Anna

Well—I mean, big deal. It’s true with anyone. Anyone can go anywhere at any time. It is not that profound of a statement that he makes.
He encourages me to keep venturing “out of the organizational box.” Why? Because he either thinks that by doing so “my eyes will be opened” or someone will lower the boom on me, because “we must walk in lockstep.”
These guys are nuts! They are squirrelly. Because the irresistible bug of being free from all restrictions! bit them, they are convinced it will bite anyone—and they hope with all their hearts that it does.
I know the meaning and value of relative freedoms. Anybody of common sense does. His wet dream may come true of me (or anyone else here) jumping ship, but at present it seems not too likely. I know where my home is, I know when to yield, and I know when to press forward. I have written of it before:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

This is reassuring to me. My books have suffered from this, too, and one of them positively reeked with errors, which took forever to ferret out. Several times I announced that all corrections had been made, only to find more blips.
Not long ago, I purchased a homeopathy books from someone supposedly renowned. I was amazed as how slipshod was the formatting, and how much beneficial editing could have been done but wasn’t.
It is a sign of the ebook times, and I am reassured that even Rulf the scholar is afflicted with it. Ideally, you proof a work with professionals, but that is pricey and with ebooks being so cheap, with no guarantee of sales, either you do it yourself or ask well-meaning (but essentially hobbyist) friends to help you out. It is a far more daunting task than it first appears to do it yourself, because you tend to read, not what is there, but what you recall being there. You can do tolerably well for a short article, but if we are speaking of an entire book—good l**k on that!
I even face an additional challenge. If I ask brothers who might be in position to help me out to do so, many will be unconfortable with the material and duck out. It’s frustrating. If I wrote a book about how the Easter Bunny was pagan, they would be lined up 5-deep to proof it, but if I confine myself to what seems more interesting, it is not that way.

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 ...
 

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

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

I feel so low-class. My wife and I have rediscovered Perry Mason.
The show is historically accurate, though. There were cars with such tail fins. Last night Perry impaled the villain on one of them just after he confessed and tried to flee the courtroom.

Binged two seasons last year. Might get back to it after a couple projects in the summer. I think you're right about the historical accuracy of the main characters. Dailyhistory.org says that it . . .
. . . does a very good job at incorporating many cultural elements that would have been contemporary at the time, including those involving the behavior of the characters and types of equipment they had during campaigns. Unlike many earlier historical dramas, this one looks more closely at the historical background of the characters, trying to imbue them in a cultural and historical context that would have been familiar to them but still entertaining to 21st-century viewers.
It never occurred to me, although it did make me remember how we used to read or watch this kind of history and wonder who might have been the FDS, if any, during that time period. That idea was based on the old definition of the FDS: any of the anointed remnant who were alive at any given time anywhere on earth. We used to say that there were always some anointed at all times, somewhere on the earth, who could be considered the faithful and discreet slave. Of course if there were even 100 additional anointed every year from 70 to 1870, at strategic locations around the world, that  would be 180,000 without even including the thousands mentioned in Acts, and without counting the upwards of 100,000 counted among Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses since 1870. So we dropped anything too specific about that old FDS theory. (I supposed that this old theory that there were always some FDS on earth at any given time, could have also been resolved with 18 overlapping centenarians.)
Good point. In fact, strictly speaking, Jesus is the only governor of the household of faith, or God's house. (Hebrews 3:5-8, 1 Peter 2:4-10) Of course, I don't wish to pile on with my own FDS view again, since we've discussed it ad nauseum, and in this case I would only be saying most of what Furuli is now saying. This should probably be a good time for those who wish, to look for ways to rebut Furuli's specific perspectives. 
I've often said the same thing here about how we try to be the best at fitting the first century congregation into a 21st century environment. It appears we are successful. But, as you imply, what if the one thing that makes us think we have the first century situation in hand is that we have what we think of as modern-day apostles? And what if we should not? It's so hard to imagine the organization or any religious organization without effective leadership, especially to help guide a worldwide preaching activity. I admit that it's hard to imagine any kind of religion our size without apostle-like figures who are probably looked up to by those around them as if they are the Paul, the Apollos, the Cephas, and the James of our day.
Is Jesus looking for a worldwide congregation where somehow all the teaching is already handled through the obvious content of the scriptures, and those taking the lead in each individual congregation are only taking the lead in teaching by example, offering encouragement, binding up the brokenhearted, doing good and charitable works, feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, showing hospitality? Even if this were the case, congregations become complex, and there is always someone with an idea toward a new doctrine, or who wants his ego stroked by getting people to support his side, making the biggest decisions. Also, we know that many of the world's religions have devolved into social clubs on the one hand with doctrines as loose as boats without rudders in a stormy sea. On the other hand some are so fundamentally rigid in their beliefs that doctrinal discussion can result in violence. It seems that a "true religion" even today, requires human leadership of an apostle-like variety. Is this just a lack of faith in what could be a solution that matches Jesus' words: None of you shall be called Leaders (much less, a Body of Governors) for one is your Leader, and all of you are brothers. Is it possible for everyone is a large religion to all treat everyone as superior to themselves. (Furuli praises a visit from F.W.Franz where his wife met him and thought he treated her as superior to himself.)
(Philippians 2:1-4) . . .If, then, there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any spiritual fellowship, if any tender affection and compassion, 2 make my joy full by being of the same mind and having the same love, being completely united, having the one thought in mind. 3 Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you, 4 as you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others.
After a few years in Bethel and among elders and publishers of many different responsibilities and positions, I find it nearly impossible to imagine a unity (being of the same mind and having the same love, being completely united) where even the Governing Body consider you and me and Tom and Furuli and Melinda and Allen superior to them in all humility. Perhaps I don't have the faith that something like this is workable.

