Anna

I think that there may be a way to understand Rolf Furuli in terms that might sound very judgmental. Of course, it's always problematic to try to put labels on people "out loud" in public, even though we can't avoid evidence that leads to such judgments that most of us keep to ourselves.
So the following should be taken in the sense of trying to readjust a person who has taken a false step before he is aware of it. Or at least there is a lesson here, in 20-20 hindsight, about how such a person might have been helped had he taken to heart good spiritual counsel he may have received from others.
(Galatians 5:25-6:5) 25 If we are living by spirit, let us also go on walking orderly by spirit. 26 Let us not become egotistical, . . .  1Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. But keep an eye on yourself, for fear you too may be tempted. . . . 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions . . .  5 For each one will carry his own load.
There is a subtext to all of Furuli's books that might help explain his latest action. That subtext says: "I don't like being told that I am wrong and I will go to furthest possible extreme to project blame back onto the ones pointing out where I am wrong."
It's true that no one likes being told they are wrong, especially when we think the evidence shows we are right. But If two people or groups disagree, and one can show the other that the evidence shows they are in the wrong, then the normal response should be to consider that evidence and thank the person for pointing it out and use it to look for areas of agreement. And if the person thinks the evidence is not enough, then they can at least "agree to disagree" and move on in a spirit of mildness.
But it is even more true today, as in Paul's day, when Paul warned Timothy to watch out for the following: 
(2 Timothy 3:2-4) 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, . . .  boastful, haughty, . . . .3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride. . .
The Insight book starts out defining PRIDE like this:
*** it-2 p. 681 Pride ***
PRIDE
Inordinate self-esteem; an unreasonable feeling of superiority as to one’s talents, . . . rank, and so forth; disdainful behavior or treatment; insolence or arrogance of demeanor; haughty bearing. . . . Some synonyms of pride are egotism, arrogance, haughtiness.
The combination of several of those traits should remind of the counsel in Proverbs about a kind of "insolent pride" as some translations/commentaries would put it. One Bible commentator who comments online has shown how this insolent pride matches the current term "narcissism."
Level
Scoffer (Insolent Pride) Trait
Narcissism Trait
        1
    A narcissist will first avoid situations where he may be told he is doing something wrong…..no matter how wise the “reprover” might be
    2
    But if a narcissist somehow does find himself in position of being rebuked, he will refuse to listen.  Have you ever tried to rebuke a narcissist?  He will ignore you, verbally fight you, tell you why you are the one who is wrong – anything to keep from admitting that they may be wrong.
    3
      Not only will a narcissist refuse to listen, but he will also hate you for reproving him.
   
He will disguise his hatred, and even speak graciously to you, but when he has the chance to trash you publicly he will take it.
    4
      This results in a narcissist trashing your reputation.  A narcissist will not hesitate to trash the reputation of those who try to correct them – resulting in dishonor to you for daring to correct them.
       

That was what I wondered too. Assuming he sent the book to the GB first, then he must want the GB to reform. If that's the case, and it would be the most logical assumption, then why publish it for everyone else to read?
And if he sent it to the GB first, and didn't get a response, then is publishing it a tantrum, for being ignored? 

Norwegian newspaper confirms Furuli disfellowshipped
Furuli has been disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses
I can confirm that I am now excluded, says Rolf Furuli, who for nearly 60 years has been a key figure in Jehovah's Witnesses nationally and internationally.
Furuli says he takes the exclusion with great calm. Usually, such an exclusion will be terribly heavy. Your entire network is broken and friends will no longer talk to you. But for me it is not so. I have a network all over the world of scientists and elders who see the problems in the organization. These I want to keep in touch with, says Furuli.
Vårt Land has been in contact with Jehovah"s witnesses spokesperson in Scandinavia, Dag Erik Kristoffersen. He says he has no information about a possible exclusion of Furuli, and that he is therefore unable to comment on the case at this time. But Cato Pretorius of the Torstrand congregation in Larvik, Furuli's local congregation, confirms the exclusion. Since this is publicly known, we can confirm that he is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he writes in an SMS to Vårt Land.

I don’t know why this is so hard. Nobody gets everything they want. The U.S. political system of calling the leader of the other party a jerk works so well that he wants to bring it into the congregation.

That would be a bit difficult and unrealistic since they don't usually walk around with a big "I'm an apostate" label on their forehead!

You might need to check some basic rules on the use of the English language as well as for the Greek prepositions, then try and discern what Rev 5:10 is referring to. I am sure you will get there in the end one way or another, bit like SS did. 
Thinking of your astute observation re SM,  about those who appear to be one and the same, you wouldn't have a twin would you? Or maybe a doppelganger or even a clone? I am sure I recognise something in your cut an' run style of argument from somewhere...........🤔
BTW, @Anna has pipped me to the post with her excellent doctrinal/contextual points above. So much so, there is really no need to elaborate further on this question.  🙂

Daniel 29:30 says a kingdom will rule OVER the earth: But after you another kingdom will rise,  inferior to you; then another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.
As @Outta Here already explained,  you can rule on or over and it doesn't make much difference in the context under discussion. However, grammatically I would prefer to rule over @4Jah2me if I become Queen of England,  not on him.
In any case, it is quite clear Revelation 5:10 is talking about pesons in heaven. If we were to apply it to an earthly scene, Jehovah would literally have to  be seated on a throne ON earth in order for Jesus,  "the lamb who was slaughtered" to be seated next to him ON earth. We know Jesus went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God in heaven. We also know that Jesus promised his followers in the 1st century that they would be seated next to him. We know there is a heavenly hope. So for clarities sake it is more accurate to say they will be ruling over the earth rather than on it. Evidently, saying on the earth is confusing, as made evident by the need to make this a topic for discussion in the first place.

