Ann O'Maly

I agree that in general modern Witnesses do not follow Watchtower history.
But this doesn't mean that the Watch Tower publications aren't promoting the idea that we should follow the history. There's a long history of history in the WTS:
CTRussell revisited his own history a couple times in the pages of the WT The Biography of Charles Taze Russell revisited his history from the late 1920's to mid 30's Rutherford revisited Watchtower history in the pages of the WT Knorr ran a serialized version of the WT history through several successive issues of the WT Those articles culminated in the history book: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (jp) Almost every "Book Study" book and book covering Prophetic explanations included at least 60 pages of Watchtower history, including the most recent ones Every Yearbook included at least 40 pages of Watchtower history for at least one country The 1975 Yearbook became an update of the jp book The Proclaimers book became an updated history book Three of the four major tour attractions at Warwick are all about the history of the Watchtower Society. (And the major displays at the Watchtower Farm are also about the Watchtower history.) Every year the Watchtower reviews milestone highlights in articles about the history of the Watchtower Society, including a related set of articles for several years now about things that happened "100 Years Ago" Like I said, though, there is nothing wrong with this, assuming the purpose, honesty and clarity are there.
I'm sure you aren't saying that the WTS is "triassic" or in a "bubble" for repeatedly promoting this history. It's part of our current beliefs about how most of the prophecies were fulfilled.

For clarification, many publishers on religious subjects used Zondervan publishing. Zondervan publishes the New International Version, a fairly good version with serious defects, but more positives than defects, imo. Harper Collins published thousands of really good books, and also distributed the Satanic Bible, among some bad ones. When HarperCollins bought Zondervan it did not immediately mean that Zondervan now endorses the Satanic Bible. This is an argument like those apostates who complain that the WTS uses a financial advisor at Chase-Morgan that manages funds and trusts made up of of investments that include stock or stake in tobacco companies and military contractors.
For that matter, if consistent, you would be saying that the Watchtower does not do thorough research whenever it quotes the NIV. Here are two of several:
*** nwtsty C3 Verses Where the Divine Name Does Not Appear as Part of Direct or Indirect Quotations in the Book of 2 Corinthians ***
NIV Zondervan Study Bible, edited by D. A. Carson, 2015, explains regarding 2 Corinthians 3:16: “‘the LORD’ (i.e. Yahweh) of Exod 34:34, to whom the unbeliever must turn.”
*** it-1 p. 1069 Hebrew, II ***
As Professor Burton L. Goddard says: “In large measure, the O[ld] T[estament] Hebrew must be self explanatory.” (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, edited by M. Tenney, 1963, p. 345)
And I'm not trying to imply that Furuli used Zondervan to get published. He is entirely self-published here, as he has been with all his past books.