Even from Genesis times, the kings think nothing of killing someone, but they will not disregard the institution of marriage. 
If the Lord could only see you now.

I brought it up because it's one of several places where Furuli's book provides the exact type of anecdote I am familiar with. These types of interactions were evidently memorable and important to Furuli, too.
But you might recall that among Witnesses it started with a basis in the Watch Tower publications. We have all the evidence that the initial speculation and the promotion of that speculation came directly from the publications and later from talking points from Circuit and District Servants (Overseers). Of course, the Watchtower had used the date 1975 to promote speculation about what might likely happen in the mid-1970's, not 1975 specifically.
Individuals, especially Circuit and District Overseers, and evidently FWFranz himself, speculated that this meant 1975 itself was just about the last possible year for Armageddon. Franz' early articles made it clear that, at most, it could only be a matter of weeks or months, but NOT years after October 1975. In other words, F.W.Franz promoted speculation that this system could not go beyond October 1977 because then it really would be "YEARS" after 1975. Mostly circuit and district overseers, those who held themselves out to be very careful readers of what the Society was actually saying here, were pointing out to audiences that if you read very closely, and with discernment, you will see that this is what the Society wants us to realize: That it's VERY unlikely that this system would go even as far as past 1975, or even if it did, it would only be a matter of months past 1975, not years. Therefore, we were supposed to speculate that Armageddon would come in the mid-1970s, not 1975 specifically. But the term "1975" became the shorthand for "mid-1970s" and this speculation about the mid-70s naturally became focused on the specific year 1975. So much so that when 1975 ended, almost all the talk of the mid-1970s ended then, too.
That initial speculation that was promoted at the summer conventions in 1966 was followed up with speakers assigned to promote more speculation at the Circuit Assemblies in 1967. Then the "months, not years" Watchtower came out in 1968, and it was the same Watchtower that indicated it was wrong to use Matthew 24:36 to balance the enthusiasm about 1975/mid-70s. In 1969, it was predicted that young ones should not plan to go to college, and especially not anything like a 4-year college degree because they would not likely finish that degree in this old system. And, of course, it was also predicted that no young ones would every grow old in this system. They definitely would not be able to start a career in this system. By 1973, the publications were praising those who were selling their houses to spend the remaining months in full-time service.
There might have been a few cautionary statements at the beginning, but they died out quickly, and we were told not to "toy" with scriptures that made cautionary statements in 1968. . It was not until 1974 that some of those more cautionary statements came out. My father gave at least one of these Circuit Assembly talks every year from 1967 to about 1972. He used Matthew 24:36 as a cautionary statement, even though he was not supposed to do that, according to the 1968 "months, not years" Watchtower.
By 1974 it was obvious that things were not really going as planned. (Inside Bethel, FWFranz was beginning to talk about 1974 as the likely year, even more likely than 1975) so when 1974 wasn't seeing things happening quickly even FWFranz himself began giving cautionary talks.
An experiment that might tell you something of the timing of these cautionary talks is reflected, I think, in the number of times Matthew 24:42, 24:36 and Mark 13:32 was quoted in the Watchtower:
“Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."
1964 ONCE 1965 through 1974: ZERO TIMES!!! 1975: TWICE 1976: ONCE 1977: ZERO 1978: ONCE 1979 - 1993 ZERO And how about the same for Matthew 24:36:
(Matthew 24:36) (Mark 13:32) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, . . .
1965: TWICE 1966: ZERO 1967: ONCE 1968: TWICE (but including the article against using it!)  1969 through 1973: ZERO TIMES!!! 1974: ONCE 1975: FOUR TIMES!! 1976: ZERO 1977: ZERO 1978: ZERO Such important scriptures nearly skipped from 1966 to 1974!!! Only brought up again in 1974 and 1975.

