Jump to content

Ann O'Maly

Furuli's new e-book: "My Beloved Religion - And The Governing Body"

Recommended Posts

 
"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore,
the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be
dissolved." - p. 135.
 
😲
 
I know what you're all thinking: 'This is fake news, a hoax. He'd never say that.' But the book is available from his own Awatu Publishers via email for $10 (see Reddit link below). It's was only released a little over a week ago and is a hefty 337 pages long. He relates his long history in the org., that his issues have been brewing over the last 15 years, and what he says gels with what I know from various other sources - some of which are off-grid. While Furuli still believes JWs are the true religion and many core doctrines are correct (including 607!), he blasts the current GB for losing their way, being power- and money-grabbing, amongst other complaints, and he scripturally dismantles the FDS doctrine. He thinks the organization should be restructured so that it is theocratic like in the good old post-1971 days (I'm paraphrasing) rather than hierarchical like the Catholic church (yes, he refers to the Menlo Park court case). He says he approached the GB in the spirit of Matt. 18, and added that,
 
 "The Governing Body received the book, and the members were
informed that if the basic problems discussed in the book could be
settled inside the organization, the book would not be published.
The GB has refused to communicate with me and therefore the
book has been published." - p. 14.
 
He knows full well what will happen to him which, I guess, will prove his point about the GB being autocratic and beyond questioning or correction. 
 
Did anyone expect this bombshell? I certainly didn't! 😆
 
Here's the link to the Reddit discussion:
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I know what you're all thinking:

 Get him to send me a free copy. He can have a free one of two of my works, ‘Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia’ and ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates’ on Smashwords. In fact, everyone can. I should have one of his. 

Get on it, will you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

@TrueTomHarley Ask him yourself 😆

I would like to. Had I contact information, I would. It is even possible I did communicate with him once through some sort of channel, but I forget. 

I am curious as to how things will be worded. Is it a ‘call to arms’ which is how the Reddit people will certain see it? Or is it more a personal ‘wish list’? Is it a call to ‘abandon ship’? It doesn’t appear to be, especially since there is no other ship to take its place and even an imperfect ship beats treading water. 

He is a scholar. Is he a scholar AND a doer, or has he just become a scholar? That will surely have a bearing. The physical ministry grounds a person—leave it at your own spiritual peril.

The people of higher education generally assume ‘takeover rights.’ Does he? It will make a difference. To my mind, Christianity emerged as a ‘working class’ religion, and it always remained so. You know the verses: ‘uneducated and ordinary’, ‘not many wise in a fleshly way, powerful, of noble birth’, ‘hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones’ so as to ‘reveal them to babes’. 

If the tone of his book recognizes these verses, my guess is that he is fine. If the tone is, ‘Time to let the smart people take over’, there could be a problem. It is when the ‘smart people took over‘ in the first century that Christianity strayed so far from its roots as to be unrecognizable. Reddit, always eager for a blowup, will frame it as ‘Battle of the Titans’ with sure dire consequences to one or the other. That doesn’t mean that he does.

Granted, as to higher education, the trouble with not having too much of it is that one finds it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, and is thus tempted to dismiss it all as chaff. But there is a difference between saying that this or that policy has a downside, which the present brothers will probably agree with, and saying that we ought to have someone’s head on a platter, which they will not. What side does he come down on?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

He says he approached the GB in the spirit of Matt. 18

It is sincerely naive approach. GB elders allow this sort of "communication" only at rank and file level for minor problems among congregants. But, even there, on this low ground field where ordinary members living, almost no one of JW's really understand how Mat 18 have to work when they are faced with internal problems. One reason for that is in elders who also not using Mat 18 with more understanding.

First obstacle is in gradation of "sins" as: "minor and gross". :))

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

@Srecko Sostar Naive? Possibly. I assume that his thinking is, if the GB rejects his approach, then at least he's abided by the direction in God's word and can take the moral/scriptural high ground, he has a clear conscience before God, etc. 

Naive, in sense: if he expecting, waiting for positive answer. 

In matter about his conscience, that is good biblical way how to deal with bro/sis.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The GB has refused to communicate with me and therefore the
book has been published. (RF)

This is not a promising sign. How does he know they refuse to do it? 

I wrote to them once, too, about my work—which does not by any stretch of the imagination take shots at them. I’ve not heard back. That doesn’t mean they ‘refuse.’ The verb reeks too much of adversarial intent.

Perhaps at this very moment, the Bethel brothers have dropped all other considerations to write me a nice little letter.

Shultz and de Vienne submitted their work to Bethel. They write that it was received ‘without comment.’ That is not the same as ‘refuse’ and they only speculated as to why their book met with silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ann O'Maly  This is wonderful news. Music to my ears. I think @James Thomas Rook Jr. would love this too. 

It would be so funny if this book says things that i have been saying on here for a long time. 

Quote  

"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore, the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be dissolved." - p. 135.

I love this. But if I say to much i will be D/fed from this forum, as John Butler was. Even that word 'dissolved' might pose a threat.  

Quote,  " he blasts the current GB for losing their way, being power- and money-grabbing, amongst other complaints, and he scripturally dismantles the FDS doctrine. " 

Mr Rook said similar things and so have I.  

Is this only available as an e-book ?   Is it or will it be available in 'real paper copy' ? 

@TrueTomHarley  Could be the start of something big Tom ? :)  And before you say it, NO I'm not looking to follow men But it is nice to get an honest / alternative point of view isn't it. 

And the CCJW say that higher education is a waste of time. Um, I wonder why they would say that. 

I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I'm making here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

It would be so funny if this book says things that i have been saying on here for a long time. 

Some of his comments and analyses of scripture echo what 'apostates' have banged on about for decades. I'm particularly thinking of his conclusion here:

"The “faithful and discreet slave” refers to any Christian who is
faithful and on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge in the
great tribulation. It does not refer to a class that gives spiritual
food during Christ’s presence." - p. 72.

Quote

Is this only available as an e-book ?   Is it or will it be available in 'real paper copy' ? 

Yes, and don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Some of his comments and analyses of scripture echo what 'apostates' have banged on about for decades. I'm particularly thinking of his conclusion here:

"The “faithful and discreet slave” refers to any Christian who is
faithful and on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge in the
great tribulation. It does not refer to a class that gives spiritual
food during Christ’s presence." - p. 72.

