Ann O'Maly

I disagree - as do child abuse prevention agencies.
Also see this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/protecting-children-sexual-abuse/202008/language-matters-child-pornography-no-longer
Now to JTR. We do not know the exact nature of the material or the circumstances leading to his (alleged) possession or viewing of it, and I'm not going to speculate. I will be most interested in the outcome of his future trial, whichever way it goes. I'm sure other members here feel the same. As he was a frequent poster here, that outcome should, imo, be shared on this forum just as his arrest was. There's nothing shameful about posting publicly available, factual information on a person we interacted with and which could help explain his cryptic message and sudden absence, @Thinking. The shame is in being arrested for that crime.
I just hope his family and the (alleged) victims are coping OK because this whole saga must be turning their worlds upside-down. Too often we focus on the accused and forget the other lives upended by this.

I disagree - as do child abuse prevention agencies.
Also see this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/protecting-children-sexual-abuse/202008/language-matters-child-pornography-no-longer
Now to JTR. We do not know the exact nature of the material or the circumstances leading to his (alleged) possession or viewing of it, and I'm not going to speculate. I will be most interested in the outcome of his future trial, whichever way it goes. I'm sure other members here feel the same. As he was a frequent poster here, that outcome should, imo, be shared on this forum just as his arrest was. There's nothing shameful about posting publicly available, factual information on a person we interacted with and which could help explain his cryptic message and sudden absence, @Thinking. The shame is in being arrested for that crime.
I just hope his family and the (alleged) victims are coping OK because this whole saga must be turning their worlds upside-down. Too often we focus on the accused and forget the other lives upended by this.

I disagree - as do child abuse prevention agencies.
Also see this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/protecting-children-sexual-abuse/202008/language-matters-child-pornography-no-longer
Now to JTR. We do not know the exact nature of the material or the circumstances leading to his (alleged) possession or viewing of it, and I'm not going to speculate. I will be most interested in the outcome of his future trial, whichever way it goes. I'm sure other members here feel the same. As he was a frequent poster here, that outcome should, imo, be shared on this forum just as his arrest was. There's nothing shameful about posting publicly available, factual information on a person we interacted with and which could help explain his cryptic message and sudden absence, @Thinking. The shame is in being arrested for that crime.
I just hope his family and the (alleged) victims are coping OK because this whole saga must be turning their worlds upside-down. Too often we focus on the accused and forget the other lives upended by this.

Yes (I remember the  movie, Lindy Chamberlain being excellently portrayed by Meryl Streep). It showed perfectly how people can be whipped up into mass hysteria over something that they have no idea about.....merely assumptions and  prejudice (in this case her religion) this experience and the one you mention of the poor brother, show what a daunting task the elders have in having to  be careful not to wrongly accuse someone. Because as you say, it can destroy lives when the person is actually innocent. It is as if we let out all the feathers in a pillow, and then try to put them back in. 
As for the situation with JTR, nobody that I am aware of passed any judgement on him, not even me, considering I (wrongly) thought he had been convicted.
I know you mean well, but I am not sure what you mean by "started this"? You mean that somebody posted a link* to a probable explanation to his sudden departure from the forum? That’s all I can think of, because nobody expressed any negative or judgemental comments to do with JTR on this thread. On the contrary....
*the information in the link is accessible to the public, anyone can see it.

@Anna I think enough facts have been proven Earthwide against the GB and the CCJW / Watchtower. 
The Two Witness Rule was used as an excuse not to believe Children when they reported CSA to parents and / or Elders. 
I haven't judged JTR and I won't, but everyone has to keep an open mind about everyone else. There are no 'really nice guys or gals'. We are all sinners. Hence I trust no one. The scripture is "Continue putting up with one another.. "  but it doesn't say trust. 
Quote Anna (regarding the Two Witness Rule ) "Not just CSA, but any accusation, to do with anything." 
As I understand it, Brothers and Sisters that have spent the night in the same building together have been accused of sexual misconduct BUT without any witnesses.. I'm sure there was a topic on that. 
All off topic and i hope JTR gets judged fairly and honestly. 