Maybe years ago one could go to university without making crippling debt and also being indoctrinated in a spiritually crippling way.
Today, one has to self-censor at all universities (freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech is curtailed by political correctness) and there is no longer a guest for truth in the humanities.  One sends a child into the class and they come out with LGBTQ indoctrination due to the fact that they have to select one of these courses.... no matter what they are studying. I have watched several interviews with students..... they are not learning to think any longer.  It is truly better to learn a vocation..
There are some sciences that are still good but most have to follow the Darwinian dogma.

If one looks at the kind of 'science' in scholarship these days - where a  person can now choose a gender despite a Y or X chromosome -  then the state of scholarship is in chaos.  
The most prestigious universities get grants from certain pharma giants and then a study appears shortly after which just happens to bring more money into the pocket of the corporation. Now that is excellent scholarship!
So much for scholarship....... although I must say one has to work exceedingly hard to get a PHD in an ancient language - three times harder than the social sciences - but this does not make you an expert on 'everything' pertaining to the bible. 
Nevertheless, Feruli's years of service and record sounds commendable and maybe qualifies him to have a negative say about the direction of GB....... but must he do it so publicly? ......So as to garner undue attention to his person and his scholarship? 
I would like to know the outcome of this.....   
An important question.....
Anyone can say something " just because they think they are qualified to do so". 
Lol......
Thanks Ann.  I guess the older I get the lazier the eyes and brain.... 
 