Daniel 29:30 says a kingdom will rule OVER the earth: But after you another kingdom will rise,  inferior to you; then another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.
As @Outta Here already explained,  you can rule on or over and it doesn't make much difference in the context under discussion. However, grammatically I would prefer to rule over @4Jah2me if I become Queen of England,  not on him.
In any case, it is quite clear Revelation 5:10 is talking about pesons in heaven. If we were to apply it to an earthly scene, Jehovah would literally have to  be seated on a throne ON earth in order for Jesus,  "the lamb who was slaughtered" to be seated next to him ON earth. We know Jesus went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God in heaven. We also know that Jesus promised his followers in the 1st century that they would be seated next to him. We know there is a heavenly hope. So for clarities sake it is more accurate to say they will be ruling over the earth rather than on it. Evidently, saying on the earth is confusing, as made evident by the need to make this a topic for discussion in the first place.

Daniel 29:30 says a kingdom will rule OVER the earth: But after you another kingdom will rise,  inferior to you; then another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.
As @Outta Here already explained,  you can rule on or over and it doesn't make much difference in the context under discussion. However, grammatically I would prefer to rule over @4Jah2me if I become Queen of England,  not on him.
In any case, it is quite clear Revelation 5:10 is talking about pesons in heaven. If we were to apply it to an earthly scene, Jehovah would literally have to  be seated on a throne ON earth in order for Jesus,  "the lamb who was slaughtered" to be seated next to him ON earth. We know Jesus went to heaven and sat at the right hand of God in heaven. We also know that Jesus promised his followers in the 1st century that they would be seated next to him. We know there is a heavenly hope. So for clarities sake it is more accurate to say they will be ruling over the earth rather than on it. Evidently, saying on the earth is confusing, as made evident by the need to make this a topic for discussion in the first place.

Oh, by the way, just a passing thought on Rev.5:10.
The scripture appears to be about rulership, not geography. In that case it would appear that epi is appropriately rendered in connection with the extent of rulership, rather than the geographical location of the rulers in question. The option of a contextual understanding of this preposition appears to have been exercised at Rev.9:11 and 11:6, and also by other translators in their rendering of the said Rev.5:10. (Courtesy www.biblehub.com).
Just my "version", of course.

No. Only when "people" assume that their "version" is my "version". To that I have an "aversion".
No. That not my "version".
Who cares? It is only a portal, like a public library. There are many.

I had no doubt that YOU knew it. But there are some people here from the UK, like @4Jah2me (assuming of course that he is the reincarnation of @John Butler). And, I'm not so sure that they had any groups like the Beatles over in the UK. 😉

For some reason, when I remember this Beatles lyric, I belt out:
"Wednesday morning at 5 PM on a Saturday."
In this case, my version might work even better for Armageddon watchers.
My kids never had quite the familiarity with Beatles lyrics, and never understood why I had a Beatles lyric ready for many situations, like when they bumped into me:
"You're SOMEthing in the way, SO move! You attack me like your OTHer mother. BMMM! Bmmm! bmmmmm."**
**Not an actual Beatles lyric. The original was: "Something in the way she moves, attracts me like no other lover. BMMM! Bmmm! bmmmmm."

I know the original lyric. And I also know something of women.
I once told JTR that I would love to hear from his kids. I begin to think that I would love to hear from yours as well.  

Look y'all, all I'm interested in is: When is Armagedon coming? 

But this is the open club where anything goes!

 

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

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

the Librarian. It’s a long story.

To be honest I was surprised that you bothered replying and addressing some of the things he raised, but I admire you for it. I just don't have the patience for what seems like completely ridiculous ideas....but I did read your replies to him. 
Lately I find myself not bothering to reply to others like Witness for example when she says that buying liquor (Morris) is a sign of not being sound in mind. I just can't be bothered to defend ridiculous statements any more....
I would like to respond to more of what you say but I will have to wait till I can have my PC  back. Trying to do this on the phone is awful.

I guess the answer depends on what you interpret as damage. It's complicated because not everyone gets damaged by the same thing. It also depends on our ability to forgive. 

Yes, I agree. But it is inevitable that the "truth" will come out over time. When that happens, you are either shocked and stumbled right out (of the truth) because you cannot believe that someone who was held up as almost perfect is not, and therefore cannot be from God. Or you are realistic, you see through the "demeanor preservation", you know that those providing the lead are imperfect as any of us, and that mistakes will be made, including obfuscation and lack of transparency. So when something does come out, you will not be shocked or stumbled. You are not going to leave. You are going to put your trust in Jehovah....He will never disappoint, and he sees everything. So stay calm and carry on 🙂

I guess the answer depends on what you interpret as damage. It's complicated because not everyone gets damaged by the same thing. It also depends on our ability to forgive. 

Yea, agree.  The level of judgment is like a nagging wife.....(I will refrain from using hate-OCD MO).
I had a few good moments with two of her cohorts when they stepped out of their usual MO shoes yesterday and we could just decently share thoughts like human beings.... I enjoyed that. 

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