Tom's right. He has been arrested, charged, and released on bail pending trial.
The nature of his felony charges is to do with child pornography.
I've been chatting with someone who knew him and his family personally. I'm not going to discuss details but I will say that, based on what this person claims s/he witnessed, JTR exhibited certain 'red flag' behaviors.

It seems like he saw a storm coming.

It seems like he saw a storm coming.

It seems like he saw a storm coming.

It seems like he saw a storm coming.

It seems like he saw a storm coming.

Quote @Anna Going back to the fear of apostates, it makes me wonder why they (the GB) are so afraid, to the point of putting the fear of God in you if you so much as glance at something apostate related. That has always bothered me a bit. Are they afraid that their influence be undermined? That people will lose trust in them? If that is so, where then does the trust in Jehovah figure? Are we not supposed to trust Jehovah more than any man? 
It is nice to see Anna ask these questions. It shows she has balance.  But :-
Firstly we have to ask. Who is it that decides who is Apostate ?  And then what exactly are they supposed to be Apostate to ?  Some on here now use the word Opposers.  But the question still remains, Who are these ones Opposing ? 
This is where the GB's fear starts.  Note Anna's words above.  Also note the last sentance.
The GB are frightened that congregants will become Apostates of the GB.  
Now, to pretend that they have more information and to pretend they are guided by God the GB do this :-   Once again I quote Anna. 
However, those who follow the developments in the world and read the guidelines as proposed by human agencies (as you mentioned) will know this pandemic is by no means over, and may last a very long time. We don't need the GB telling us what we already know. However, we do appreciate their reminders and concern. But to cloak this in a way that insinuates they have more knowledge, when all they do is follow the same developments that are accessible for anyone else to read and study, is....well, funny
@JW Insider Tries his best to justify it all. But it can be clearly  seen that the GB are using the Covid-19 situation to try to show themselves as above others and as having 'special' information. 
Is Anna the only JW on here that notices these things OR is she the only one acting honestly in this case ?

I see what you are saying, but this is like comparing pumpkins and slippers (Thanks to Arauna for the expression, possibly inspired from Cinderella). You are doing quite the opposite of what it appears that Furuli has been doing. I agree that the narcissism label is fraught with problems. But it is not evidenced in people who admit that they will likely agree with someone on things and disagree on other things and simply not understand one way or another on other things. This is already good evidence that you are NOT a narcissist.
I don't think Furuli is a narcissist simply for writing a book that trashes the current accepted view of the GB. As you probably know, I agree with much of what he says about that same subject. Just as I agree with what Fred Franz said about the subject from a scriptural perspective. And I have long presented my view that the "faithful slave" is a lesson for all of us, not a lesson about a clergy of appointed slaves to serve spiritual food for the good for nothing slave laity.
The idea of narcissism comes from the scholastic dishonesty he has engaged in. And, believe it or not, from my own perspective, I'm giving him a generous rationale for his scholastic dishonesty. If it is based on the inability to see where he has ever been wrong, then this is an explanation for why he cannot deal with evidence that shows he is wrong. A person can engage in scholastic dishonesty without being purposely dishonest in the sense of being devious. A narcissist will create such an extreme bias to protect their own ideology that it produces a mental block against rational handling of counter-arguments and counter-evidence. Extreme bias can make one engage in dishonesty without making them a purposeful liar.
On the topic of 607, this really has nothing to do with whether the date is right, or whether Furuli or anyone else has the doctrine right or wrong. It's simply about his many cases of obvious scholastic dishonesty. Even if he was absolutely right about 607 he still handled the evidence dishonestly.
I agree that it's quite possible I'm wrong. But if it has no overriding mental basis, I'd be inclined to see his past actions as absolute, purposeful, devious dishonesty just to keep his reputation intact. I have to admit that I think he has at times, engaged in this type of dishonesty, too. One time, on a very academic Biblical language forum he said something that was proven to be absolutely false, and he couldn't deny it. He couldn't admit he was wrong, so he claimed that what he wrote had started out as a purposeful presentation of the wrong side, that he had sent without the correction. To me, that was either a mental inability to admit being wrong, or it was purposeful "devious" dishonesty. 
And, as you say, he may be right on many of the points made in this latest book, but many of them continue in this consistent pattern of having promoted a certain ideology, from somewhere around the 1970s, for example, but with the inability to admit that anything that changed after that point had ever have been wrong in the first place.
I'd like to think that this latest book is a complete turning over of a new e-leaf, and I could dismiss the past foibles. Yet, he still wants the creative days to add up to 49,000 years.