Anything done can be done another way. I know that. Everyone does. Anything with upside will have a downside. While I may present my dream list—everyone has one—as to what I would like to see—I tend to work with what is.  I  may read this book someday, especially if I get the free copy I deserve as a fellow scholar, even if a pseudo one, and I can see why someone with your background would do so immediately. I’m glad that you do, and others. That way you can tell me about it lest it takes me awhile to get to it or even if I never do.
I tire of these fellows who are so fascinated by the devices of power that they become like the inside-the-beltway policy wonks who actually can’t do anything themselves so they specialize in critiquing what others do. At least RF has a track record, but that was long ago. Does he convey any sense that Jehovah is running the show or is it all political maneuverings with him? That is among the things I would be looking for. And what is he doing, not back in the day, but now? The pull of speaking to the choir rather than the householder Is irresistible to some; you spoke of some in Bethel who were like that, and one can begin to fear for them. Has he become like that? Like Paul at 1 Cor 4:19 muses, I am not so interested in his speech, but in his power. Has he severed himself from the ranks of those doing the work of Jesus to become a policy wonk? Dunno, but that is what would interest me.
I live and breathe the truth and I have for nearly 50 years. When I read outside of this forum, the Bible itself, and what is preliminary to my own posts, I tend to read secular material that I am not so intimately familiar with. It is fine that someone should write a book, but anyone can write a book—I’ve written four of them. I can read your remarks—there surely are enough of them—and assemble them into my own book on your behalf. The same can be said of many other prolific ones here. 
I’m still reading the book of the brother who survived Rwanda—a chapter at a time—I’ve gotten distracted. There’s over 8 million of Jehovah’s people and every one of them has a book in them. Just because they haven’t got around to writing it yet and maybe don’t have the wherewithal to do so does not make it any less interesting. 
The way this Norwegian apostate (not RF, but the one with the webcast) coos on about ‘scholarship’ irks me. Scholars put their pants on one leg at a time like you and I. They disagree no less than we regular mortals. Look to the world that scholars have collectively built—for the most part, this system of things is run by highly educated people—to properly evaluate ‘scholarship.’
I don’t despise it, but neither do I worship it, as it seemed that Norwegian fellow did—so impressed at Rulf’s educational achievements. It is like when I rode in Frankie’s new van and all the brothers were oohing and ahhing over its every new tech feature and I got fed up. “Frankie, does this car have a radio?” I said breathlessly when it was my turn. But Frankie is cool, not wound up too tight, and is truly a fine man. He reads how things are going. “Nah, it doesn’t have one of those,” he says.

Speaking of Kosonen, a few things remind me of him, too. Even the tone of offering unheeded "correction" but also this idea Furuli has:
There is also a need for an
independent group of elders to review all the human commandments that
the GB has invented and to remove those that are not based on the Bible,
and which have caused harm for individual Witnesses.
But Furuli's book is starting to sound more like a Raymond Franz sequel (on those few points where they agree). Comparisons between the organizational hierarchy and the Catholic Church are even stronger here than in Franz' books. He even seems to acknowledge (or idealize) that there was a short period of time that immediately followed when R.Franz presented the scriptural meaning of elder, etc., to Knorr and FW Franz, and they humbly accepted the loss of power and authority.
I could go on an on with commentary, but I'll try to save it until I'm finished. Else I won't finish.

So far, I can't help but see a strong parallel between Ray Franz and Rolf Furuli's choice of words, style and even some of his entire talking points. I already had five R.F. marks in the margins (pdf) before even got out of the Introduction. And it started not to matter whether the R.F. stood for Rolf Furuli or Ray Franz, so I stopped highlighting those kinds of parallels.
Two of the parallels are so "eerie" that I wonder how aware Furuli is about how they sound. Here's one:
Ray Franz became associated with the term "captives of a concept" as a way to explain how and why the GB see themselves in a position that is so difficult to explain Biblically. Furuli hits several of Ray Franz' points in the same order that Franz presents them:
I do not question
the sincerity of the members of the GB. But it seems to me that they are
held captive by their belief that they are chosen by God as "the faithful
and discreet slave," and that they have been appointed over Jehovah's
Witnesses as their government with unlimited power.
Here's another one, that echos the theme of R.Franz' second book:
This letter shows that the members of the GB believe that they have
the right to . . .
overrule the consciences of individual Witnesses. But this is an attack on
the Christian freedom that Paul mentioned in Galatians 5.1.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily go to your point about Furuli's goals, because Ray Franz' style appeared to be much more reluctant about saying anything, but explained how he had been forced into a corner to explain himself due to rampant misinformation. This rang true with Ray Franz that he had never wanted to leave the organization, or try to do anything that would get him in any kind of trouble that would force anyone to try to make him leave, or try to undermine anything to do with current doctrines or teachings, after settling into his congregation. The problem apparently started only when the congregation wanted to use Ray Franz as an elder, and the local elders wrote the Society to find out if that would be appropriate. Until then there was apparently no reason to go after Ray Franz to try to get him disfellowshipped. So, "Chairman Ray" may have been the very opposite of your revolutionary. And Furuli is setting himself up similarly as a non-revolutionary.
One major difference is that Furuli has evidently taken a more proactive role, and pretty much admits to assuming that he won't be answered, just because they haven't dealt with him or his issues yet. You might have nailed it when you wondered just how he knows they are refusing to consider his "corrections." But I'm pretty sure that he knows. He knows what is inevitable, or at least what would have been inevitable if he hadn't got this book out there first.
A former circuit and district overseer can read the signs, especially one whose work has previously been welcomed into the hearing of the GB.