 

It is interesting that some biblical passages are so “soft” that they can be shaped and reshaped so successfully. The existence of a large number of Christian interpretations and ideologies / religions proves this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Usually you have to read a book before you comment on what it proves

    Hello guest!

I think his Wiki page showing his previous works gives enough evidence of his use of higher education and the first red.it link gives a clue as to content of this book. But Tom only quote half and then avoids the true point of it all as usual. 

 @Ann O'Maly 

"The “faithful and discreet slave” refers to any Christian who is
faithful and on the watch when Jesus comes as the judge in the
great tribulation. It does not refer to a class that gives spiritual
food during Christ’s presence." - p. 72.

I think I'd go with what God's word says on this one....  Matthew 24 v 45 

“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?

I love your choice of words here.  Quote "  what 'apostates' have banged on about for decades. "

I think the truth is, that it is nice to have different viewpoints. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ann

How are you and I hope you are well. I received from Rolf a free copy of his latest book yesterday morning and I replied to him forthwith with some of my own observations over the last few decades. Like Rolf I share his scholarly endorsement of 607 BCE and the doctrine of the Gentile Times based on Daniel 4 and the Lukan text- Luke 21:24 his now public position certainly adds some validity to the authenticity of the 607 BCE Chronology despite the criticism of current scholarship.

Since our many online discussions of 607 BCE in relation to the chronology and nature of the 'seventy years' of Jeremiah a recent published article adds some weight to our current and traditional interpretation of the 70 years as opposed to view of our many critics. The article is titled 'The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' by Steven M Ruse in the Journal Of Biblical Literature, 2018 Vol.137,No.1, pp.107-126. This article is the most recent published article on this subject and has much emphasis on the exilic aspect of the seventy years as opposed to the view of a solely Babylonish servitude or domination of Judah. Enjoy!!!!

scholar JW emeritus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Did anyone expect this bombshell? I certainly didn't! 😆

This has taken me totally by surprise. A friend informs me that he also brings up the issue of higher education and disfellowshiping offenses.

If some kind of break were to happen at all, I expected it from a conscience issue, concerning his chronology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JW Insider

Chronology has nothing to do with Furuli's latest bombshell for his views on WT Biblical  Chronology are firm and well established as is mine thus his current stance in some sense creates a distance, a freedom from any alleged bias working as a truly independent scholar working in the pursuit of Truth.

scholar JW emeritus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

Chronology has nothing to do with Furuli's latest bombshell

Yes. I am aware. I'm just surprised, especially after reading and studying and discussing his last two books. I am aware of your stated position about them.

33 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

for his views on WT Biblical  Chronology are firm and well established as is mine

I doubt that his views on chronology are firm. He gives plenty of evidence that he does not really believe they are firm. They are definitely not "established" in the least, except as weak theories he could never honestly defend. About all he ever established is that he was "clever" but incapable of dealing with the necessary issues related to chronology. Even amateurs like myself have had no trouble seeing through the scheme.

33 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

as is mine

😊

33 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

thus his current stance in some sense creates a distance, a freedom from any alleged bias working as a truly independent scholar working in the pursuit of Truth.

Interesting. Perhaps he is in the process of sacrificing his association with Witnesses so that he will be the first non-Witness scholar in history to claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE.

I have another theory as to what he is doing, much less interesting, but in total keeping with the evidence he has already documented about his ego, personality and track record. I'll see if it makes sense after reading his book (tomorrow).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
"There was no governing body in the first century CE. Therefore,
the present Governing Body has no legacy and should be
dissolved." - p. 135.

That is an odd statement. There was actually a governing body of Christians in the 1st century, but certainly far different from today's religious leaders. Even during those times, there as been others as the latter grow old and die and others take their place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

FDS doctrine

???  I am not American and my first language is not English so I naturally never get the acronyms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

have to read a book before you comment

True, and even if it accuses, regardless of him being a scholar, without sufficient proof it is without substance. 

So detractors on the forum should not be so ecstatic ...... he does apparently urge brothers not to leave....... an idea which is abhorent to them . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video talks about glory....... Feruli apparently already has glory and does not need more.

I do not buy this statement. Satan was the most beautiful and already had a lot to be grateful for..... but he became arrogant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Please notify what you think that could be.

It's just a working hypothesis based on things I've seen from him, including a personal conversation. I am reading the book now, and won't finish until tomorrow. If the hypothesis is not evidenced I will either drop it, or discuss why it wasn't evidenced. But I'm OK discussing his book no matter what his reasons..

He sent me his last two books for free, but I must not be on his mailing list any more, because I had to get this one myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People think the Lennon/McCarney song Revolution advocates revolution. Does it?

You say you want a revolution, Well, you know, We all want to change the world...

But when you talk about destruction, Don't you know that you can count me out, Don't you know it's gonna be , All right....

You say you got a real solution, Well, you know, We'd all love to see the plan...

You say you'll change the constitution, Well, you know, We all want to change your head

You tell me it's the institution, Well, you know, You better free you mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Ray, You ain't going to make it with anyone anyway, Don't you know it's gonna be , All right, all right, all right

Got a real solution? Show the plan. But if someone brings his plan to the altar and it is not acted on, what then? Does one become of those who pushes ahead? Or does one free his mind instead and not make a grab for the wheel of the bus? As to getting myself a free copy...

20 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

@TrueTomHarley Ask him yourself 😆

I did. I emailed him. Unfortunately, every malcontent in the world probably did, too—some to laud him and some to express dismay that their own pet peeve has been ignored. He may not want to hear from any of them—since he says that the core doctrines are all true, words that most of them will choke on—most of them want “destruction.” Therefore, I despair of breaking through the pack and securing a free copy.

I may write a lot, have a way with words, and craft them uniquely, but it would be a stretch to call myself a scholar, so I do not do so. “One scholar to another—I’ll drink to that,” said George Patton. Maybe some other scholar can get me in good with him. Or maybe I’ll have to pay up, which doesn’t seem right. Or maybe I’ll just wait to referee the brouhaha that results as others devour it. 

What will be the upshot? Much has changed since the time of Chairman Ray, which was a bit early for me and I’ve never read his book—I barely have to since so many have told me what’s in it. As mentioned before, what is the tone of this book? Is it a call for “revolution” or does he say to those opposers who want destruction, “count me out.”? Arauna says everything has to be judged in its own historical context, and much has changed in forty years.

