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

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is a far more daunting task than it first appears to do it yourself, because you tend to read, not what is there, but what you recall being there.

So true. I send off posts here that I don't always look at again until someone quotes from them to respond. (It's always the part they quoted that had the typos.) Then I look back and find half a dozen more typos in some of my own posts that I missed on the first reading. Yet, typos in someone else's posts just sort of jump out.

 

[Arauna]

21 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And I have worked

Those words are the key - past tense. All new sillabuses now teach absolutely shocking things which is downright pornea. It also depends on the school board and the state. 

The new sex education is pushed by the UN together with atheism.

In UK the Muslims were up in arms and demonstrated in front of schools.  The school was cordoned off and they were not allowed near the campus. High court intervention.

I have seen local school meetings in USA where parents have tried to stand up for morals...... it is getting harder and harder. Most parents are not aware because the children do these courses online.

20 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

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

I do keep up with what is going on at universities and schools. And what is going on is shocking!  No freedom of thought or speech. I would not like to be student on campus now where common sense is no longer accepted and one has to deal with militant atheists, pro-abortionists,  militant LGBTQ and ANTIFA hooligans thrown in the mix.

16 hours ago, César Chávez said:

were several misinformed witnesses that didn't understand what the 6000 years

I totally agree. I was in Africa at the time and in the truth for two years. It seems some people here push one narrative and others another. It is a matter of perception and who you knew at the time.... and the tales.

PLEASE ASK YOURSELF THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 

It may come as a shock to you all..... but how will we keep unity in the faith (one message) if anyone can stand on the stage and add scriptures and give their own interpretations? 

There must be some measurng stick? At home one can speculate, or speculate with all your friends.... but in a public space .... stick to the outline.... is this not better?

We have a lot of freedom..... to speak..... why must one push your own visions on stage?  That is exactly how the 1975 saga ran away with itself and got extra legs!

I am always chatting and speculating with friends.... but we should be aware that we can push ourselves too much!  Knowledge puffs up  - but love builds up. 1 cor 8:1....  Stick to the love part then one can never go wrong!

If you do not agree with my question, then please give a solution and not just critisize!  It is easy to critisize if you do not have a workable solution.

 

[Arauna]

35 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

is a sign of the ebook times

Editors get involved with a printed book and then the printing process itself gets 4 proofs which are read and re-read and corrections made. ( I worked as a publicist for many years).  It is truly a blessing to have different eyes on a paper. 

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

me this is a dictatorship

As I said before- you throw this word around like candy. Mr Feruli himself agrees that all the core teachings are correct..... The ones I think of is the teaching of mortality of the soul, the name jehovah, jesus who really died for our sins, we are no longer under mosaic law, the kingdom government, the preaching work,..... and much more. We have an abundance of spiritual food, videos, movies, songs and videos for the young ones! 

Why MUST some people have a platform to prove themselves!  It comes from ego and ambition!   Some are never thankful and count their blessings! The glass is half empty if they cannot have a "spiritual " say......

The core teachings are there! So what can you add?

[TrueTomHarley]

37 minutes ago, Arauna said:

It may come as a shock to you all..... but how will we keep unity in the faith (one message) if anyone can stand on the stage and add scriptures and give their own interpretations? 

I do agree with this. For several years running I was called upon to give talks in the District Convention. Most of them were family-oriented talks that you looked for a brother with a family to give, even if he wasn’t pioneering, which I wasn’t. They ceased after I turned one down, facing a perfect storm of calamities at the time. During that time, I might cook up my own illustrations, but I would never dream of adding my own scriptures. I knew it was not me that everyone had come to hear.

On the school talks that I give now, sometimes I take small liberties—seldom reading extra verses, but sometimes incorporating excerpts in passing. It is all clearly within the pattern of the fine words, done sparingly, and nobody makes a fuss over it. One conductor, though, observed: “You actually didn’t address the theme of the talk” “Oh—I changed that,” I said, and so unexpected was the reply that he almost fell over himself laughing. This was not “adding to doctrine,” or anything—don’t misunderstand—it was merely adding a personal touch to a student talk and everyone understood that. 