I know very well that he did this on his own. I did not link him with others, although I see that he has linked himself with others. Why did you think otherwise?
If you would like to defend him, then you should do that. I try to defend his evidence where he is right, and criticize it where it is wrong. I think his writing has now provided further, consistent evidence that reflects on him personally. Also, in the way he decided to defend himself, he went to great lengths to find evidence against the current structure of the GB, and he has apparently relied on the Gilead graduation speech by Fred Franz and the books of Raymond Franz to do this. I have never said that either of these men were were wrong in their scriptural evaluation of the role of the GB. Raymond Franz said he agreed with the scriptural reasons that Fred Franz had given for avoiding the creation of a GB. But I think R.Franz was inconsistent in his reasoning on this topic, too. But so was Fred Franz. Furuli follows an inconsistent mix that includes inconsistent reasoning from both of them.
If you don't think so, don't just claim it's wrong because of how easy it is impute bad motives to others. Base your argument on evidence from Furuli's writings or what you know about him. I already provided evidence from his own writing, and am willing to provide even more. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
When it comes to evidence that he tried to help the Org move forward, I think he might have ended up with a few good ideas that could be useful. He can point out problems, yet his own solutions are weak (imo). Still, most of his life has also been spent trying to defend the Org in a way that would keep it from moving forward. He wrote a book on Bible translation that praised the old NWT but with points that could be used to fight against the revised NWT. In his book he brings up some of these same points to denigrate the revised NWT. He also spent a lot of time looking for ways to defend a couple of dates that the Watchtower has long made use of to tie Watchtower doctrines to a chronological tradition tied to the Second Adventists of the 1800's. In his book he is still tied to these old traditions. So I don't see him as very progressive or forward-moving. If you do think this is progressive, please give evidence.

I have been very consistent over the years in "putting the man down," especially over the "scholastic dishonesty" in two of his previous books. And I'm not a scholar. Yet his glaring problems have been obvious even to me. Persons who are much better at evaluating Furuli's writing on questionable topics have shown just how obvious these problems were.
If you had read a few more of my posts, you would know that I am constantly concerned about the CCJW, WT.
(1 Corinthians 12:24-26) . . .Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it.
I have never claimed that the CCJW is the equivalent of the entire Christian congregation or "the body," but I believe that, in principle, we should all try to identify a group of Christians to associate with who at least fit our "ideal" of what the first-century Christian congregation should look like in twenty-first century circumstances. You constantly deride that choice for anyone who would stick up for the CCJW, but you have never specifically offered a better choice. There is a time to tear down, and a time to build up per the book of Ecclesiastes. For me that means there should be a balance between what we criticize and what we commend.
Among the brothers and sisters we should spend our time building up (Heb 10:24-25), and I think we should choose carefully those avenues through which we offer criticism. And we should be happy to accept public criticism of our public criticism.
I have to assume that you have found Christian association for upbuilding and encouragement outside of this forum, if I were to judge from the amount of time you spend on negative, critical topics inside this forum.