He wouldn’t appear on that smug webhost’s site because he was an apostate—surely that’s a good sign—just as I would not appear on Lloyd’s podcast, though he all but begged me to and was nice as pie until he realized I had no intention of doing so, after which he was horrible. Note how this fellow Norwegian self-described apostate oozes contempt that CO’s usually start as “window cleaners”—the same way that Celsus ridiculed the first and second century Christians for being “shoemakers, laborers, and the most clownish of men,” completely forgetting how God is partial toward those people and doesn’t look down upon them at all.

I think there is a scene in Superman in which a battle of titans looms and one of the regular citizen-mortals says, “This is going to be good!” (JTR would know—what a time for him to leave!) That’s what they’re saying at Reddit, now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Ray, You ain't going to make it with anyone anyway,

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.

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

This is not a promising sign. How does he know they refuse to do it? 

A former circuit and district overseer can read the signs, especially one whose work has previously been welcomed into the hearing of the GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It's just a working hypothesis based on things I've seen from him, including a personal conversation. I am reading the book now, and won't finish until tomorrow. If the hypothesis is not evidenced I will either drop it, or discuss why it wasn't evidenced. But I'm OK discussing his book no matter what his reasons..

Which book are you referring to Furuli's new book or the past books he sent you. If he sent you the new book, then share it with TOM. How O'maly got on board in this closed forum puzzles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

How O'maly got on board in this closed forum puzzles me.

Some forums are more closed than others. There actually is a closed closed forum. This is the open closed one. Sounds odd, I know, but Admin explained the circumstances under which it came about and it all made sense then.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Chairman Ray

was an irresistible insert for the song. I’m aware that it doesn’t quite fit. It doesn’t have to. It’s art and he’s dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Same initials? Wait until Kos gets ahold of that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Some forums are more closed than others. There actually is a closed closed forum. This is the open closed one. Sounds odd, I know, but Admin explained the circumstances under which it came about and it all made sense then.

Okay, thanks. I speculated since someone would have to approve to come into this open closed forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

How do you understand Furuli’s methodology in linguistics? Furuli re-analyzes of tense and aspect system of classical Hebrew, is a method introduced by Furuli.

Therefore, how would that correlate with Ray’s observation? Was Furuli’s works ascertained in Ray’s time? That would be news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Wait until Kos gets ahold of that one.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Speaking of Kosonen, a few things remind me of him, too. Even the tone of offering unheeded "correction" but also this idea Furuli has:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Okay, thanks. I speculated since someone would have to approve to come into this open closed forum.

This one is open to all. To gain access to the closed closed one your must pass muster with Anna. That is why I bow and scrape to her whenever she comes around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, César Chávez said:

 How O'maly got on board in this closed forum puzzles me.

Closed? It was all open when I started here many moons ago. I see they've moved the furniture around and plastered over some doorways since I last dropped by. A little disorienting but hey, this door was still open so here I am. Never fear, the only JWs I eat for breakfast are Neil and that Allen/Wyatt Earp guy (is he still posting?). 

@scholar JW Hi Neil 🙂 Good to see you're still kicking around. So, how do you feel about Rolf taking a stand against the Governing Body and rejecting the current Faithful and Discreet Slave doctrine (the FDS doctrine, @Arauna)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Closed? It was all open when I started here many moons ago. I see they've moved the furniture around and plastered over some doorways since I last dropped by.

Relax. You’ve done nothing wrong (this time).

22 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

that Allen/Wyatt Earp guy (is he still posting?). 

Are you kidding me? He has more aliases than I do.

Imagine my rotten l**k. Here I have almost succeeded in the reappearance of the three amigos—Witness, Ann, and JTR—the original three of the thread the Librarian assigned to me, ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates,’ which I resisted because i didn’t want the job, but when my resistance proved futile, I warmed to the task and went after them with such ferocity that the same Admin that put me on it took me off—and many months later it became inspiration for my fourth book, ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates!’

    Hello guest!

Ann suddenly reappears and what happens? JTR disappears to do penance! JTR, who never was apostate in many ways but who so closely resembled one that I couldn’t tell the difference. He’s gone!—only days before the story breaks that may or may not fit so nicely into ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates—Round 2’ should such a book come about.

Ann O’Maly, who is herself my inspiration of Top Cat O’Malihan—an alias I trotted out to mess with than pretentious buffoon AlanH—Ann herself appears as JTR disappears. I tell you, it is not right.

Incidentally, the cat in Top Cat’s profile photo is dead. It was my cat but when I took my daughter’s dog in because she was moving away as a need-greater—well, the dog has a thing about chasing cats. So I took the cat to my Dad’s house, who was just coming down with dementia and in time I stayed with him for a few months. He figured that it was one of the barn cats that he grew up with and kept leaving it saucers of milk around the house, just as he had done in his boyhood with the other barn cats. “Great, Pop!” I would mutter. “Here I want to pour myself a bowl of cereal and I can’t because you have put all the milk out in a dozen bowls for the cat—who never touches it!”

The cat was old by the time I took it to my Dad’s. It was a great comfort for him and would sit on his lap. He was looking for it one day and I knew he would not find it. It had crawled under the basement workbench, a place that it had never been before, to die. There really is something to the expression, ‘Crawl under a rock and die.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I hear my name? Well well well! Ann O’Maly! I am told I am named after her!

Hmmm, Tom.....I’m not sure that I like her. She’s not like that blowhard AlanH, is she? What a piece of work he was! Not like us, at all, hey Tom (or at least, me)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Top Cat O’Malihan said:

AlanH

*AlanF

And while I'm at it,

16 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Steven M Ruse

*Steven M. Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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.’

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.....   

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does he convey any sense that Jehovah is running the show or is it all political maneuverings with him?

An important question.....

Anyone can say something " just because they think they are qualified to do so". 

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Allen/Wyatt Earp guy (is he still posting?).

Lol......

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

(the FDS doctrine, @Arauna)? 

Thanks Ann.  I guess the older I get the lazier the eyes and brain.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Arauna said:

If one looks at the kind of 'science' in scholarship these days

These are challenging times to offer nuanced views of things. Few people accept nuances. Thus, if you do not accept every premise of your opponent’s view, you are ‘Brother Watchtower’ as that silly Witness says of me. But I don’t take offense. I don’t exactly flatter her, either.

