Jump to content
The World News Media

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


Ann O'Maly

Recommended Posts


  • Views 29.6k
  • Replies 692
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 Fur

In this world nothing is perfect because humans tend to overstep boundaries - even Moses did so. But if we are really prepared to give our life for another (spirit of christ), then reading our bi

If it was JWI, you’d still be reading it.  Because that “merely” is a pretty big merely.  What if my roof caves in tomorrow and I decide it’s God’s fault? What if I park on the Kingdom H

Posted Images

  • Member
11 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Hm. Do you find "putting girls in pants" jarring? Do kilt-wearing Scotsmen and men in kimonos disturb you too? 

Unfortunately you missed the point, Ann, sadly for you, the term in question has nothing to do with the realm of modesty and or culture (granted you are a few months late of said subject). The term itself derives of the shifting of a male's mentality to the opposite sex, molding them, likewise with girls. Even going as far as to alter and or change the reproduction system, which is on the extreme end (Srecko knows what I am talking about, hence is wild remark in the past).

The term "putting a boy in a dress" in detail means to make it okay for males to dress up as girls and or women, even encouraging that boys can date and or have a mate that is of the same sex. This idea is prompted in most schools and pushed in media, such as books, games, what have you, i.e. Vogue educating children on brazen conduct such as sodomy and other gross practices. This term and it's terminology is not supported by all, hence why parents have and will continue to take action, sometimes in a confronting fashion. Moreover, this new ideology in society is prompted heavily and evidently, you will have, no scratch that, you have dozens upon dozens of "Desmonds" running around.

That being said, now that you understand what is being conveyed, tell me, does this disturb you?

Now, hence the term, it is jarring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

The CORE TEACHINGS have always been there in God's written word. @Space Merchant has the core teachings and he is not a JW.  The GB did not invent those core teachings. 

If you believe this as such is both odd and confusing granted in disagreement with several said core teachings from God's Word (i.e. you had recently judged everyone as guilty without even knowing them, their background, etc. that logic of yours is akin to some Americans think all police officers are guilty, as of recent events, when THAT isn't the case - hence the latter remark is befitting), more so, several verses in some of your other responses to which I made comment to reveals the correctness of what is incorrect by sheer misguidance.

That being said, you've now stumble upon your own realm of contradiction which correlates with your other responses. Also regarding the other, is somewhat Restorationist, hence the latter being correct in this sense.

Also you bring up information from our last disccussion:

On 5/26/2020 at 4:44 PM, 4Jah2me said:

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.

You stated elsewhere that they said it, mind quoting it please? Because as of what I said a year or two ago, there is an ExJW, who was deem a media martyr, in this sense, who says otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 5/26/2020 at 12:16 AM, JW Insider said:

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.

I am wondering what he thinks he is going to achieve with his book. I think some of us have had similar ideas to him, but were we thinking of publishing a book about it? Who does he think his audience is going to be? As soon as any Witness gets an inkling of apostasy, no matter how highly thought of he is, or whether he was a circuit overseer or not,  they will likely not read it. The only people that will probably read it are apostates, those hovering on the edge, or scholars like you and me on here 😂. So a very limited audience. (Look at Tom, he writes good books, they are not controversial (only a little bit) but because of his limited audience he will never make a living with them). I mean does he think he will change anything? For that to happen, every Witness would have to write a letter, as somebody on here already suggested. That is the only way anyone at HQ will listen. Interestingly, a few weeks ago in service I was talking to new couple from our hall (it was before the pandemic). They are from up north, both having HQ connections. Anyway, the conversation turned to the recent restructuring and re-organizing and the selling of KH. Since they were close to all kinds of information I though I would ask them about all this merging and sell offs. I knew that "equalizing" was not the only  reason. They gave the usual reasons like some halls were not being used to full capacity, thereby money was being wasted etc. So I asked them how come halls were not at full capacity? The husband said that people move etc. however, the wife came out with something interesting, and I was surprised she even said it. She said that there are quite a lot who have left. I asked her to clarify and she said; left the truth. I told her that I was sure part of the reason was that people are finding out things they would have never learned before the days of the Internet. They both agreed and we left it there. I don't think any of us wanted to carry on the conversation....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Binged two seasons last year.

Well that's what we are doing right now. Just finishing season 2.

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:
22 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.