These days a lot of people who do not have the time, money or wherewithal to become scholars, scientists, journalists, or specialists will still tend to find some vicarious thrill in presenting themselves as "scholars" because they love the actual scholarship of another person. Similarly, some consider themselves vicarious "journalists" (or at least "specialists") on many topics because they have found journalists, or more often "journalistic entertainers," who support their ideologies. (In the USA, this would include persons like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Alex Jones, Chris Cuomo, etc.) The "vicarious thrill" happens especially when a well-known professional scholar, scientist, politician, journalist or entertainer agrees with our own personal ideology or beliefs.
The thrill is slightly higher when it's an unexpected source, as when a climate scientist admits a failure in the climate beliefs of the opposing ideology. Or when a respected academic source, or even "fundamentalist Christian" scholar admits that the Trinity was not a first century Christian belief.
Over the past few years @scholar JW and "Allen Smith"/"Billy The Kid" aka @César Chávez have praised Rolf Furuli to such an extent that I was not the only one who wondered if both "scholar" and "Cesar" were not also enjoying a kind of vicarious thrill of being able to call their own ideological position "scholarly" because an actual academic scholar like Furuli gave them that foundation. And it no doubt appealed to the Watch Tower Society to find a person like Furuli for the same reasons and present his unique take on one of the neo-Babylonian astronomical tablets.
And I would have to admit that for me personally I have sometimes been thrilled to discover that many archaeologists have uncovered items of interest to Bible believers that help indicate the historical accuracy of the Bible in the face of nay-sayers. And when it was first pointed out to me why the doctrine of the "1914 generation" was not supported Biblically, I was thrilled to discover that two members of the GB would admit right in front of me that they also didn't fully support it, and that at least 3 additional GB members had said similar things in writing or told to persons I trusted about that topic. And when it turns out that a Greg Stafford, or a Gerard Gertoux, also agrees in many ways about the 1914 doctrine, it could be seen as adding "authority" to my own beliefs. So, I am definitely not immune to the "argument from authority" which can often turn out to be a logical fallacy. But what happens when Gerard Gertoux is rejected as a scholar due to a position on 1914, or a person like Greg Stafford defends JWs very well for years, but then leaves or rejects the Witnesses altogether?
In the past few years, both "scholar JW" and "Cesar" have been asked what they would do if Furuli stopped believing as he did. Neither answered that question. But both of them, on this forum, seem to have been as supportive as possible of Furuli, up to a point. I don't think "scholar JW" will come back now that he has been asked this question directly, this time by Ann O'Maly. "Cesar" has been slowly weakening in his supportive position, as I'm sure he is discovering that some of the words he thought were being misrepresented were actually a very good representation of Furuli's actual words.
Fortunately, for "scholar" and "Cesar," Furuli has not yet changed his position on 1914, and "scholar JW" immediately found that fact to be advantageous - because Furuli is finally (suddenly) an independent scholar. "Cesar" also still uses vague language to protect and defend Furuli. I believe it's because Furuli's scholarship on 1914 must be protected from his new theological reputation.
As expected, this is not so different from what is done especially by ex-JWs and perhaps even some JWs for R.Franz and C.O.Jonsson for those who agree with their takes on theology or chronology, respectively. Some persons tend to want to overly protect the reputations of those men when it shouldn't matter in the long run. I think that some persons get overly involved in trying to make them out to be great Christians, when they never knew them, and only see through their own eyes "vicariously" through the books those men authored.
This becomes more interesting with Furuli because 1914 is so tied up with the belief in the FDS who were recently identified with the GB (such as it was) back during that same 1914 time period. I don't expect Furuli to weaken any time soon on the 1914 doctrine because he invested his entire reputation on 1914 and scholarship, and it is his own reputation he is apparently trying to salvage among his fellow brothers and sisters. He wants it to be clear that he has never left the religion and that if he is kicked out it was only because some imperfect but sincere men did not like an important anomaly in his theology. The "optics" of that perspective might even save him from being officially kicked out in any formal or public way.
But Furuli is rejecting what has seemed to become the most re-emphaisized "touchstone" of the modern theological themes in the Watch Tower publications: that of obedience to the FDS. It's an old theme but necessarily returning because it's now so much more tangible. Previously, the "obedience" to the FDS was a spiritual obedience through appreciation of an entire spiritual "process" that was intangible. The FDS was a world-wide living remnant of the 144,000 who were somehow (spiritually) supporting a small group of representatives of themselves through the largely unknown (and idealized) teaching and writing and decision-making processes at the Watch Tower's headquarters in NY. The "obedience" of the 144,000 to a core group of anointed, centered around NY Bethel, became a model that the rest of us appreciated, largely for the intangible spiritual factors. (It was even suggested that members of the 144,000 who had died, were still communicating with this small group of representatives of the FDS.)
But then it became more tangible when it was adjusted so that this appointed slave became "8 men" that you could watch and judge for yourselves on your "TV" or internet screens. You can watch them make mistakes right in front of you. You can watch them say questionable things and realize more easily than ever that they themselves are struggling with some issues (finances, legal challenges, "overlapping" generation, changing doctrines). This begins to take away the once intangible spiritual sheen, even though most of what they say is still very much appreciated and there is no need to question it.

Sure, a person can make a judgment on how he thinks a slave is performing, but it's subjective and his view may not align with that of Jesus when the time comes. And yes, Matt 7:15-20 is pertinent. People can also get used to eating poor quality food and think it's good. That's why the Bible teaches that it's Jesus who has to judge.

Furuli makes a good point after quoting from the Box on p. 25 of the July 15, 2013 WT about the hypothetical 'evil slave' and its comment, "Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave." On p. 79-80 he argues,
"The observations of The Watchtower accord with the grammar. And the conclusion that Jesus did not appoint an evil slave can also be applied to “the faithful and discreet slave” (literally: “the faithful slave, even the wise one”): Jesus did not appoint the “faithful and discreet slave.” In connection with both slaves, there are questions, and this shows that both situations are hypothetical. So the conclusion is that that there has never been “a faithful and discreet slave” in the sense used by the GB. But when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation, there will be many individual faithful and discreet slaves who are doing their job, and who are on the watch. And similarly, there will be many individual wicked slaves who will be punished." [bold mine]
As has long been argued by many before Furuli, Matt 24:45-47 is a parable that poses a question, and is not a prophecy about C.T. Russell (taught till 1927) or class of anointed remnant left on earth (taught till 2012) or an elite leadership at WTHQ (current teaching) that was appointed in 1919. If the 'evil slave' is hypothetical, so is the 'faithful and discreet slave.'
Under current teaching, any declaration that the slave has been performing faithfully and discreetly (or otherwise) is a future one when Jesus 'arrives' to inspect his household and he makes that determination one way or the other. Therefore, at present, the question of 'who really is the faithful and discreet slave ...?' remains unanswered.