I believe that when a person reads Furuli carefully they will see evidence for such traits of narcissism. And as long as I am saying this, I think that what came through in the subtext of his books also appealed to persons having similar traits. The persons who had been Furuli's most vocal defenders in the past, like a person named "scholar JW" is an example who has shown the same extreme indifference to the "counsel of evidence." Any correction provided by evidence was always thrown back as if the reputation of the sources of correction needed to be trashed and dishonored for daring to correct them. Examples of this type of reaction to counsel and evidence abound in discussion forums, too. And any and all of us can fall into that trap of pride: (But keep an eye on yourself, for fear you too may be tempted.)
Furuli, for example, didn't like the fact that all the hundreds of Neo-Babylonian scholars, 100 percent of them, told him that he was wrong to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. So he focused on one piece of evidence that clearly shows the 607 date is wrong. And what does he resort to? He trashed the scholars, he trashed the museum curators. He accused them of fraud, even accused unspecified persons of sanding down evidence of the original cuneiform and replacing it with markings that makes it fit their own scheme. (He doesn't bother to point out that this is only one of thousands of pieces of evidence that supports a 587/6 BCE date and that there is still absolutely zero evidence going against that accepted date, Biblical or secular.)
Now moving forward to the present, there is evidence that Furuli was being told he was wrong about "higher education" and that he was wrong to want to stick with "Fred Franz" interpretations when the rest of the GB had already moved on from that. He would have seen the example of "A. Smith" that Brother Splane spoke about at the 2014 Annual Meeting as "counsel" against his own view that hadn't changed. He clearly compared himself to Fred Franz, and wanted to continue that role. If he was a narcissist, then he would have seen the need to trash and dishonor these counselors. And he did! He needed to project back onto them, some of the same traits that he should be able to see in himself, but can't.
Especially in the case where he knows he is about to be "proven" wrong to the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, he would be forced to trash those who had decided he was wrong. Narcissists simply cannot accept counsel or evidence that says they are wrong.
I could be wrong, but that's how I currently see it.

I think that there may be a way to understand Rolf Furuli in terms that might sound very judgmental. Of course, it's always problematic to try to put labels on people "out loud" in public, even though we can't avoid evidence that leads to such judgments that most of us keep to ourselves.
So the following should be taken in the sense of trying to readjust a person who has taken a false step before he is aware of it. Or at least there is a lesson here, in 20-20 hindsight, about how such a person might have been helped had he taken to heart good spiritual counsel he may have received from others.
(Galatians 5:25-6:5) 25 If we are living by spirit, let us also go on walking orderly by spirit. 26 Let us not become egotistical, . . .  1Brothers, even if a man takes a false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness. But keep an eye on yourself, for fear you too may be tempted. . . . 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions . . .  5 For each one will carry his own load.
There is a subtext to all of Furuli's books that might help explain his latest action. That subtext says: "I don't like being told that I am wrong and I will go to furthest possible extreme to project blame back onto the ones pointing out where I am wrong."
It's true that no one likes being told they are wrong, especially when we think the evidence shows we are right. But If two people or groups disagree, and one can show the other that the evidence shows they are in the wrong, then the normal response should be to consider that evidence and thank the person for pointing it out and use it to look for areas of agreement. And if the person thinks the evidence is not enough, then they can at least "agree to disagree" and move on in a spirit of mildness.
But it is even more true today, as in Paul's day, when Paul warned Timothy to watch out for the following: 
(2 Timothy 3:2-4) 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, . . .  boastful, haughty, . . . .3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride. . .
The Insight book starts out defining PRIDE like this:
*** it-2 p. 681 Pride ***
PRIDE
Inordinate self-esteem; an unreasonable feeling of superiority as to one’s talents, . . . rank, and so forth; disdainful behavior or treatment; insolence or arrogance of demeanor; haughty bearing. . . . Some synonyms of pride are egotism, arrogance, haughtiness.
The combination of several of those traits should remind of the counsel in Proverbs about a kind of "insolent pride" as some translations/commentaries would put it. One Bible commentator who comments online has shown how this insolent pride matches the current term "narcissism."
Level
Scoffer (Insolent Pride) Trait
Narcissism Trait
        1
    A narcissist will first avoid situations where he may be told he is doing something wrong…..no matter how wise the “reprover” might be
    2
    But if a narcissist somehow does find himself in position of being rebuked, he will refuse to listen.  Have you ever tried to rebuke a narcissist?  He will ignore you, verbally fight you, tell you why you are the one who is wrong – anything to keep from admitting that they may be wrong.
    3
      Not only will a narcissist refuse to listen, but he will also hate you for reproving him.
   
