Furuli's new book: Is any of it right? Useful? Like Franz?

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The Librarian, that ol. . . . . , (Wait, now you've got me saying it, TTH).

I wouldn’t exactly call it the pure language, but I am glad to see that it is catching on.

Just a heads-up, JWI, in case Allen comes around trying to impress you with his diploma from Bible 101. It is genuine, but not earned in the traditional way. He argued so unceasingly with the results of every test, quiz, term paper, and lab project, that we finally gave him a diploma just to get him out of our hair.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Why can't you just accept the man as an individual ? He is just as entitled to an individual opinion as anyone else is.

I think you have tried to group me with those who think R.Franz was all bad. I think that R.Franz was also "right" and "useful" in several ways, but I also think he was too weak or passive to stand up for what he was learning to be right. I had thought he might have come to realize some of these things after leaving, but he admits to not having the confidence to stand up to F.Franz, the conservative "guardian of doctrine" in those days. He should have seen the ongoing problems of the "two witness rule" and that scripture did not treat is as so all-encompassing. I don't mean to go off on a CSA tangent but some of that is on R.Franz, for promoting the two-witness rule. He knew things were wrong and didn't kick up much of a fuss. He admits to having learned that the WT was wrong on 607, and therefore wrong on 1914, and therefore wrong about the "parousia" and "generation" theory. I think he bears some responsibility for just allowing the status quo to go on and create the mess it did on that "generation" topic for several more decades. 

But the point is that even the WTS saw some usefulness and things that were right in the book that R.Franz wrote. They changed some things that he had exposed. A person can be partly right and partly wrong, but it doesn't mean their concerns are not useful.

With Furuli, I agree that it's not fair to try to group him with others. But the comparison is very interesting to me because I think I know Furuli's thinking pretty well from reading a lot of his books and even having some back-and-forth with him on academic sites many years ago. And I heard the equivalent of about 70 15-minute talks by Ray Franz at the Bethel morning text over a 3.5 year period. (Don't tell Kosonen, but that's 1,260 days.)

To me, Furuli, like Franz, have some good points and some bad points. (I mean, who really needs to go back to the old 49,000 years of creative days?) But I'm not playing fair if I say that Furuli must have been very thoughtful and useful with his critique of "GB=FDS" just because I agree with him on that, but that he must still be stuck on the weak and beggarly things if he can't get over 607 BCE and the 49,000 years.

So anything I can grasp at to understand his current mindset is of interest to me.

 

[Matthew9969]

48 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Perhaps a possible explanation for the Franz / Furuli similarities is that both situations, the time of Franz and the present, share the same problems.

I see a tension, an opposite force, between wanting to have a united, harmonious organization and allowing greater freedom of conscience and thought. Both extremes I think are bad.

Can you imagine going to a congregation that believes in the trinity, or in hell fire?

At the other extreme, it is a shame it is troublesome to wear a beard, not to wear a tie and that sort of thing.

Wait!!! Jehovah's don't believe in the trinity of the GB, Jesus and Jehovah?

Just kidding:)

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@JW Insider Quote " I think you have tried to group me with those who think R.Franz was all bad."

I don't know if this is a sneaky trick to try to make it look as if I'm grouping you with others, but I have no idea if R. Franz was good or bad, and it never crossed my mind. When i said you discredit Furuli, i meant simply by suggesting he was copying someone rather than having his own opinion. 

However, I still say that you put up three questions, but chose to answer the last question first. 

I have a bad memory but it sort of reminds me of Shakespeare  (I think ) Mark Antony ' I come to bury Caesar not to praise him '.. ............. A bit sly in my opinion. 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Was this before or after he decided to accept the unpublished book of Olof Jonsson?

The understanding of the Elder arrangement and the recognition that there was a lack of evidence for 607 was long before COJ. Remember that the first Aid Book was released in 1969. More of it was done, but it ended at A-E. The entire book A-Z was released in 1971. The research that Franz had to do on Chronology and the Elder arrangement had already been done by 1969.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

What would have been the mindset of Ray if he thought negative about the GB before he was kicked out.