Sure, a person can make a judgment on how he thinks a slave is performing, but it's subjective and his view may not align with that of Jesus when the time comes. And yes, Matt 7:15-20 is pertinent. People can also get used to eating poor quality food and think it's good. That's why the Bible teaches that it's Jesus who has to judge.

Sure, a person can make a judgment on how he thinks a slave is performing, but it's subjective and his view may not align with that of Jesus when the time comes. And yes, Matt 7:15-20 is pertinent. People can also get used to eating poor quality food and think it's good. That's why the Bible teaches that it's Jesus who has to judge.

Furuli makes a good point after quoting from the Box on p. 25 of the July 15, 2013 WT about the hypothetical 'evil slave' and its comment, "Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave." On p. 79-80 he argues,
"The observations of The Watchtower accord with the grammar. And the conclusion that Jesus did not appoint an evil slave can also be applied to “the faithful and discreet slave” (literally: “the faithful slave, even the wise one”): Jesus did not appoint the “faithful and discreet slave.” In connection with both slaves, there are questions, and this shows that both situations are hypothetical. So the conclusion is that that there has never been “a faithful and discreet slave” in the sense used by the GB. But when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation, there will be many individual faithful and discreet slaves who are doing their job, and who are on the watch. And similarly, there will be many individual wicked slaves who will be punished." [bold mine]
As has long been argued by many before Furuli, Matt 24:45-47 is a parable that poses a question, and is not a prophecy about C.T. Russell (taught till 1927) or class of anointed remnant left on earth (taught till 2012) or an elite leadership at WTHQ (current teaching) that was appointed in 1919. If the 'evil slave' is hypothetical, so is the 'faithful and discreet slave.'
Under current teaching, any declaration that the slave has been performing faithfully and discreetly (or otherwise) is a future one when Jesus 'arrives' to inspect his household and he makes that determination one way or the other. Therefore, at present, the question of 'who really is the faithful and discreet slave ...?' remains unanswered.

Furuli makes a good point after quoting from the Box on p. 25 of the July 15, 2013 WT about the hypothetical 'evil slave' and its comment, "Jesus did not say that he would appoint an evil slave." On p. 79-80 he argues,
"The observations of The Watchtower accord with the grammar. And the conclusion that Jesus did not appoint an evil slave can also be applied to “the faithful and discreet slave” (literally: “the faithful slave, even the wise one”): Jesus did not appoint the “faithful and discreet slave.” In connection with both slaves, there are questions, and this shows that both situations are hypothetical. So the conclusion is that that there has never been “a faithful and discreet slave” in the sense used by the GB. But when Jesus comes as the judge in the great tribulation, there will be many individual faithful and discreet slaves who are doing their job, and who are on the watch. And similarly, there will be many individual wicked slaves who will be punished." [bold mine]
As has long been argued by many before Furuli, Matt 24:45-47 is a parable that poses a question, and is not a prophecy about C.T. Russell (taught till 1927) or class of anointed remnant left on earth (taught till 2012) or an elite leadership at WTHQ (current teaching) that was appointed in 1919. If the 'evil slave' is hypothetical, so is the 'faithful and discreet slave.'
Under current teaching, any declaration that the slave has been performing faithfully and discreetly (or otherwise) is a future one when Jesus 'arrives' to inspect his household and he makes that determination one way or the other. Therefore, at present, the question of 'who really is the faithful and discreet slave ...?' remains unanswered.

This is all so funny. A man writes a book which you all know will ruffle feathers in the CCJW and give some people outside the joy of reading it. It frightens you. For one reason you know that a lot of what he has written is true. So, what do you all do ? You look for ways to criticise him. 
But Tom has to go further of course, he looks for ways to criticise almost everyone. 
Maybe some of you should do an in depth observation of each member of the GB. You seem happy to find fault with everyone that has different views to you. But you JWs just love to worship your GB. 