It nettles me when I see brothers gush all over ‘science’ and ‘critical thinking.’ Why should they do that? It constitutes the prime tool of our adversaries. I’m not against science. It’s great stuff. Pour me a double-shot of it. But to rely on it as the be-all and end-all is surely to court folly.

Do not scientists, for the most part, urinate all over Genesis and blood? Are we to imagine that those are the only things that they are all wet on? Yet many brothers would seem to. The GB does not, which earns them my tremendous respect. They recognize it as a tool—not valueless, but also not THE GAMECHANGER. Scientists mostly lean this way or that? Well—take note of it but don’t let it ruin your day. Tomorrow you may see the headline, “Everything You Thought You Knew About Such-and-Such is Wrong!”

38 minutes ago, Arauna said:

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!

There is an ex-pharma VP online who makes just that point. ‘Nobody has any money,’ he says. ‘Universities don’t  Governments don’t. Think-tanks don’t. But Pharma has lots of money. It commissions scientists from one of those penniless outfits to study this or that new drug. If the outcome if favorable to Pharma, that outfit can expect to be funded for more studies. If it is unfavorable, that outfit will never hear from Pharma again. ‘No money has changed hands,’ he says. ‘No agreements have been entered into. But everyone knows what they must do.’

The ones who shove ‘science‘ down everyone’s throats are not necessarily even scientists, I am convinced, but are a second buttressing and uninvited layer that I call ‘scientist-philosopher-atheist-cheerleaders.’ Scientists just go about doing science, and many of them see no contradiction between science and the spiritual world—they are two different ways of examining things, and ‘one key does not unlock all.’

People who rail on about science tend to not notice when money hijacks their science, as in the Pharma example above. Scientists have to eat, too. They are also stubborn like anyone else—slow to yield to new data. They are not more so than others, but neither on balance are they less. One of the downfalls of ‘critical thinking’ is that those who espouse it most vehemently are prone to assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

As to Rulf—I’m not opposed to him. If he thinks that he will be DFed, as he has stated—well, who am I to argue? But I will accept it only when I see it. Brothers in charge have something that they did not have 40 years ago. They have a prior example to look at and to see how that worked out. They may or may not go a similar route. I’ll get my head around it regardless of how they go, but I won’t start until they go there.

38 minutes ago, Arauna said:

but must he do it so publicly? ......So as to garner undue attention to his person and his scholarship? 

Yes. And I note and agree that you put them as questions, not statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I remember it, Allen showed the fallacies of AlanF and O’maly with their supposed objection to the time line of 607BC and how they made an error in assumption about who would have been in subjection to whom.

This brings the same kind of error that can be seen with assuming the Sanhedrin couldn’t be seen as the first century governing body and why it makes no difference, since the ideology is to have a group of responsible men at the helm.

The question for a modern governing body is, are they as reckless as the Sanhedrin along with the Pharisees and Sadducees were.

Besieged: An Encyclopedia of Great Sieges from Ancient Times

The first mention of a popular leader resisting Roman rule is that of Judas of Galilee in a.d. 6/7. He preached resistance to the census ordered by the Romans, possibly the same one mentioned in the biblical book of Luke. He was killed in this revolt, and his death gave rise to the Zealots. They were politically active in opposing Roman rule and were fundamentalist in their interpretation of the Jewish Law. They followed the extremely conservative teachings of Shammai, a member of the Sanhedrin, the semi- governing body of interpreters of Jewish Law. Page 35

An assumption not seen in Furuli’s new book.

This also brings into question why it's so important to none members the name "governing body" since the Catholic "holy see" is their governing body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@César Chávez Agreed, that is what I was saying elsewhere. There was a collective of some kind in the early Christian churches. Even for those that broke away to formulate what currently mainstream Christendom, they have some kind of Religious order and or structure as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I could have told you that beforehand.

Probably true, Tom. I already knew that I would probably agree with plenty of his arguments related to his current view on the FDS and higher education. But so much more that he says, has already been said in so many words over here on this forum. Some of it very recently. The areas where many of us have long defended the Witness position with respect to war, neutrality, the two different hopes of salvation, use of God's name, identifying principles of the true religion, the value of a leadership body with respect to efficiently carrying out a worldwide preaching work, etc., etc. You'd think that he came over here and picked up a few ideas, although I'm sure he had already come to these positions through the WT publications and his own experience in defending them.

On higher education, he tends to present it a bit too positively, without enough warning about some of same dangers that have hurt Witnesses, sometimes spiritually, sometimes economically. I think he is too focused on how well it worked out for himself, and perhaps schools in Norway are more serious than some of the party destinations that attract students in the United States. To him most higher education is Biblically neutral, and he tends to promote higher education for those who can make room for it.

A lot of Witnesses (remember JTR?) have complained about the "dumbing down" of study habits and the lower levels of effort put into really learning scriptural and spiritual matters for ourselves. His issues with the NWT 2013 are also identical to things that have been said here in that regard. Furuli is not terribly consistent with his favorite subjects and pet peeves, but he has managed to explain the issues in very practical terms better than I've seen before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do not scientists, for the most part, urinate all over Genesis and blood?

The new religion is science and technology - even pseudo-science has replaced God. And science these days is without scruples or ethics.  Saw a headline yesterday....... a mouse has been produced with 4 %  human genes.  Why? Most probably they had discovered that all lab mice were too interbred to have provided proper results in the last 25 years.. Who knows why. 

The research done in China labs and by the BIG tech giants is frightening and could put the future of humans in jeopardy -  if they carry on with what they are doing.  The developments in science are so quick at present that governments are not keeping up with proper legislation... and atheist countries do not care to place restrictions on these unscrupulous people.  To them it is a race to dominate the world with a new discovery...... and in this quest there are more than enough funds available from renegade, atheist super rich capitalists and oligarchs who wish to make more money from the results.

I saw a headline recently - the earlier vaccines were grown on animal material. There is talk that pharma covered up when they found retro-viruses in vaccines that were produced via monkey kidney material.  Since most animals have corona virusses ..... there is talk that AIDS originated from vaccines.