"Mindset" hmmm. Who knows? I don't think anyone ever got the sense that he thought negative about the GB. He took a leave of absense in early 1980 for health reasons. I'm sure it was mostly due to harrassment by a specific member of the GB, but I doubt that he considered that brother to reflect the entire GB, or the "GB arrangement." He was asked to resign from the GB in May 1980. From his book, it appears he was doing the best he could, and still supportive of the Society's arrangements right up until he was disfellowshipped near the end of 1981. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed he said anything about the GB until his own book was published in 1983.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Now I can understand, the negativeness when he was kicked out, so are you saying, you will soon see Furuli disfellowshiped? If he is, it would seem to a thinking person, he will discredit the Watchtower like RAY.

I don't think Ray Franz would have wanted to appeal the DF if he was really negative. Why try to stay in something you don't like?  And personally I don't see it as inevitable that Furuli will be disfellowshiped. If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should then I think that the decision will reach to NY HQ, and they will try to avoid making any news over it. I think that the GB will understand this as a kind of a trap for them. There is the small world of academia, which the GB still rely on now and then for a certain level of credibility. but they will fear what they don't understand very well, and not with to disturb anything there. And, more importantly we are already in a world where a large percent of young JWs do online Google searches, so that his disfellowshiping would also bring unnecessary attention on the very thing they don't want. I'm sure it's preferable to try to let it blow over if it will.

[Witness]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And where else but from trusting the narrative in Ray Franz' first book would Furuli have accepted that Nathan Knorr and Fred Franz were presented with the meaning of the Biblical elder arrangement during the time that the Aid Book was being completed, and how they accepted the change as Scriptural (1970/71).

Interesting.  Which is truly scriptural, the elder arrangement today, or the elimination of the elder arrangement in Rutherford's day?  Is God so fickle that He would approve of both the elimination AND the re-installment of the elder body in the 70's?  Of course, Rutherford wanted total power.  Yet, he refers to scripture to prove his point, just as scripture was used to verify the elder arrangement in 1970-71.  

"Therefore be it resolved that there is no Scriptural authority for the existence of the elective office of elders in the church and that henceforth we will not elect any person to the office of elder; that all of the anointed of God are elders, as that term is defined by the Scriptures, and all are servants of the Most High. . . . A service director who shall be nominated by us and confirmed by the Society’s executive or manager, and which service director shall be a member of the service committee of this company.

"This Resolution was adopted by congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the earth. The announcement in the Watchtower magazine of October 15, 1932, at the end of 2,300 evenings and mornings was the official notification made by Jehovah through his visible channel of communication that his sanctuary of anointed “living stones” had been cleansed, vindicated and justified. It had been restored to its rightful state as regards the elimination of democratically elected “elders” and as regards the theocratic appointing of the congregational overseer. Certainly the twenty-four elderly persons whom the apostle John saw in his heavenly vision crowned and seated on thrones around the throne of the Most High God were not “elders” democratically elected by the congregations on earth below. They were “elders” chosen by the Sovereign of the universe because of their full Christian growth and proved integrity. Certainly, too, the “seven stars” whom John saw upon the right hand of the glorified Jesus Christ and who pictured the “angels” or overseers of the congregations of Jehovah’s anointed sanctuary class were full-grown “elders” chosen and controlled, not by the congregations after the democratic procedure of the seventh world power, but by the Supreme Head of the theocratic organization through Jesus Christ. (Rev. 1:16, 20; 2:1; 4:4, 10, 11) Rightly the remnant of the sanctuary class on earth was brought into accord with this theocratic rule in Jehovah’s due time."

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1959723#h=17

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

This Resolution was adopted by congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the earth. The announcement in the Watchtower magazine of October 15, 1932, at the end of 2,300 evenings and mornings was the official notification made by Jehovah through his visible channel of communication that his sanctuary of anointed “living stones” had been cleansed, vindicated and justified.

Some time around 1971, that prophecy changed from 1932 to 1944. This changed in --you guessed it-- 1971! I'm assuming that Fred Franz had caught the contradiction himself. This is definitely his writing, below (and likely above, too) as he was the only one allowed to define the 2300 evenings and mornings, the 1290, 1335, etc. I never caught this before that the timing was so close to the timing of the elder arrangement being brought back, so that the 2300 days no longer made sense as the time when the elder arrangement was abolished.