Well, this sort of process existing in animal world. People, and JW people too, need to know how working the world who is create by God they believe in.
Next thing you said, is influence, unknown mostly, that can cause need in some individuals to change the sex.
That would mean, because no one know why and how things is happening, that JW members need to have more insight and knowledge and intuition about issue and not drop all and every individual who have issue with sex identity into "devil influence" and/or individual "evilness".
I wouldn't know what you mean with this. Because, as i am aware, most of school politics and curriculum is not at all or mostly sourced, created in particular school but come from governmental directives, Ministry of Education, institutions that materially contribute or completely financing educational system as in private schools. I think how corruption is not problem that coming from schools (only) but is in society that is changing.
Have in mind, how process of changing ( no matter in what direction, in what sort of matters) is also in your church in your JWsociety. And time in future will give better perspective and conclusions only to future generations.  
That what you noticed about education can be matter of nostalgia too, not only independent and objective analyze.
Bubbles are general, not only individual problem or identifying space-time position. It can be said how you looks on Dr Furulli's or @JW Insider Bubble from your own Bubble too. :))

Not your fault. I knew what you were saying about it. I was just saying that when I watched it, I wasn't thinking of the GB at all. But I was thinking about who the FDS could have been in such historical situations, and how they would have shown themselves standing up for a relatively "true" Christianity. That's based on an old habit of reading European history about the years from 100 to 1800 and always wondering who Jehovah might have deemed "FDS" at the time, because, until the "Proclaimers" book, this was the basic idea. There was never a time when the FDS did not exist, was the idea.
Actually, it has been said in those exact words. But that message has become much more subtle in the last few decades.
It was a very interesting read. I learned a lot more about Furuli the "man" and what his conscience struggles with. It's hard for me to remove his ego and even his haughtiness from the picture. But I have also really grown to love certain Circuit (and District) overseers in the past who were obviously haughty because after you have dinner with them, for example, you realize they are humans like the rest of us with questions and concerns and even frailties. When I knew several members of the GB personally, seeing and hearing them daily for several years, I thought some to be haughty, like F.Franz, D.Sydlik, A.Schroeder, L.Greenlees and T.Jaracz, and I knew others to be just the opposite in personality, like J.Booth, J.Barr, R.Franz, and perhaps all the others. Other observers might have categorized them differently. But it also doesn't mean that the humble ones were always right in their views, nor does it mean that the haughty ones were always wrong in their views.
I don't see it as much of a problem when a person is reminded of a situation like one in ancient Israel where a King Saul, or even a King David, needed counsel from a loyal subject. Of course, David once killed a subject who showed too much loyalty to him and not to the anointed Saul. Some will set themselves up as God's messengers with a message about a flight to Australia for example, and some will bring a gift to the table in the form of 40 to 50 years of scholarship and experience at many levels in the organization who might sincerely wish to correct a straying "king" or "governorship." I know which person's "counsel" I would want to read first. Assuming it was done in the spirit of:
(1 Timothy 5:1) . . .Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers,
(1 Timothy 5:19-21,24-25) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
(1 Peter 3:15, 16) 15 But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect. 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ.
When I read Furuli, I was interested in what he left out in addition to what he included. I wondered if he would use certain scriptures, or appear to avoid certain scriptures. What would he say about the generation, 1919, blood, Hebrews 13, Revelation 2&3, 1 Cor 15:25? Could I pick up on any influence from Greg Stafford, Ray Franz, Fred Franz, George Chryssides, Jason BeDuhn, Gerard Gertoux, etc.? Some of the questions that I put in the margins would require a second read, and I'm not sure I'm up to it right now.
Somehow I took only 2 days to read his book and I immediately found myself behind schedule by more than 4 days for more practical things I wanted to get done. How did that happen? I might just take a breather for a few days myself. See you all on June 1st.

