.
Actually, it has been said in those exact words. But that message has become much more subtle in the last few decades.
It was a very interesting read. I learned a lot more about Furuli the "man" and what his conscience struggles with. It's hard for me to remove his ego and even his haughtiness from the picture. But I have also really grown to love certain Circuit (and District) overseers in the past who were obviously haughty because after you have dinner with them, for example, you realize they are humans like the rest of us with questions and concerns and even frailties. When I knew several members of the GB personally, seeing and hearing them daily for several years, I thought some to be haughty, like F.Franz, D.Sydlik, A.Schroeder, L.Greenlees and T.Jaracz, and I knew others to be just the opposite in personality, like J.Booth, J.Barr, R.Franz, and perhaps all the others. Other observers might have categorized them differently. But it also doesn't mean that the humble ones were always right in their views, nor does it mean that the haughty ones were always wrong in their views.
I don't see it as much of a problem when a person is reminded of a situation like one in ancient Israel where a King Saul, or even a King David, needed counsel from a loyal subject. Of course, David once killed a subject who showed too much loyalty to him and not to the anointed Saul. Some will set themselves up as God's messengers with a message about a flight to Australia for example, and some will bring a gift to the table in the form of 40 to 50 years of scholarship and experience at many levels in the organization who might sincerely wish to correct a straying "king" or "governorship." I know which person's "counsel" I would want to read first. Assuming it was done in the spirit of:
(1 Timothy 5:1) . . .Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers,
(1 Timothy 5:19-21,24-25) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
(1 Peter 3:15, 16) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ.
When I read Furuli, I was interested in what he left out in addition to what he included. I wondered if he would use certain scriptures, or appear to avoid certain scriptures. What would he say about the generation, 1919, blood, Hebrews 13, Revelation 2&3, 1 Cor 15:25? Could I pick up on any influence from Greg Stafford, Ray Franz, Fred Franz, George Chryssides, Jason BeDuhn, Gerard Gertoux, etc.? Some of the questions that I put in the margins would require a second read, and I'm not sure I'm up to it right now.
Somehow I took only 2 days to read his book and I immediately found myself behind schedule by more than 4 days for more practical things I wanted to get done. How did that happen? I might just take a breather for a few days myself. See you all on June 1st.

Not your fault. I knew what you were saying about it. I was just saying that when I watched it, I wasn't thinking of the GB at all. But I was thinking about who the FDS could have been in such historical situations, and how they would have shown themselves standing up for a relatively "true" Christianity. That's based on an old habit of reading European history about the years from 100 to 1800 and always wondering who Jehovah might have deemed "FDS" at the time, because, until the "Proclaimers" book, this was the basic idea. There was never a time when the FDS did not exist, was the idea.
Actually, it has been said in those exact words. But that message has become much more subtle in the last few decades.
It was a very interesting read. I learned a lot more about Furuli the "man" and what his conscience struggles with. It's hard for me to remove his ego and even his haughtiness from the picture. But I have also really grown to love certain Circuit (and District) overseers in the past who were obviously haughty because after you have dinner with them, for example, you realize they are humans like the rest of us with questions and concerns and even frailties. When I knew several members of the GB personally, seeing and hearing them daily for several years, I thought some to be haughty, like F.Franz, D.Sydlik, A.Schroeder, L.Greenlees and T.Jaracz, and I knew others to be just the opposite in personality, like J.Booth, J.Barr, R.Franz, and perhaps all the others. Other observers might have categorized them differently. But it also doesn't mean that the humble ones were always right in their views, nor does it mean that the haughty ones were always wrong in their views.
I don't see it as much of a problem when a person is reminded of a situation like one in ancient Israel where a King Saul, or even a King David, needed counsel from a loyal subject. Of course, David once killed a subject who showed too much loyalty to him and not to the anointed Saul. Some will set themselves up as God's messengers with a message about a flight to Australia for example, and some will bring a gift to the table in the form of 40 to 50 years of scholarship and experience at many levels in the organization who might sincerely wish to correct a straying "king" or "governorship." I know which person's "counsel" I would want to read first. Assuming it was done in the spirit of:
(1 Timothy 5:1) . . .Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers,
(1 Timothy 5:19-21,24-25) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
(1 Peter 3:15, 16) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ.
When I read Furuli, I was interested in what he left out in addition to what he included. I wondered if he would use certain scriptures, or appear to avoid certain scriptures. What would he say about the generation, 1919, blood, Hebrews 13, Revelation 2&3, 1 Cor 15:25? Could I pick up on any influence from Greg Stafford, Ray Franz, Fred Franz, George Chryssides, Jason BeDuhn, Gerard Gertoux, etc.? Some of the questions that I put in the margins would require a second read, and I'm not sure I'm up to it right now.
Somehow I took only 2 days to read his book and I immediately found myself behind schedule by more than 4 days for more practical things I wanted to get done. How did that happen? I might just take a breather for a few days myself. See you all on June 1st.