There was a court case filed end of Dec 2019 - here's what was copied from the headpiece of the document: Case 1:19-cv-11947 Document 1 Filed 12/31/19 Page 1 of 36.

This court case results did not appear in any media. There was no settlement in this lawsuit. It was mutually dissolved by both sides (plaintiffs/defendants) but the U.S. District Judge's (Hon. Lewis J. Limon) signed a stipulation acknowledging that the defendants (The CDC) could not produce any copies of safety studies - proving that safety studies were never done on vaccines.  They only produced 20 unrelated documents.

So NO safety studies were ever done and yet these pharma corporations, through lobbying, obtained blanket immunity from congress just before the turn of the century. They are not being held accountable in a court of law and a cap of 30 thousand dollars is placed on litigation for people who have  been injured by vaccines in court.  If your child is autistic one needs thousands upon thousands for special teachers etc.  This is the level of corruption going on in the system. The safety claims are fraudulent!

I found it on another website but this was sent me by someone:

    Hello guest!

To get to the meat start at 34:14. If you scroll down to around the 10th commenter, (Joe Knipp), outlines the show. At the very end circa 1:01:00 Del gives the CDC the ultimatum: Either take down the prominent declaration on their website that states Vaccines doesn't cause autism or ICAN is gonna pursue every possible legal avenue.

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

many of them see no contradiction between science and the spiritual world—

There IS no contradiction between science and the spiritual world if scientists follow only to where the truth leads them. Unfortunately in the modern world, science has lost the ball because they follow preconceived ideas that there is no god. So anything which may suggest design or anything hinting at God in the conclusion, simply has to be discarded and replaced with a different hypothesis and outcome.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Pharisees and Sadducee

Apart from this legal entity (Sanhedrin) which had already been infiltrated by Greek oratory thinking, and was the highest authority in religious and self-governing matters of the Jews, there was a group of Christian apostles and elders in Jerusalem, according to acts 15, which took the lead.

They appointed 7 brothers of good repute to divide the food amongst the widows because these brothers had to keep busy with the commission Jesus gave the apostles, namely to oversee the Christian congregations and ensure that false teachings did not slip in. They were led by James at the time when Paul and Barnabas came to testify about the gentiles receiving holy spirit  while not circumcised.  The decision of this body (not called a GB then) was sent out to all congregations. Acts 6:1 -6 and Acts 15 "So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

higher education, he tends to present it a bit too positively,

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

there is talk that AIDS originated from vaccines.

Don’t get me going on vaccines.

23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

There was a court case filed end of Dec 2019

Don’t get me going on vaccines. I suspect the world itself cannot contain the scrolls if you do.

23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

The CDC) could not produce any copies of safety studies - proving that safety studies were never done on vaccines.  They only produced 20 unrelated documents.

I’m all over it.

23 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So NO safety studies were ever done and....The safety claims are fraudulent!

It’s unbelievable.

When I follow something on Twitter, I make it a point to also follow its polar opposite. In this way, I have come to see that some ‘conspiracy theories’ are backed up very persuasively. Often their arguments appear much more convincing than those of the prevailing view, which mostly screams that “the science is settled!” [by decree] and such-and-such has been repeatedly proven! [by ignoring evidence to the contrary]. (Brackets mine, of course)

On a more conventional forum, there is a brother who seems to feel it his job to tamp down all such theories and thus demonstrate that he and all of Jehovah’s people are “responsible.” ‘What for?‘ I have told him. Go wherever your interest and the evidence takes you. If human rule falters because, noble though it is, it just can’t keep up with the plagues of the horsemen, well—that satisfies Bible prophesy. But if it falters because it also time and again shoots itself in the foot will villainous conspiracy theories that prove true, that knocks the ball out of the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dare someone find the truth behind this supposed quote from Furuli’s new book.

Today, the eight men of the Governing Body functions as a government for JW with unlimited
power. They have the power over the doctrines, the assets, and the money, and their words and decisions cannot be questioned. This is a situation that violates a number of Bible principles.”

Furuli.jpg

 

Coming from critics. Is this quote manipulated, or is it a copy/paste of two different perspective in order to seem something that it's not. I can't see anything but manipulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

t’s unbelievable

But nothing will come of it.  The powers that be - they have too much money and the lobby too strong.

We are sitting ducks to these wicked people and only Jehovah can save us.

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

well—that satisfies Bible prophesy.

Listened to a translation today of how communism took over china (Chinese to English) and how bad things have become under the CCP.  It discusses how the doctrine of communism is satanic in its destruction of culture, morals and everything pertaining to a God.

I was fascinated by the old Chinese values of morality and how they believed that there was a large flood on earth, through which the Chinese were saved, in order to bring culture and morality to the world.

I saw many contemporary parallels with the West, especially the destruction of the family, culture and moral values. The Chinese writer claims that the ultimate goal of satan is to create a world power wherein worship of the state replaces all values of morality..... such as the CCP is doing. 

In this way the mind is so morally corrupted, that when God talks to the person they will not listen to Him and then their soul will be destroyed forever (no nirvana or reincarnation). 

He laments the communists who desecrate everything to do with the forefathers and their legacy (which of course forms part of their ancestor worship)..... but I found it very enlightening.  I really got some insights into the Chinese culture  before communism systematically dismatled it and replaced it with communistic, material versions of the old culture. (culture revolution just as in the west happening now)

I can see how satan will literally be ruling the entire world soon and obligating people to worship the state/beast. There is nothing noble about human governments any longer - east or west. Corruption is everywhere and it is like a yeast which has grown throughout the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arauna @JW Insider Yes. There is also the notion of philosophies that can prove damaging to those in the education system, as with other things being pushed on to the children early on, well into Tech school or College years. Outside of that, there is the moral aspect of things, for I recall, a friend of mine, also a Bible reading minister, often complained about Rutgers University and Princeton University. He's usually points out that, to quote him "Colleges are places that Christians must be very careful with". He tends to go a bit explicit of what he is pushing. Another incident, although the person is not a religious person, let's just say because of this girl being a victim into being introduced to brazen conduct, her parents did not take it too well; the shock of her Father was that of someone falling off of their chair, or passing out in shock kind of thing. Who wouldn't be should they discover their son or daughter in an explicit fashion in a college setting? Likewise, as I said in the past here, the specific cultures within the domain of higher education caused suicide due to pressure.