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.
 

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.

I agree that there are times we step up to the plate..... when needed. 
I also do not like it when some brothers act as though they are the sole self-appointed guardians of the truth, always correcting others...... this again is also out of balance.  This is also self-importance and ego at work.

There used to be a local speaker in much demand who truly had a gift for speaking. He would twirl the globe he had brought up to the platform, quote Matthew 24:14, “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth” and then put his finger down upon this or that spot representing some local king’s sovereignty: “This good news of the kingdom WILL NOT be preached in MY part of the inhabited earth,” with the air of—who do you think is going to prevail?
He was a great speaker, a good man. But I visited his congregation once when he was conducting the Watchtower. He explained all the questions, and so blatantly ‘over-explained’ everything that I wondered how anyone could stand it. ‘Just ask the questions’ is what you should do, and make your own comments very few. There was no bad motive—he had just become a little full of himself—building upon an obvious talent.
Most often it is something more innocuous. There was another conductor who had some mannerisms—I hate mannerisms!—in fact, that’s where ‘Tom Irregardless’ comes from, he says it so much that I named him that—who would throw in after almost every one of his expressions, words to the effect of ‘That’s helpful, isn’t it?’ Once he announced the dates for the upcoming circuit assembly, and added, ‘that’s helpful, isn’t it?’ ‘I guess it is,” I thought.
It’s people. I love people. These days I find I don’t really like them very much unless they are a little quirky. Sometimes people misunderstand it as ridicule. It’s not. I present it in the spirit of Paul trying to rid himself of a ‘thorn in the flesh’ ‘No way!’ God told him, “I look good when you are a clod, because it is evident that no way could you be doing this on your own.”

I simply do not understand why write a book.
If a person has knowledge of imperfections in the organization that person certainly must know that Jesus also is aware.
If you know of another group doing God's work better, go join them!

Oh dear, things are so complicated....and yet there seems to be a pattern, and repetition of the same old, same old, wherever we are in the stream of time ....for centuries...... distant history and the more recent.

I will try to put my thoughts as concisely as possible. Bearing in mind they are nothing original I'm sure..
My hubby and I have started watching a period drama set in 9th century England. The whole series centers around a hero who is divided in his loyalties (to the crown and to the Danes). All the characters are based on some person in history, and I must say it is very well done (BBC) and depicts life as it probably was at that time pretty accurately.
Although people back then were much more savage, had no qualms about lopping someone's head off, they were also God fearing, albeit misguided.

The king, as many other kings before him and after him believes himself to be "God's king". Someone that God uses to carry out his will here on earth. Of course he is as imperfect as anyone, but on the whole he is very genuine, he really believes. There have been worse kings. But what struck me was how easy it is for someone....anyone.... to be deluded, especially when they take upon themselves the task of taking the lead as God's "chosen one", as someone through whom God works here on earth. But...and I've said this on here before, anyone like that depends wholly on the support of others. A king with no subjects, and no army is no king at all. He can wear his crown all day long and he is nothing. It only takes someone with a vision, intelligence, the ability of persuasive speech and a  band of usurpers to overthrow that person. Of course in practice its more complicated, but as we know,  all of history is made up of situations just like that. Empires have been built and have fallen not just due to battles, but mainly due to loyalties on which these battles are based.