Yeah, this guy is a pain, isn’t he, making us all do this extra work?
When I was traipsing around with a certain DO one afternoon, taking him with me on some I knew could stand visiting, we visited a certain nursing home. In the hallway, he invited an attendant to hear the public talk at the upcoming circuit assembly “that I am giving.” ‘Huh!’ I said to myself—it never ends, does it, that urge for recognition? 
I liked this brother a lot, and would not classify his as haughty, even with that faux pas. Unlike you, who once said that you could not recall a traveling overseer who was not a cooling refreshment for all whom he encountered, I can. But he was not one of them. Most of these brothers by far were sterling in faith and example, but not every single one of them. You put it just right—“they are humans like the rest of us with questions and concerns and even frailties.”

Well, this sort of process existing in animal world. People, and JW people too, need to know how working the world who is create by God they believe in.
Next thing you said, is influence, unknown mostly, that can cause need in some individuals to change the sex.
That would mean, because no one know why and how things is happening, that JW members need to have more insight and knowledge and intuition about issue and not drop all and every individual who have issue with sex identity into "devil influence" and/or individual "evilness".
I wouldn't know what you mean with this. Because, as i am aware, most of school politics and curriculum is not at all or mostly sourced, created in particular school but come from governmental directives, Ministry of Education, institutions that materially contribute or completely financing educational system as in private schools. I think how corruption is not problem that coming from schools (only) but is in society that is changing.
Have in mind, how process of changing ( no matter in what direction, in what sort of matters) is also in your church in your JWsociety. And time in future will give better perspective and conclusions only to future generations.  
That what you noticed about education can be matter of nostalgia too, not only independent and objective analyze.
Bubbles are general, not only individual problem or identifying space-time position. It can be said how you looks on Dr Furulli's or @JW Insider Bubble from your own Bubble too. :))

Of course. You have people here being purposefully obtuse.
I liked this point too. Just because someone is ‘haughty’ doesn’t mean he is wrong—it is just a weakness that does not bode well for hitting the nail on the head—but it is not a guarantee that one will miss it. 

I like to think that we (I) are all works in progress.  Some of us will need a large portion of that thousand years to attain perfection. 