I think you may have misunderstood me. My fault probably. I wasn't thinking of the anointed or FDS through the ages, but of the FDS in modern times. I was thinking of the "power" the old and new set of GB/FDS have which could be compared to the king. The current GB/FDS "rule" over more than 8 million people.  In anything they do, they, like the king, have God's backing. If anyone speaks against them, it's like speaking against God. This has been said many times in our publications, of course not in these words.

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Jesus is the only governor of the household of faith, or God's house. (Hebrews 3:5-8, 1 Peter 2:4-10)

Yes, of course. And whenever this is discussed, the GB tries to make sure that this is understood. But then on the other hand, when there is talk of "God's visible" organization, the GB are at the forefront of that organization. It's like no one really knows where to draw the line, and I think that's the crux of the problem.

You kind of address it here:

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

And you further address the dilemma here (bold mine)

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

So what's the solution? A book?? 😁 (I don't think so. Although I must admit I am looking forward to reading it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

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?

Thank you for putting it all in colour. It looks pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Anna said:

Look at Tom, he writes good books, they are not controversial (only a little bit) but because of his limited audience he will never make a living with them

Says you. Look closely at the drawing in next week’s Watchtower on materialism—the drawing of the prideful brother thumbing his chest with one hand and motioning to his riches with the other—fine large home, boat almost at large, sports car, stacks of bills. Look closely at the face and tell me if you recognize him.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I thought I would ask them about all this merging and sell offs.

At the coffee shop a fellow customer began ribbing me about the nearby closed Kingdom Hall. “It’s because of our great growth!” I told him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

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:


However, after carefully reviewing the matter, the Governing Body has
determined that administering such a transfusion


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 ...

 

The question I raise has more substance:

As far as I know, no brother who works as a nurse or doctor and who administers blood sporadically and following the instructions of a superior has to face any judicial committee.

Along the same lines, no one who sells products with blood - or tobacco - from time to time in a supermarket that is not of his property, necessarily loses the status of "good reputation" or of being a "good example".

The nuances that can emerge from the two examples I just cited are innumerable. But Furuli mentions a certain letter where there is no nuance: according to the letter, the witnesses should no longer behave according to their conscience in these matters, it is black or white.

So, the advice that I (and all the elders that I know) are giving, and the way to approach these situations that I raise, do not follow the instructions of that "unknown" letter.

I have the impression, from the phraseology of the letter that Furuli cites ("the Governing Body has decided") that he has collected the information from a site that seeks to discredit us. In fact, Furuli adds in a footnote on page 11:

4. This new policy was also communicated to the congregation members.

In other words, that apart from the elders, another instruction has been read to the entire congregation: well, no idea about this. I ask: do any witnesses to this forum remember if two years ago this new instruction was read at a meeting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

do any witnesses to this forum remember if two years ago this new instruction was read at a meeting?

No. I don't. But I called up an elder who would know. I thought. He didn't. I called another.  I called my father (elder, but never on HLC).

Two out of three say that the "official" position was that it is still a matter of conscience. One says he heard about a letter that he has not seen, but which was supposed to be read, not sent, to specific Witnesses who were employed in hospitals, especially nurses. He says he knows of a nurse who ended up disassociating over it. He suspects that it became a potential legal nightmare and the "project" [his word] was never completed.

I have the impression that if there ever was a letter, it was not supposed to be seen or read in the congregations. There is too much of a chance that it would end up in a court after some potential "snafu" with a JW nurse that ended up in the death of a patient.

If true, this would actually be worse. I'm having trouble believing it, too. But there have been parallels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, AveragePub said:

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!

Ok, one side of logic triggered next question: Why WT doing the same, writing and publishing books (Bibles and tracts, magazines, brochures) ?

Because they also know how Jesus is aware of everything that is going on Earth, not only in this or that organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Even going as far as to alter and or change the reproduction system, which is on the extreme end (Srecko knows what I am talking about, hence is wild remark in the past).

@Ann O'Maly My memory is very short, sometimes, but i recall how i put in focus facts how some life forms on this planet changing sex in their life time. And that is happening as normal part of their characteristic and gens. When people talking about who created life on Earth, according to Bible answer is God. Well, God created some animals in such format to be able to change sex. 

Changing of sex inside human species is complicated issue. And question is, why would some person wish to do that when many other don't wish that.

Space Merchant have issue with science who discovered how some animal species have changing sex ability. Or, he have issue with God who created such ability for some life forms?  

And now we can expect how Mr Space will copy paste and link all my past conversation with Him. God, please save us from "enormous text attack".  :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • DL2APR60

      DL2APR60 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Leonard Whitley

      Leonard Whitley 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jpl

      jpl 20

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.