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

[TrueTomHarley]

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!

[Srecko Sostar]

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 :)) 

[Srecko Sostar]

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.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

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. 

 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

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. 

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

I presume you have every paper copy of every magazine from 1966 through 1975, to prove your point. 

Other wise you have no proof. That one article proves nothing. The CCJW back track all the time. 

[Top Cat O’Malihan]

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.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

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.

I brought it up because it's one of several places where Furuli's book provides the exact type of anecdote I am familiar with. These types of interactions were evidently memorable and important to Furuli, too.

But you might recall that among Witnesses it started with a basis in the Watch Tower publications. We have all the evidence that the initial speculation and the promotion of that speculation came directly from the publications and later from talking points from Circuit and District Servants (Overseers). Of course, the Watchtower had used the date 1975 to promote speculation about what might likely happen in the mid-1970's, not 1975 specifically.

Individuals, especially Circuit and District Overseers, and evidently FWFranz himself, speculated that this meant 1975 itself was just about the last possible year for Armageddon. Franz' early articles made it clear that, at most, it could only be a matter of weeks or months, but NOT years after October 1975. In other words, F.W.Franz promoted speculation that this system could not go beyond October 1977 because then it really would be "YEARS" after 1975. Mostly circuit and district overseers, those who held themselves out to be very careful readers of what the Society was actually saying here, were pointing out to audiences that if you read very closely, and with discernment, you will see that this is what the Society wants us to realize: That it's VERY unlikely that this system would go even as far as past 1975, or even if it did, it would only be a matter of months past 1975, not years. Therefore, we were supposed to speculate that Armageddon would come in the mid-1970s, not 1975 specifically. But the term "1975" became the shorthand for "mid-1970s" and this speculation about the mid-70s naturally became focused on the specific year 1975. So much so that when 1975 ended, almost all the talk of the mid-1970s ended then, too.

That initial speculation that was promoted at the summer conventions in 1966 was followed up with speakers assigned to promote more speculation at the Circuit Assemblies in 1967. Then the "months, not years" Watchtower came out in 1968, and it was the same Watchtower that indicated it was wrong to use Matthew 24:36 to balance the enthusiasm about 1975/mid-70s. In 1969, it was predicted that young ones should not plan to go to college, and especially not anything like a 4-year college degree because they would not likely finish that degree in this old system. And, of course, it was also predicted that no young ones would every grow old in this system. They definitely would not be able to start a career in this system. By 1973, the publications were praising those who were selling their houses to spend the remaining months in full-time service.

There might have been a few cautionary statements at the beginning, but they died out quickly, and we were told not to "toy" with scriptures that made cautionary statements in 1968. . It was not until 1974 that some of those more cautionary statements came out. My father gave at least one of these Circuit Assembly talks every year from 1967 to about 1972. He used Matthew 24:36 as a cautionary statement, even though he was not supposed to do that, according to the 1968 "months, not years" Watchtower.

By 1974 it was obvious that things were not really going as planned. (Inside Bethel, FWFranz was beginning to talk about 1974 as the likely year, even more likely than 1975) so when 1974 wasn't seeing things happening quickly even FWFranz himself began giving cautionary talks.

An experiment that might tell you something of the timing of these cautionary talks is reflected, I think, in the number of times Matthew 24:42, 24:36 and Mark 13:32 was quoted in the Watchtower:

“Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."

• 1964 ONCE
• 1965 through 1974: ZERO TIMES!!!
• 1975: TWICE
• 1976: ONCE
• 1977: ZERO
• 1978: ONCE
• 1979 - 1993 ZERO

And how about the same for Matthew 24:36:

(Matthew 24:36) (Mark 13:32) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, . . .

• 1965: TWICE
• 1966: ZERO
• 1967: ONCE
• 1968: TWICE (but including the article against using it!) 
• 1969 through 1973: ZERO TIMES!!!
• 1974: ONCE
• 1975: FOUR TIMES!!
• 1976: ZERO
• 1977: ZERO
• 1978: ZERO

Such important scriptures nearly skipped from 1966 to 1974!!! Only brought up again in 1974 and 1975.

[Anna]

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!

 

[TrueTomHarley]

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.

[Space Merchant]

@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.

[JW Insider]

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. Dailyhistory.org says that it . . .

. . . does a very good job at incorporating many cultural elements that would have been contemporary at the time, including those involving the behavior of the characters and types of equipment they had during campaigns. Unlike many earlier historical dramas, this one looks more closely at the historical background of the characters, trying to imbue them in a cultural and historical context that would have been familiar to them but still entertaining to 21st-century viewers.

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 from 70 to 1870, at strategic locations around the world, that  would be 180,000 without even including the thousands mentioned in Acts, and without counting the upwards of 100,000 counted among Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses since 1870. So we dropped anything too specific about that old FDS theory. (I supposed that this old theory that there were always some FDS on earth at any given time, could have also been resolved with 18 overlapping centenarians.)

9 hours ago, Anna said:

Is the GB like Moses? No, the greater Moses was Jesus.

Good point. In fact, strictly speaking, Jesus is the only governor of the household of faith, or God's house. (Hebrews 3:5-8, 1 Peter 2:4-10) Of course, I don't wish to pile on with my own FDS view again, since we've discussed it ad nauseum, and in this case I would only be saying most of what Furuli is now saying. This should probably be a good time for those who wish, to look for ways to rebut Furuli's specific perspectives. 

9 hours ago, Anna said:

But on the whole Jehovah's Witnesses have managed to remain as close to the 1st Century Christian congregation as humanly possible.

I've often said the same thing here about how we try to be the best at fitting the first century congregation into a 21st century environment. It appears we are successful. But, as you imply, what if the one thing that makes us think we have the first century situation in hand is that we have what we think of as modern-day apostles? And what if we should not? It's so hard to imagine the organization or any religious organization without effective leadership, especially to help guide a worldwide preaching activity. I admit that it's hard to imagine any kind of religion our size without apostle-like figures who are probably looked up to by those around them as if they are the Paul, the Apollos, the Cephas, and the James of our day.

Is Jesus looking for a worldwide congregation where somehow all the teaching is already handled through the obvious content of the scriptures, and those taking the lead in each individual congregation are only taking the lead in teaching by example, offering encouragement, binding up the brokenhearted, doing good and charitable works, feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, showing hospitality? Even if this were the case, congregations become complex, and there is always someone with an idea toward a new doctrine, or who wants his ego stroked by getting people to support his side, making the biggest decisions. Also, we know that many of the world's religions have devolved into social clubs on the one hand with doctrines as loose as boats without rudders in a stormy sea. On the other hand some are so fundamentally rigid in their beliefs that doctrinal discussion can result in violence. It seems that a "true religion" even today, requires human leadership of an apostle-like variety. Is this just a lack of faith in what could be a solution that matches Jesus' words: None of you shall be called Leaders (much less, a Body of Governors) for one is your Leader, and all of you are brothers. Is it possible for everyone is a large religion to all treat everyone as superior to themselves. (Furuli praises a visit from F.W.Franz where his wife met him and thought he treated her as superior to himself.)

(Philippians 2:1-4) . . .If, then, there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any spiritual fellowship, if any tender affection and compassion, 2 make my joy full by being of the same mind and having the same love, being completely united, having the one thought in mind. 3 Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you, 4 as you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others.

After a few years in Bethel and among elders and publishers of many different responsibilities and positions, I find it nearly impossible to imagine a unity (being of the same mind and having the same love, being completely united) where even the Governing Body consider you and me and Tom and Furuli and Melinda and Allen superior to them in all humility. Perhaps I don't have the faith that something like this is workable.