Not your fault. I knew what you were saying about it. I was just saying that when I watched it, I wasn't thinking of the GB at all. But I was thinking about who the FDS could have been in such historical situations, and how they would have shown themselves standing up for a relatively "true" Christianity. That's based on an old habit of reading European history about the years from 100 to 1800 and always wondering who Jehovah might have deemed "FDS" at the time, because, until the "Proclaimers" book, this was the basic idea. There was never a time when the FDS did not exist, was the idea.
Actually, it has been said in those exact words. But that message has become much more subtle in the last few decades.
It was a very interesting read. I learned a lot more about Furuli the "man" and what his conscience struggles with. It's hard for me to remove his ego and even his haughtiness from the picture. But I have also really grown to love certain Circuit (and District) overseers in the past who were obviously haughty because after you have dinner with them, for example, you realize they are humans like the rest of us with questions and concerns and even frailties. When I knew several members of the GB personally, seeing and hearing them daily for several years, I thought some to be haughty, like F.Franz, D.Sydlik, A.Schroeder, L.Greenlees and T.Jaracz, and I knew others to be just the opposite in personality, like J.Booth, J.Barr, R.Franz, and perhaps all the others. Other observers might have categorized them differently. But it also doesn't mean that the humble ones were always right in their views, nor does it mean that the haughty ones were always wrong in their views.
I don't see it as much of a problem when a person is reminded of a situation like one in ancient Israel where a King Saul, or even a King David, needed counsel from a loyal subject. Of course, David once killed a subject who showed too much loyalty to him and not to the anointed Saul. Some will set themselves up as God's messengers with a message about a flight to Australia for example, and some will bring a gift to the table in the form of 40 to 50 years of scholarship and experience at many levels in the organization who might sincerely wish to correct a straying "king" or "governorship." I know which person's "counsel" I would want to read first. Assuming it was done in the spirit of:
(1 Timothy 5:1) . . .Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers,
(1 Timothy 5:19-21,24-25) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
(1 Peter 3:15, 16) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ.
When I read Furuli, I was interested in what he left out in addition to what he included. I wondered if he would use certain scriptures, or appear to avoid certain scriptures. What would he say about the generation, 1919, blood, Hebrews 13, Revelation 2&3, 1 Cor 15:25? Could I pick up on any influence from Greg Stafford, Ray Franz, Fred Franz, George Chryssides, Jason BeDuhn, Gerard Gertoux, etc.? Some of the questions that I put in the margins would require a second read, and I'm not sure I'm up to it right now.
Somehow I took only 2 days to read his book and I immediately found myself behind schedule by more than 4 days for more practical things I wanted to get done. How did that happen? I might just take a breather for a few days myself. See you all on June 1st.

This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days.
This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step.
He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues:
# 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education!
# 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB don't claim to be, but a lot of JW believe they are.)
# 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable.
I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too.
I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era.
Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith but not our A. Smth) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.

The question I raise has more substance:
As far as I know, no brother who works as a nurse or doctor and who administers blood sporadically and following the instructions of a superior has to face any judicial committee.
Along the same lines, no one who sells products with blood - or tobacco - from time to time in a supermarket that is not of his property, necessarily loses the status of "good reputation" or of being a "good example".
The nuances that can emerge from the two examples I just cited are innumerable. But Furuli mentions a certain letter where there is no nuance: according to the letter, the witnesses should no longer behave according to their conscience in these matters, it is black or white.
So, the advice that I (and all the elders that I know) are giving, and the way to approach these situations that I raise, do not follow the instructions of that "unknown" letter.
I have the impression, from the phraseology of the letter that Furuli cites ("the Governing Body has decided") that he has collected the information from a site that seeks to discredit us. In fact, Furuli adds in a footnote on page 11:
4. This new policy was also communicated to the congregation members.
In other words, that apart from the elders, another instruction has been read to the entire congregation: well, no idea about this. I ask: do any witnesses to this forum remember if two years ago this new instruction was read at a meeting?

I'm sick of this religion, why don't I give up?
 
(Revelation 3: 1-4)
1 ‘I know your deeds,
I am fully convinced that the Master knows what is happening within our religion, as he knew what was happening in Sardis.
"that you have the name that you are alive, but you are dead"
I don't think at all that my religion is that bad
2 ... I have not found your works fully performed before my God.
Yes, I agree, there are things, many things, that I do not like about my religion, nor about the GB
4 ‘Nevertheless, you do have a few individuals in Sardis
And here is the main thing:
Why doesn't Jesus tell those few to leave, to leave, to abandon and form or join another religion? Well I'm not leaving either

This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days.
This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step.
He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues:
# 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education!
# 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB don't claim to be, but a lot of JW believe they are.)
# 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable.
I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too.
I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era.
Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith but not our A. Smth) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.

This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days.
This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step.
He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues:
# 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education!
# 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB don't claim to be, but a lot of JW believe they are.)
# 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable.
I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too.
I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era.
Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith but not our A. Smth) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.