That being said, if anyone is sending their child to school and or college, it is best to have them mentally and morally strong so that they do not fall to such ideas. Likewise, should someone hold a Christian view and apply Bible Principles, they must be very careful to not fall away from God, and or fall to brazen conduct. For sometimes should someone fall, it is not easy for them to get back up.

That being said, out of all the bizarre things I had seen in school, was "The Pink Bible".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

sending their child to school

They are sexualizing young children in school.  Children go on the computer and learn about deviant sex at too young an age.

Parents should know what their children are learning so as to counteract it at home.  It is UNESCO which has brought in the new curriculum and pushing it world-wide. Poor countries do not get funding if they refuse to comply.

It is part of population control.  Teach young kids that deviant sex is ok so they do not produce children..... and most important of all make them into atheists so they have no conscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The way I remember it, Allen showed the fallacies of AlanF and O’maly with their supposed objection to the time line of 607BC

😆🤣😂 Yes, Allen adeptly showed what a vivid imagination he had, how proficient he was with irrelevant c&ps (that's copy-and-pastes, Arauna), and how expertly he tossed around word salads. Be sure to give him my regards 😉

42 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I dare someone find the truth behind this supposed quote from Furuli’s new book.

Today, the eight men of the Governing Body functions as a government for JW with unlimited
power. They have the power over the doctrines, the assets, and the money, and their words and decisions cannot be questioned. This is a situation that violates a number of Bible principles.”

This isn't in the book itself - not that I can find. I think the redditor assumed they were from the first few pages, but I suspect they are from Furuli's summary of the book. The quote is consistent with what he does say in the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Coming from critics. Is this quote manipulated, or is it a copy/paste of two different perspective in order to seem something that it's not. I can't see anything but manipulation.

Looks like partly a copy and paste. But not, evidently, to give a different perspective. It seems quite possible that the words could have been that way in a 5/24/2020 edition and not in a 5/25/2020 edition.

I say this because the book gives evidence of rushed last-minute organization and some sloppy editing. There is a lot of unnecessary repetition, and a couple of mistakes and typos. Sometimes with such e-books the author has the opportunity to make changes on the fly and continue editing as early copies are going out. 

Here are the closest quotes to yours. Yours matches the supposed quote at

    Hello guest!

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Today, the eight men of the Governing Body functions as a government for JW with unlimited
power. They have the power over the doctrines, the assets, and the money, and their words and decisions cannot be questioned. This is a situation that violates a number of Bible principles.”


Today the members of the GB have all power in connection with the
doctrines, the assets, and the money. No one has the right to question their
decisions or their words. And this collides head-on with the words of Paul
in Galatians 5:1 (NWT13):

And in another place he says:

I believe that the members of the GB are sincere
persons. But they have taken a position among the Witnesses that violates
many Bible principles. They have become a government with all power.

And in another place he says:

During the last part of the 20th century, the members of the GB gave
themselves more and more power at the expense of the bodies of elders .
The GB functions as a government for JW with unlimited power over the
doctines [sic], the assets, and the money.

And in another place he says:

Because no one can call the members of the GB to
account, they have been able to lead the organization in the direction of
their choice-they have formed the organization into their own image.
The present organizational structure, where the members of the GB
believe that they have both the obligation and the right to be a government
for Jehovah's Witnesses, has created great problems.

And in another place he says;

The problem, however, is that the definitions of apostasy are self serving
because it is the GB who defines what "Jehovah's arrangement"
is. And the definition is that the GB serves as a government for JW with
unlimited power. Thus, any opposition to the GB is per definition
apostasy because it "is undermining the confidence of the brothers in
Jehovah's arrangement."
In spite of the fact that the GB has the upper hand, my conscience
has driven me to write this book, and I leave the judgment to Jehovah.

And in another place he says:

Because I have had responsible positions during
these years, I have witnessed how the organization has gradually become
more and more autocratic, until we have the situation today with the GB
functioning as the government of JW with unlimited power.

And in another place he says:

If a Catholic man . . . becomes a member of a JW congregation, the man becomes a part of an organization
that is more hierarchical and more dictatorial than the Catholic Church. This is a
situation that violates several Bible principles.

And in another place he says:

This situation shows that many Witnesses today view the eight men in the GB almost as prophets and oracles. They are the only ones that can teach others the Bible, and we must follow them
closely.

So all the words are there, some in different places, and it would take some cutting and pasting to produce the exact same sentence in the quote you found. But that quote does not manipulate the meaning of Furuli's quotes, so I suspect they may have easily once existed in the Introduction (or another place?) as you quoted them. Or the site was very sloppy. Either way, what Furuli actually said sounds very similar, overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arauna Exactly. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but they have been teaching in some schools that a man being with a man and a woman being with a woman is okay. A while back, I posted a video of a girl defending what the Bible says, but she was shut down and was put in the wrong for it. Around the US, there has been some schools that ban the usage of Bible verses, and consider the Bible as hate speech, or you have the system manipulate God's Word being making it seem as homosexuality is okay, in some instances, there is also drag-queen involvement in some learning institutions and or gatherings. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the media whereas they push the notion of pornography to children, as is with brazen conduct, which is accepted in today's world.

That being said, there are people out there who are skeptical about higher education, for the notion that this view is exclusive to the Jehovah's Witnesses is false, there are people out there with Spider-Sense level of concern when it comes to the education that their kids are getting, and often times opt for Homeschooling, and or simply sending their child to learn a trade instead.

That is also agreeable, the parents should know what their kid is learning, also, what their kids are doing (i.e. a parent would not know that the teacher put their Son in a dress and painted his fingernails with polish).

For the last bit it is a both of a yes and no. They do include ideas that would mold a child into becoming an atheist. Other times, if it is known of what the child's faith is, they can often try to mold the child to think some things in the school system is okay for God, or they test the child's faith by other means. In my case, I recall when I was younger, the teacher used the other children to push be into partaking pagan practices, even using emotion and the like, but such event I resisted. But now that is mentioned, granted for anyone they've mold, the other children and or teens can become somewhat of an opposition.