Where I am going with this is that I can see a parallel with the FDS. I am not at all implying that the FDS are bad, or that they are not doing a good job as far as human imperfection allows, but what I am saying is that they are in a position of "God's king" (supposedly sanctioned by God himself) whereby they carry out God's will here on earth and administer God's subjects here on earth. So it seems absolutely nothing new at all. The only difference is the FDS are a group, a body of counsel, instead of one individual, and the "subjects" are also subjects of worldly governments, as "alien residents". As a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects".

In practical terms of course, it is necessary to have some kind of central body to organize the preaching work. But the pertinent question is, and also what is addressed by Furuli it seems (I haven't read the book yet) is: What did Jesus mean by the Faithful and Discreet Slave that was to feed his domestics? 
Or is the the same old again; the pattern of human governance, leadership, kingship, whatever you want to call it.... after all, people love to have a visible leader. People love to be advised, told what to do, guided.  The Israelites asked for a human king.

But is this what Jesus had in mind? Or is true Christianity supposed to be something else, something unique.

Again, there has to be organizational leadership in order for an organization to function, and there even has to be spiritual leadership, leading by example. But is it right for one man, or group of men, to have exclusive monopoly on the INTERPRETATION of scripture, but more importantly should this group have the right to insist that everyone accepts only their interpretation, and if not, they may be denied membership, or if they are already members it will be counted as "treason" and they will be ex-communicated (in our society we no longer chop peoples heads off) and ordered to live like outcasts, outlaws, banished and shunned by the whole community as they know it, including relatives. It sounds to me like something from my movie. Is this the model Jesus had in mind? I repeat, as a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects". Remove that support and they are "nothing". But didn't Jesus say we should support one another, and come to the aid of our brothers?

The term that figures most when any such things are discussed within Jehovah's Witnesses is UNITY. But what kind of unity did Jesus have in mind? Did he mean a people united in purpose, or did he mean a people united in thought against their will? Can unity allow for differing opinion and still be called unity. Or is it like a big body, a mass made up of individuals, but who are one. Like a giant Trinity, except not three separate entities but millions.

Is the GB like Moses? No, the greater Moses was Jesus. Jesus fulfilled everything. Jesus began a totally new era of people for God with the first Christian congregation, which lasted practically only a few 100 years. The GB or so called FDS cannot  be modeled on anything or anyone but the Christian congregation. But not even that, because the Bible was still being written. Now we have everything, now we just have to listen and obey Jesus and God as outlined therein (the Bible).

I think most thinking people will question what gives someone the right to claim they are God's spokesman, or the mouthpiece of God, or as Geoffrey Jackson put it; "guardians of THE doctrine".
Certainly you need to have some credentials under your belt, and some history behind you to even be halfway believable.
Modern day witnesses have had a 100 years or so of history. Yes, there have been ups and downs, doctrinal disappointments, wrong expectations, wrong interpretations and yes people have been stumbled, discouraged, chased away. But on the whole Jehovah's Witnesses have managed to remain as close to the 1st Century Christian congregation as humanly possible. I know, I can compare.
Have to go, got the second return visit on on ZOOM, whooho!
 

Oh dear, things are so complicated....and yet there seems to be a pattern, and repetition of the same old, same old, wherever we are in the stream of time ....for centuries...... distant history and the more recent.

I will try to put my thoughts as concisely as possible. Bearing in mind they are nothing original I'm sure..
My hubby and I have started watching a period drama set in 9th century England. The whole series centers around a hero who is divided in his loyalties (to the crown and to the Danes). All the characters are based on some person in history, and I must say it is very well done (BBC) and depicts life as it probably was at that time pretty accurately.
Although people back then were much more savage, had no qualms about lopping someone's head off, they were also God fearing, albeit misguided.