In this world nothing is perfect because humans tend to overstep boundaries - even Moses did so.
But if we are really prepared to give our life for another (spirit of christ), then reading our bible and sticking close to jehovah would be our main goal - and spreading the core teachings of the bible, such as the kingdom government. This saves lives. No other actions are worth a reward from jehovah more than these. To humbly serve others.
Literal rebellion against any other human (turn the other cheek ), or earthly institution would not come up in our mind......BUT: this would not in any way mean that we tolerate any form of ' yeast'. Our conscience will help us to quickly quelch any form of wickedness or even speak up against evil,  when needed,  in a kind and loving way. This is possible within our small sphere of influence..... 
If this was the prevailing attitude (which is closer to perfection) in the entire organization, from top to bottom, everything would run better. But people are always overstepping boundaries due to imperfection. They go overboard or extend their influence.
Because : if you read the quoted scriptures above (several people referred to scriptures) about humility, not being contentious, then a TRUE Christian with a genuine humble spirit will self-regulate. 
Granted, self-control regarding bad inclinations is the hardest part of being a Christian..... and to my thinking receives too little attention.  We will do NOTHING out of egotism which can hurt our brothers or sisters and not overstep the invisible boundaries but stay in JEhovahs love. (The governing body and Feruli included).
If everyone had this spirit not even elders would be necessary. But jehovah in his wisdom knew that we are dust and set a precedent in first century Jerusalem and also gave us elders and ministerial servants........ because we as humans need some form of  facilitation. 
A world- wide organization needs some form of coordination and fiscal management as well as policy management.  Neglect of management direction brought the tolerance of child molestation accusations.  
If they manage too much they are called dictators.... if they manage to little they are called incompetent and degenerate regarding  morals.... the pharisees and self-appointed judges of our time are everywhere! 
Is it just a form of public rebellion?  Or has he seen specific abuses of people by the GB? (Not mistakes, but abuses of trust which can be proved....)
HERE IS MY OPINION: 
In my secular working life I have seen CEOs of global corporations move from one corporation to another.  Many have good degrees and without a doubt  walk around like gods ......with everyone in fear of them, pandering to them to obtain a favourable eye..... following every instruction to the letter...... or lose their jobs.
When these CEOs have made many arbitrary decisions, which bring the company almost to ruin, they usually leave just in time so someone else can pick up the pieces. They do NOT navigate companies through hard financial times perfectly because their chrystal balls are usually defective.  (I worked for the 4th largest logistics company in the world in 2008).  Yet, these CEO's CVs read like a dream, they were CEOs of several companies, maybe a fortune 500 company, and are celebrated, get millions of dollars  in bonuses, get astounding salaries, chauffeurs, trips with business air seats etc....... despite all the wrong decisions and attitudes.
They are truly a mini-government, fat cats with perks that will make the Sun king blush.
In contrast, simple men take a world-wide responsibility and in the process get a lot of respect (not worship). They have small personal perks which can never ever be measured up against a secular company.
They cannot change jobs when they have messed up or made a mistake. THey are more accountable than CEOs because they have to fix up their own mistakes and face the music........and eager worldly criticism.... AND on top of that are accountable to Jehovah.
Most people expect NO mistakes (always highlight even small mistakes) and they are always accused (by opposers) of setting themselves up as gods. People judge them so easily....... even though they are navigating us through highly  critical financial times and even critical spiritual times.  Did Jesus not predict that many would leave the faith and turn against brothers? I am sure there is  more is to come..... when brazen opposers stand up in the congregation and betray brothers. 
I can only encourage brothers to not be 'swayed' by these winds that bring cross-winds and storms before the end... Steadily stay the course.... eyes humbly focussed on the promised  target  - everlasting life. 