He will disguise his hatred, and even speak graciously to you, but when he has the chance to trash you publicly he will take it.
    4
      This results in a narcissist trashing your reputation.  A narcissist will not hesitate to trash the reputation of those who try to correct them – resulting in dishonor to you for daring to correct them.
       

When was he removed? Any intel on the circumstances?

You wish 
 

My bet is on fizzle.
Thanks for the info.

Reports on the internet grapevine say that his disfellowshipping was announced at his congregation's midweek Zoom meeting last week.
SOURCE
It was inevitable, and he knew it would end like this which, to his mind I guess, proves his point about the GB being autocratic, dictatorial, and 'disfellowshipping on the basis of human commandments' (p. 326-7).
I wonder what he'll do now. Write more controversial books? Fizzle out?

Reports on the internet grapevine say that his disfellowshipping was announced at his congregation's midweek Zoom meeting last week.
SOURCE
It was inevitable, and he knew it would end like this which, to his mind I guess, proves his point about the GB being autocratic, dictatorial, and 'disfellowshipping on the basis of human commandments' (p. 326-7).
I wonder what he'll do now. Write more controversial books? Fizzle out?

Reports on the internet grapevine say that his disfellowshipping was announced at his congregation's midweek Zoom meeting last week.
SOURCE
It was inevitable, and he knew it would end like this which, to his mind I guess, proves his point about the GB being autocratic, dictatorial, and 'disfellowshipping on the basis of human commandments' (p. 326-7).
I wonder what he'll do now. Write more controversial books? Fizzle out?

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:
(Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.
So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words.
When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years.
Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly.
Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity."
I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below.
----------------
I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned.
First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book.
The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher.
Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site:

But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex."  As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm as shown above, which also says the following:
Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is  of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex."   But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich.
Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") 
So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected:
The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times.
But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully:
To which CC responded:
So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear:
But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic.
The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience.
As this author repeats in several ways:

------------------
So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest. 

The idea that it is found in Matt 24 which also involves the situation at the time of the END is clearly a much better reason to highlight a special meaning to these verses. (The verses about the differences between the persons who would prove themselves to be an unfaithful and indiscreet slave as opposed to the persons who would prove themselves to be a faithful and discreet slave.)
But, of course, it's not in Luke 21. It's in Luke 12. Luke tends to spread out a lot of the things that Matthew has Jesus saying in Matthew 24, and puts those words in slightly different contexts as found in Luke 12, Luke 13, Luke 17, Luke 19, Luke 21. The differences between Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are also of interest:
(Luke 12:35-48) 35 “Be dressed and ready and have your lamps burning, 36 and you should be like men waiting for their master to return from the marriage, so when he comes and knocks, they may at once open to him. 37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on coming finds watching! Truly I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. 38 And if he comes in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them ready, happy are they! 39But know this, if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also, keep ready, because at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.” 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
(Matthew 24:41-25:1) . . .. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. 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? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be. 25 “Then the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. [etc, virgins, bridegroom, midnight call, lamp oil, marriage feast.]
Both versions of the illustration spend more time discussing what would constitute an UNFAITHFUL and INDISCREET slave. Luke takes it even further and presents Jesus' discussing varying levels of unfaithfulness and indiscretion. Perhaps this is one reason that Luke's version is rarely ever discussed in the publications compared to Matthew's?