I mentioned on here before, to which to Srecko laughed at it, to help the children. In order to help, we must teach them the right way, and even stated if we can teach them about strangers, how to resolve conflicts, we can teach them about sex. To 4Jah2me's credit regarding child abuse, main thing that predators are happy about and seem to always be successful in their crimes is the fact that the child has no knowledge of sex, no knowledge when it comes to strangers, as is with no knowledge of knowing the dangers regarding child abuse thus it is stated that predators find such a person an easy victim. The schools will not teach the children this, so to prevent more bad deeds, we start by teaching, doing the best we can with solutions, and in my experience, this helped A LOT, in turn, I thank the communities and people I know who put this into application!

That is why I love this saying "For each, Teach One, Reach One" it is a very basic thing to do, but less people seems to be doing it, let alone promote it.

That being said, putting 100% confidence in the education system, even higher, can reap consequence. Essentially, higher education is like a bumpy road. The path is ahead, however, the more bumps you stumble upon, eventually your car would end up on the side of the road or broken down. An observant driver would do everything to stay on the road, but a distracted driver would succumb to the consequence of his or her car breaking down somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matthew9969 said:

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.

Changes start with the people should they apply these changes, mainly in regards to the solution of teaching. Otherwise there will always be problems, if people do not even read what is presented in front of them and or what is natural for them to do. This goes for, practically the majority of the US, as can be seen in this Pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Arauna said:

They are sexualizing young children in school.

Not in the schools in my area! And I have worked in several, as well as having had my own young children go through the school system. You must have been in a badly performing setting if that was going on. I hope you reported your concerns to senior teachers or the education authorities as this would be a serious safeguarding issue.

35 minutes ago, Arauna said:

It is part of population control.  Teach young kids that deviant sex is ok so they do not produce children..... and most important of all make them into atheists so they have no conscience.

Again, children are supposed to taught about sex and relationships in an age appropriate way (I'll bite my tongue about certain inappropriate subject matter being discussed during WT studies in front of young children at the KH), and if a school is teaching young children about more adult sexual themes, then it's a safeguarding matter and should be reported.

Anyway, we're way off topic, but your alarming comments needed addressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several of the anecdotes that Furuli offers are exactly the type of anecdotes that have stuck with me over the years.

Just a few days ago, I related the story about how my father, an elder, was giving a talk at a circuit assembly with the theme: "The time left is reduced." During this time period, assembly speakers had used a large visual aid with the number of months left to 1975. My father gave the talk according to the outline but as a reminder to always stay balanced he added a quick reference Matthew 24:36: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."

The District Overseer took my father aside (after the day's session), in front of the Circuit Overseer to counsel him for adding that scripture. The Watchtower had recently warned against using this scripture in a way that might appear to reduce the enthusiasm over 1975.

Furuli gives a similar example:

An Italian brother with a great knowledge of the Bible and related
subjects told me that he gave a public lecture in his congregation. After the
talk, two elders approached him and gave him credit for some details he
had discussed that were new to them. But they also reprimanded him
because he had quoted two scriptures that were not found in the printed
outline of the talk. ''We must not add anything to the material that comes
from the slave," were their words. This situation shows that many Witnesses
today view the eight men in the GB almost as prophets and oracles. They
are the only ones that can teach others the Bible, and we must follow them
closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because no one can call the members of the GB to
account, they have been able to lead the organization in the direction of
their choice-they have formed the organization into their own image.
The present organizational structure, where the members of the GB
believe that they have both the obligation and the right to be a government
for Jehovah's Witnesses, has created great problems.

Mr Rook and I have said such things so many times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

the book gives evidence of rushed last-minute organization and some sloppy editing. There is a lot of unnecessary repetition, and a couple of mistakes and typos.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

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 :)) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

There is also the notion of philosophies that can prove damaging to those in the education system, as with other things being pushed on to the children early on, well into Tech school or College years. Outside of that, there is the moral aspect of things, for I recall, a friend of mine, also a Bible reading minister, often complained about Rutgers University and Princeton University. He's usually points out that, to quote him "Colleges are places that Christians must be very careful with". He tends to go a bit explicit of what he is pushing. Another incident, although the person is not a religious person, let's just say because of this girl being a victim into being introduced to brazen conduct, her parents did not take it too well; the shock of her Father was that of someone falling off of their chair, or passing out in shock kind of thing. Who wouldn't be should they discover their son or daughter in an explicit fashion in a college setting? Likewise, as I said in the past here, the specific cultures within the domain of higher education caused suicide due to pressure.

I agree of course. The thing to "note" is, when did higher education "guarantee" success? I believe former members seem to fail on that one notion. They like to think, having a diploma from a higher institution makes them prominent. It doesn't of course.

Life is what you make of it. With god's help, that life, leads to a better road. That is Furuli's opinion. Spiritual along with secular wisdom. If someone taught that, it was Jesus since he didn't have formal education, but he went toe to toe with the best of the best at that time, including Pontius Pilate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

''We must not add anything to the material that comes
from the slave," were their words.

This is epic statement :)) Very Biblical in fact .... they reading Deuteronomy and Revelation book to much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

he Watchtower had recently warned against using this scripture in a way that might appear to reduce the enthusiasm over 1975.

Wasn't that enthusiasm explained in the 1974 magazine that no former or current witness wants to show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Several of the anecdotes that Furuli offers are exactly the type of anecdotes that have stuck with me over the years.

Just a few days ago, I related the story about how my father, an elder, was giving a talk at a circuit assembly with the theme: "The time left is reduced." During this time period, assembly speakers had used a large visual aid with the number of months left to 1975. My father gave the talk according to the outline but as a reminder to always stay balanced he added a quick reference Matthew 24:42, "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."

The District Overseer took my father aside, in front of the Circuit Overseer to counsel him for adding that scripture. The Watchtower had recently warned against using this scripture in a way that might appear to reduce the enthusiasm over 1975.

Furuli gives a similar example:

An Italian brother with a great knowledge of the Bible and related
subjects told me that he gave a public lecture in his congregation. After the
talk, two elders approached him and gave him credit for some details he
had discussed that were new to them. But they also reprimanded him
because he had quoted two scriptures that were not found in the printed
outline of the talk. ''We must not add anything to the material that comes
from the slave," were their words. This situation shows that many Witnesses
today view the eight men in the GB almost as prophets and oracles. They
are the only ones that can teach others the Bible, and we must follow them
closely.

Thank you @JW Insider   This gets better every minute. 