I gave a funeral talk in another congregation where one elder, a fine man but known to be a stickler, asked if I was using the Society’s outline, and I said that I wasn’t. He was most concerned because I was neither an elder nor servant, and I hadn’t even known up front whether I would be permitted to give the talk, only the widow had requested me—her husband had been my best man and we had always remained close. After the talk, though, he was content and made no waves. The talk did all that a funeral talk should, plus was personalized as only a best friend might do.

So there might be a few instances where you are the speaker and people wonder how you will handle this or that small part. But they would clearly end at the circuit level, and even at the congregation level, you would be very sparing of what was personal.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

I find your analogy funny as well. If the 6000 years failed to resonate with former members, what makes them think they can comprehend the overlapping generation. I believe the argument can be better understood with a time frame expansion that can define 1914.

The problem is, people got so used to criticizing dates, and when those arguments were debunked, they are now irate and uncontrollable.

We do not debate about former and/or actual members. We speaking about what  periods in WT bring members specific understanding on particular subject. And how wrong they all are. Periodical "adjustments and clarification" of doctrines is not triggered by former members but by actual leadership about those, particular periods in organization's history aka teachings.  

It does not of any matter how this conversation resonate in me, but how that same things resonate with actual members. Because many of you who are actual members have very good chance to become former members, PIMO, POMI and other versions. 

[Ann O'Maly]

25 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Those words are the key - past tense.

I have worked in different schools and currently work in a school.

27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

All new sillabuses now teach absolutely shocking things which is downright pornea.

Are you an educational consultant to know that all new syllabi teach young children 'porneia'? Or have you seized on a couple of sensationalist headlines to form a generalized opinion about what you imagine is going on?

[Arauna]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

there might be a few instances where you are the speaker and people wonder how you will handle

I agree that there are times we step up to the plate..... when needed. 

I also do not like it when some brothers act as though they are the sole self-appointed guardians of the truth, always correcting others...... this again is also out of balance.  This is also self-importance and ego at work.

[Arauna]

3 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Or have you seized on a couple of sensationalist headlines to form

I follow what the UN is doing. There are some counties where it has not been implemented. Which ages do you teach?  

[Srecko Sostar]

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I do agree with this. For several years running I was called upon to give talks in the District Convention. Most of them were family-oriented talks that you looked for a brother with a family to give, even if he wasn’t pioneering, which I wasn’t. They ceased after I turned one down, facing a perfect storm of calamities at the time. During that time, I might cook up my own illustrations, but I would never dream of adding my own scriptures. I knew it was not me that everyone had come to hear.

On the school talks that I give now, sometimes I take small liberties—seldom reading extra verses, but sometimes incorporating quotes. It is all clearly within the pattern of the fine words, and nobody makes a fuss over it. One conductor, though, observed: “You actually didn’t address the theme of the talk” “Oh—I changed that,” I said, and so unexpected was the reply that he almost fell over himself laughing. This was not “adding to doctrine,” or anything—don’t misunderstand—it was merely adding a personal touch to a student talk and everyone understood that. 

I gave a funeral talk in another congregation where one elder, a fine man but known to be a stickler, asked if I was using the Society’s outline, and I said that I wasn’t. He was most concerned because I was neither an elder nor servant, and I hadn’t even known up front whether I would be permitted to give the talk, only the widow had requested me—her husband had been my best man and we had always remained close. After the talk, though, he was content and made no waves. The talk did all that a funeral talk should, plus was personalized as only a best friend might do.

So there might be a few instances where you are the speaker and people wonder how you will handle this or that small part. But they would clearly end at the circuit level, and even at the congregation level, you would be very sparing of what was personal.

It is interesting how "extra" freedom, you looking for by implementing something out of Organizational box, make you feel happy. 