*** w71 12/1 pp. 724-725 pars. 27-29 What Its “Right Condition” Means for Us Today ***
When did those 2,300 evenings and mornings begin? By knowing this we can find out when they end and thus when Jehovah’s “holy place” is “brought into its right condition,” or, “shall be restored to its rightful state” . . . At the earliest this was on June 1, 1938, when the official magazine of Jehovah’s anointed remnant of underpriests at His sanctuary, namely, The Watchtower, published Part One of the article entitled “Organization,” so as to state more fully the theocratic requirements for it. When we calculate according to the Jewish lunar calendar that was used at the time of Daniel’s vision centuries before the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar were introduced, June 1, 1938. . .
28 If we thus count from the critical period when theocratic organization was being more fully installed in the congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses, when did the 2,300 days end?
29 Remember, this is a prophetic period. So a prophetic year of 360 days is involved. (Rev. 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14) So 2,300 days would amount to six lunar years, four lunar months and twenty days. That amount of time counted from Sivan 2 (June 1), 1938, would end on Tishri 21 (October 8), 1944, or, counted from Sivan 16 (June 15), 1938, it would end on Heshvan 5 (October 22), 1944. At that particular time world events were moving closer to the bringing of the beastlike Eighth World Power out of the abyss shortly after World War II, this time in the form of the United Nations organization, for world peace and security.

[JW Insider]

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

To whom, members of the Bethel Family?

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved. The understanding of problems with 1914 were known since well before COJ. And yes, by members of the Bethel family, including several persons on the GB, and several in Writing. Also at least one in the Service Dept, who was later transferred to Writing after 1982. I can guess that there were (and are) many more that I didn't know about at the time

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

It appears Furuli and Ray missed the mark when it comes to the presumptive first century governing body the watchtower has focused on.

You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975. There never was a body of "governing" elders involved in real decision-making until after the GB vote in December 1975. And it was Ray Franz' proposal that spear-headed a GB that acted like a council. Like a kind of Sanhedrin. In his book he tries to minimize his involvement in pushing for that decision, but at the time I think he knew his 64-page proposal, if approved, would likely result in a real GB like the one today. And it did, even with the same committee structure he had proposed.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, the Sanhedrin could be the equivalent to a modern governing body regardless who tries to discredit that notion.

There was also the Council of Jamnia that could have taken part in canonizing the Hebrew Bible.

Now the Sanhedrin was composed of either 21 or 24 elders. The point here is, The Pharisees (middle class) and Sadducee's were prominent Jewish leaders.

I think these are all good points. I think it's almost inevitable that a Governing Body of some sort will develop. And if it is scriptural to have a presbytery, or body of elders, in the congregations, then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)

And as the work becomes more international, the most efficient version of the body of elders, is a body of elders who can make decisions appropriate to the logistics and efforts and distribution requirements of a worldwide congregation.

I think what made both R.Franz and R.Furuli uncomfortable is when they realized it didn't work out to their own expectations.

[Witness]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I never caught this before that the timing was so close to the timing of the elder arrangement being brought back, so that the 2300 days no longer made sense as the time when the elder arrangement was abolished.

Good thing these literal, timely "prophesies" are flexible.  

[TrueTomHarley]

Does anyone at any point reflect on how Moses was supplied helpers when the load proved too much for him? Might simply common sense suggest a governing body ought replace a ‘top guy’ as the number and complexity of the brothers increase?

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, Witness said:

Good thing these literal, timely "prophesies" are flexible.  

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).

[JW Insider]

On 6/4/2020 at 10:35 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Does anyone at any point reflect on how Moses was supplied helpers when the load proved too much for him?

(Exodus 18:17-23) ¹⁷ Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. ¹⁸ You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. ¹⁹ Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. ²⁰ You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. ²¹ But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. ²² They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. ²³ If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”

A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.

Also, you might have referred to this case:

*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.

This full situation always reminds me of this:

(Mark 9:38-40) ³⁸ John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” ³⁹ But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. ⁴⁰ For whoever is not against us is for us.