A complete lack of spirituality shown in both instances. 

But @Space Merchant might question the use of the large visual aid with the number of months left to 1975. He seems to think that JW Org didn't 'predict' it as Armageddon.

  39 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

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.

I think it would take all congregants to leave the CCJW completely and certainly to stop all contributions. 

But I think all congregants (once lock down has ended) should stop attending Kingdom Hall meetings. They would do better for themselves to pray directly to God through Christ to ask for the CCJW to be completely cleansed and for a true Anointed to be set in place to act as Servants to the Org, not dictators of it. 

Perhaps God is waiting for such things to happen. Perhaps God wants to see the seriousness and wholehearted dedication from HIS people. I would imagine what God can see right now is the congregants 'turning a blind eye' to many sins within the CCJW and just using it as a social club. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote ' The thing to "note" is, when did higher education "guarantee" success? '

BUT the GB quite happily use Lawyers in many court cases. They would have had higher education. 

And i would imagine that many of the 'top brass' in HQ / Bethel had more than a basic education. 

Who did the planning for that massive building project at Warwick ?

But TTH rabbits on and so does Aurana, both totally unbalanced on the subject.  It is a matter of balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

BUT the GB quite happily use Lawyers in many court cases. They would have had higher education. 

Many JW's have higher education on their sleeve. It is only those that think a higher education would have mattered in their lives that usually get a rude awakening. Even with higher education, you need to prove your worth, if not, you are not accepted by not getting a diploma.

As for 1975. I don't know why JWinsider brings it up since it was proven when everyone was made aware of the gossip that was going around at that time. I'm disheartened though, that his father was counseled by a DO. That shouldn't have happened since the District Assembly "theme" of 1974 was just about that. Matthew 24.

*** w74 10/15 p. 635 Growing in Appreciation for the “Divine Purpose” ***

The publications of Jehovah’s witnesses have shown that, according to Bible chronology, it appears that 6,000 years of man’s existence will be completed in the mid-1970’s. But these publications have never said that the world’s end would come then. Nevertheless, there has been considerable individual speculation on the matter. So the assembly presentation “Why We Have Not Been Told ‘That Day and Hour’” was very timely. It emphasized that we do not know the exact time when God will bring the end. All we know is that the end will come within the generation that sees fulfilled on it the sign that Jesus Christ said would then be in evidence. (See Matthew chapters 24, 25.) All indications are that the fulfillment of this sign began in 1914. So we can be confident that the end is near; we do not have the slightest doubt that God will bring it about, the speaker stressed. But we have to wait and see exactly when, in the meantime keeping busy in God’s service.

 

For this reason no witness should be concerned as to how the world thinks about misinformation perpetrated by former members. This one single article disproves it all the speculation by those that were enthusiastic.

The better counsel came from Fred Franz, stay silent and keep awake. I heard him say that many times. To, DO's CO's pioneers, Missionaries, etc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

AlanF

Sorry. My bad.

What I loved best about one of Tom Harley’s books—they’re all so good—is his recall of a squabble between you and he over a child abuse video. He was favoring the ‘Protect Your Children’ video of Jehovah’s Witnesses and you were skewering it for not dealing the the possibility that mommy and daddy might be the abusers. You favored a video from the Sinatra foundation, featuring circled areas of a child’s body which were no-touch zones, suggesting both that a child wouldn’t know its ass from its elbow, and also that it would mentally consult the diagram in order to determine whether it felt bad about a touch or not. 

I remember how Tom pointed out how the JW video spoke of a child having a conscience, and in fact, it did deal indirectly with your scenario, as one of the parents said ‘Let no one touch you inappropriately’—whereas the agency video specifically said that it was okay for a doctor to touch private places. ‘Ask the young women of the U.S. Olympic team which video they think would have better protected them,’ he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but only to those that don't wish to accept the truth even though they are reading it. The most profound proof was with those that attended and heard the program in the 1974 District Assembly. The lack of proof comes from those that continue to promote a false claim. Something modern witnesses don't care about. However, when it would come out in the field service, demonstrating to skeptics with that article became a sobering moment to those that had accepted such misleading watchtower history. Something that is now being promoted against Dr. Furuli. Therefore, whatever article you read from 1966-1973, the perspective was with the 6000 years, not the claimed end of the world. However, anyone with reading abilities can make up their own mind. The article of 1974 was set to put to a stop about a false rumors and speculations by a very small percentage of eager witnesses or bible students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Yes, the speculation, there were several misinformed witnesses that didn't understand what the 6000 years meant. Why continue to promote a false narrative, when the 1974 article speaks volumes to honest witnesses.

Yet, the Watchtower had to remind everyone again, in 1975. The District Assembly of 1974, drew the points home. If you attended that assembly, you would have direct knowledge of what speculations were in the air, and why Fred had to mention, Don't speculate. 

Perhaps you are also misunderstanding Furuli's new book if you have aquired one. Therefore, the Watchtower was promoting the 6000 years in the mid-1970's not a false hope that continues to be a false talking point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Anna said:

Although people back then were much more savage, had no qualms about lopping someone's head off, they were also God fearing, albeit misguided.

Even from Genesis times, the kings think nothing of killing someone, but they will not disregard the institution of marriage. 

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

Have to go, got the second return visit on on ZOOM, whooho!

If the Lord could only see you now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ann O'Maly It is a slow push in the schools, and on the other side of the spectrum, you have the other items being pushed on to the children, as is what is mentioned previously. That being said, the whole "putting a boy in a dress" concept is jarring, more so, what is being shown nowadays in regards to teaching things the Bible deems not okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anna said:

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".

I started to agree until this part. Subjects cannot help when governments intervene. A good example of such intervention was the imprisonment of Rutherford and his directors. There was absolutely nothing anyone could have done since the Catholics had full support of the government. The same thing could be experienced in modern or future time. 

Jesus didn't define himself by the apostles, yet the apostles needed to be defined by Jesus. What witnesses need to understand is not just what support, but what unity means as a whole to Christ body. I believe,

    Hello guest!
10I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Brings the most appealing substance to reflect on. Furuli's book echoes such reflection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Anna said:

My hubby and I have started watching a period drama set in 9th century England.

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.

    Hello guest!
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.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

Where I am going with this is that I can see a parallel with the FDS.

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 fr