No. I don't. But I called up an elder who would know. I thought. He didn't. I called another.  I called my father (elder, but never on HLC).
Two out of three say that the "official" position was that it is still a matter of conscience. One says he heard about a letter that he has not seen, but which was supposed to be read, not sent, to specific Witnesses who were employed in hospitals, especially nurses. He says he knows of a nurse who ended up disassociating over it. He suspects that it became a potential legal nightmare and the "project" [his word] was never completed.
I have the impression that if there ever was a letter, it was not supposed to be seen or read in the congregations. There is too much of a chance that it would end up in a court after some potential "snafu" with a JW nurse that ended up in the death of a patient.
If true, this would actually be worse. I'm having trouble believing it, too. But there have been parallels.

I do agree with this. For several years running I was called upon to give talks in the District Convention. Most of them were family-oriented talks that you looked for a brother with a family to give, even if he wasn’t pioneering, which I wasn’t. They ceased after I turned one down, facing a perfect storm of calamities at the time. During that time, I might cook up my own illustrations, but I would never dream of adding my own scriptures. I knew it was not me that everyone had come to hear.
On the school talks that I give now, sometimes I take small liberties—seldom reading extra verses, but sometimes incorporating excerpts in passing. It is all clearly within the pattern of the fine words, done sparingly, and nobody makes a fuss over it. One conductor, though, observed: “You actually didn’t address the theme of the talk” “Oh—I changed that,” I said, and so unexpected was the reply that he almost fell over himself laughing. This was not “adding to doctrine,” or anything—don’t misunderstand—it was merely adding a personal touch to a student talk and everyone understood that. 
I gave a funeral talk in another congregation where one elder, a fine man but known to be a stickler, asked if I was using the Society’s outline, and I said that I wasn’t. He was most concerned because I was neither an elder nor servant, and I hadn’t even known up front whether I would be permitted to give the talk, only the widow had requested me—her husband had been my best man and we had always remained close. After the talk, though, he was content and made no waves. The talk did all that a funeral talk should, plus was personalized as only a best friend might do.
So there might be a few instances where you are the speaker and people wonder how you will handle this or that small part. But they would clearly end at the circuit level, and even at the congregation level, you would be very sparing of what was personal.

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

There is no misunderstanding of Furuli here. He distances himself very well from the 1975 speculation. Not completely, but he apparently understood it a little better than some District Overseers in the United States. I'm wondering if part of it wasn't the understanding of the verb modal "would." He pins a lot of the correct understanding on that English word. In the United States there may have been more people who read the word "would" as having a slightly stronger meaning.
I have also used the words, "the time is short," in talks as a circuit and district
overseer. But I have never asked the audience to stop with this or that because the time
is short. As the district overseer from 1972 to 1974, I was the principal speaker at all the
circuit assemblies in Norway, and my talks would naturally influence the view of the
Witnesses regarding the year 1975. In 1966,when the book Life Everlasting in the Freedom
of the Sons of God was published, there was a course for circuit servants at the branch
office. When we discussed the book, I remember that the branch servant said that we
should never say that Armageddon would come in 1975 or before that year, because we
cannot know that. He pointed to some words on page 30 of the book: "It would not be
by mere chance or accident but would be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah
God for the reign of Jesus Christ, 'the Lord of the Sabbath' to run parallel with the
seventh millennium of man's existence." The verb "would" shows that this is a possible
but a hypothetical situation. I still have the notes for my talks, and the viewpoint that I
presented in my talks was as follows: 'We do not know when the end will come. But we
are eager to see if the 6,000 years of man's existence run parallel with the 6,000 years of
Yehowa's day of rest! If we can free some time and do more in the preaching work,
even become full-time preachers, while we are looking at the unfolding of world events
down to 1975, that would be very fine. But we should not commit ourselves to the year
1975 or another year. But as we do today, we should have balanced plans for ourselves
and our family that go beyond the year 1975, while we live normal lives and serve
Yehowa wholeheartedly.' [emphasis mine]
My uncle who was in Circuit work at the time, got a different sense of the word "would" in his meetings/training which came from the D.O. in his case. C.Chavez son of D.O. (aka Allen) and scholar JW have both claimed "jp" correctly ties JABrown GT to 2520, It doesn't. Yet, actual parallel zw. 7th mil and JC's 1k yr reign? No connex!