I encourage You to continue with that. :))

[TrueTomHarley]

26 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I also do not like it when some brothers act as though they are the sole self-appointed guardians of the truth, always correcting others...... this again is also out of balance.  This is also self-importance and ego at work.

There used to be a local speaker in much demand who truly had a gift for speaking. He would twirl the globe he had brought up to the platform, quote Matthew 24:14, “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth” and then put his finger down upon this or that spot representing some local king’s sovereignty: “This good news of the kingdom WILL NOT be preached in MY part of the inhabited earth,” with the air of—who do you think is going to prevail?

He was a great speaker, a good man. But I visited his congregation once when he was conducting the Watchtower. He explained all the questions, and so blatantly ‘over-explained’ everything that I wondered how anyone could stand it. ‘Just ask the questions’ is what you should do, and make your own comments very few. There was no bad motive—he had just become a little full of himself—building upon an obvious talent.

Most often it is something more innocuous. There was another conductor who had some mannerisms—I hate mannerisms!—in fact, that’s where ‘Tom Irregardless’ comes from, he says it so much that I named him that—who would throw in after almost every one of his expressions, words to the effect of ‘That’s helpful, isn’t it?’ Once he announced the dates for the upcoming circuit assembly, and added, ‘that’s helpful, isn’t it?’ ‘I guess it is,” I thought.

It’s people. I love people. These days I find I don’t really like them very much unless they are a little quirky. Sometimes people misunderstand it as ridicule. It’s not. I present it in the spirit of Paul trying to rid himself of a ‘thorn in the flesh’ ‘No way!’ God told him, “I look good when you are a clod, because it is evident that no way could you be doing this on your own.”

[TrueTomHarley]

36 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I will agree with this. With a heavy heart to see, some already have in their hearts.

Well—I mean, big deal. It’s true with anyone. Anyone can go anywhere at any time. It is not that profound of a statement that he makes.

He encourages me to keep venturing “out of the organizational box.” Why? Because he either thinks that by doing so “my eyes will be opened” or someone will lower the boom on me, because “we must walk in lockstep.”

These guys are nuts! They are squirrelly. Because the irresistible bug of being free from all restrictions! bit them, they are convinced it will bite anyone—and they hope with all their hearts that it does.

I know the meaning and value of relative freedoms. Anybody of common sense does. His wet dream may come true of me (or anyone else here) jumping ship, but at present it seems not too likely. I know where my home is, I know when to yield, and I know when to press forward. I have written of it before:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Why MUST some people have a platform to prove themselves!  It comes from ego and ambition!   Some are never thankful and count their blessings! The glass is half empty if they cannot have a "spiritual " say......

The core teachings are there! So what can you add?

Lets look at this statement from @Arauna 

Why MUST some people have a platform to prove themselves! 

I don't know, Why does the GB need to  have a platform to prove themselves

It comes from ego and ambition! Yes JWI has already said this about the GB  

The glass is half empty if they cannot have a "spiritual " say...... The GB are the only ones ALLOWED to have their spiritual say, and quite often it is wrong. 

The core teachings are there! So what can you add? 

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. 

So why can't the GB just stick with those core teachings ? After all, you say what can they add.

BUT the GB constantly add things. And the organisation has constantly changed it's teachings, so they obviously didn't get a lot of 'core teachings' right and probably still don't. 

Would it actually be tooooooo difficult to have KH meetings just to give thanks and praise to God through Christ. Why does the GB & Writing dept, have to dream up rubbish to 'tickle people's ears' ?  

Isn't the Kingdom message the same now as when the Apostles / disciples went out and preached ? 

Isn't God's written word enough to use ? The Apostles didn't have all the Greek scriptures. 

But you and @TrueTomHarley have proved that you don't teach from the Bible, you teach from the GB talk outlines and from the Watchtower...  'Sticking to the outline', Tom said. Proving that your 'faith' is not in God through Christ but in your GB.