The king, as many other kings before him and after him believes himself to be "God's king". Someone that God uses to carry out his will here on earth. Of course he is as imperfect as anyone, but on the whole he is very genuine, he really believes. There have been worse kings. But what struck me was how easy it is for someone....anyone.... to be deluded, especially when they take upon themselves the task of taking the lead as God's "chosen one", as someone through whom God works here on earth. But...and I've said this on here before, anyone like that depends wholly on the support of others. A king with no subjects, and no army is no king at all. He can wear his crown all day long and he is nothing. It only takes someone with a vision, intelligence, the ability of persuasive speech and a  band of usurpers to overthrow that person. Of course in practice its more complicated, but as we know,  all of history is made up of situations just like that. Empires have been built and have fallen not just due to battles, but mainly due to loyalties on which these battles are based.

Where I am going with this is that I can see a parallel with the FDS. I am not at all implying that the FDS are bad, or that they are not doing a good job as far as human imperfection allows, but what I am saying is that they are in a position of "God's king" (supposedly sanctioned by God himself) whereby they carry out God's will here on earth and administer God's subjects here on earth. So it seems absolutely nothing new at all. The only difference is the FDS are a group, a body of counsel, instead of one individual, and the "subjects" are also subjects of worldly governments, as "alien residents". As a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects".

In practical terms of course, it is necessary to have some kind of central body to organize the preaching work. But the pertinent question is, and also what is addressed by Furuli it seems (I haven't read the book yet) is: What did Jesus mean by the Faithful and Discreet Slave that was to feed his domestics? 
Or is the the same old again; the pattern of human governance, leadership, kingship, whatever you want to call it.... after all, people love to have a visible leader. People love to be advised, told what to do, guided.  The Israelites asked for a human king.

But is this what Jesus had in mind? Or is true Christianity supposed to be something else, something unique.

Again, there has to be organizational leadership in order for an organization to function, and there even has to be spiritual leadership, leading by example. But is it right for one man, or group of men, to have exclusive monopoly on the INTERPRETATION of scripture, but more importantly should this group have the right to insist that everyone accepts only their interpretation, and if not, they may be denied membership, or if they are already members it will be counted as "treason" and they will be ex-communicated (in our society we no longer chop peoples heads off) and ordered to live like outcasts, outlaws, banished and shunned by the whole community as they know it, including relatives. It sounds to me like something from my movie. Is this the model Jesus had in mind? I repeat, as a group, the GB are untouchable because they have enough support from "subjects". Remove that support and they are "nothing". But didn't Jesus say we should support one another, and come to the aid of our brothers?

The term that figures most when any such things are discussed within Jehovah's Witnesses is UNITY. But what kind of unity did Jesus have in mind? Did he mean a people united in purpose, or did he mean a people united in thought against their will? Can unity allow for differing opinion and still be called unity. Or is it like a big body, a mass made up of individuals, but who are one. Like a giant Trinity, except not three separate entities but millions.

Is the GB like Moses? No, the greater Moses was Jesus. Jesus fulfilled everything. Jesus began a totally new era of people for God with the first Christian congregation, which lasted practically only a few 100 years. The GB or so called FDS cannot  be modeled on anything or anyone but the Christian congregation. But not even that, because the Bible was still being written. Now we have everything, now we just have to listen and obey Jesus and God as outlined therein (the Bible).

I think most thinking people will question what gives someone the right to claim they are God's spokesman, or the mouthpiece of God, or as Geoffrey Jackson put it; "guardians of THE doctrine".
Certainly you need to have some credentials under your belt, and some history behind you to even be halfway believable.
Modern day witnesses have had a 100 years or so of history. Yes, there have been ups and downs, doctrinal disappointments, wrong expectations, wrong interpretations and yes people have been stumbled, discouraged, chased away. But on the whole Jehovah's Witnesses have managed to remain as close to the 1st Century Christian congregation as humanly possible. I know, I can compare.
Have to go, got the second return visit on on ZOOM, whooho!
 

I think if you guys want to see changes, it would take several million signatures from all countries you are located in, or a massive letter writing campaign like you  did with Russia.

.....or perhaps shareholders of WT Company can make some moves :)) 

This is shocking. I have no patience with this sort of thing!

I wonder if he just copied Fred Franz' viewpoint?
See also