This could be an important key, or clue, as to why Furuli has gone this far. If he has become a policy "wonk," perhaps with a serious health problem, and lives in an online bubble, then his world might not be as safe for him as in a congregation of persons who will help keep you "grounded." House-to-house work will do the same as TTH already pointed out. But it's possible Furuli has bcome someone who lives for his reputation, and that reputation is all online these days.
This is not the guess I would have made as to what triggered him to take it this far. But it might still be related. I would certainly like to have this cleared up myself if I were to begin trying to brainstorm ideas (or is it gossip?) about why he took the "book" step.
He has quite possibly had troubles in the past with HQ, and if COJ is to be believed, others have been "stumbled" out of the organization over his attitude and tactics. But he is a more complex person than I imagined. Gossip exists that he was to be removed as an elder about two decades ago, but that the local body of elders in his congregation somehow out-voted the Circuit Overseer sent to handle the matter. That comes from a 12-year-old post on a site that I rarely visit except by Google-directed accidents. What makes it seem real, however, is that even 12 years ago, he was already taking the same stand against the "GB" on a couple of issues:
# 1. Education. Furuli says: Do take education!
# 2. Governing Body. Furuli says: GB is not spirit directed.(GB don't claim to be, but a lot of JW believe they are.)
# 3. Service. (Society says, do take part in all kinds of service like door to door, street work and bla bla.) Furuli says: You don't have do do everything. Do the kind of service that makes you comfortable.
I don't know anything about who I was just quoting from that site. But to see that all this was documented 12 years ago says something about a longer struggle than I had imagined. I see the points numbered 1 and 2 even more deeply ingrained now, and point 3 hinted at, too.
I went into some depth on the attitude of Fred Franz in earlier posts because it's part of my theory. I think Furuli is stuck on the man, (as both a gentleman and a scholar) and the whole Franz era, with all its types and antitypes, and chronologies, etc. I'm sure you are seeing that in the book, too. I think Furuli actually sees himself as capable of stepping into Franz' shoes and even improving the types and antitypes from that idealized era.
Reading the book reminded me of the Annual Meeting talk by Brother Splane in October 2014. In that talk, Splane went on about a certain brother (A. Smith but not our A. Smth) who just loved the pyramidology theories. But when Rutherford dropped them as Satanic, Smith obediently dropped it too. But then Splane went on to talk about how wonderful and exciting the "types and antitypes" have appealed to certain ones, and how he hoped that these persons, too, will be able to gladly drop them. It made me think that Furuli had already been in correspondence about a couple of the old Franz-esque types and antitypes that had already been dismissed or greatly de-emphasized from "types" to "reminders" especially since 2010. Furuli would have had even more interest in giving feedback to the WTS over the 2013 release of the "Simplified" NWT, which he "trashes" in his book.

@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".  :))

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?

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.

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....

I agree that, by 1974, F.W.Franz was ready to start "walking back" the expectations he had been speculating about. When I came to Bethel in 1976, there was already a lot of whispering that FWF had lost some of his former glory as the Oracle. He had become the "King Saul" when people began to say: “When King Saul dies then things will change.” And this was in large part because he had spent so many years "doubling down" on 1975, whenever he was questioned about it. 
In 1976 F.W.Franz had produced a book called "Our Incoming World Government - God's Kingdom." It was released in 1977. There were whispers that this was his way of getting "back in the saddle" because it contained the kind of information that no one else at Bethel was supposedly capable of, or would dare try to produce. I have a very early copy of this book from one of the Bethel proofreaders (a sister). It contains a curious artifact in the margin, which always reminds me of how this book was seen by some Bethelites in 1977. It's just the simple question in red pencil: "ask?."  It wouldn't mean much to most anyone else, but this was probably the first book ever written by FWF that was sometimes "scoffed" at within the Bethel walls. I heard some of that scoffing myself. The question in the margin was not part of that scoffing. The book was scoffed at for statements like the following:
*** go chap. 8 p. 137 par. 36 Marked Days During the “Time of the End” ***
According to the Bible, those 1,290 days are the equivalent of three lunar years and seven lunar months. According to the lunar calendar, January 18, 1919, fell on Shebat 17, 1919. Three lunar years from then would lead up to Shebat 17, 1922, or February 15, 1922. Seven lunar months counted from that would end with Elul 16, 1922, or at sundown, September 9, 1922
Even fellow members of the Governing Body, at least two, and probably four or more (D.S./A.S./E.C./R.F) thought that the 1975 failure would be a chance to "start from scratch" with all these dates from 1918, 1919, 1922, etc. It was D.S. who used the exact expression that we should "just start from scratch" on chronology.
If you listened to FWF at Bethel breakfast you could see he was trying to regain his "throne" as the respected Oracle. And he was still taking subtle swipes at the idea of a Governing Body, as he had been doing since 1972 or so, and most directly in the September 1975 talk that The Librarian referenced above. Note how FWF, for the first time, changes Jehovah's title to "Governor" in Chapter 2, which is called "The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning."
*** go chap. 2 pp. 33-34 pars. 36-37 The Governor Who Knows the End from the Beginning ***
He . . .  with himself as the Supreme Governor. . . . Hence he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” He is the Governor who knows the end from the beginning. . . .
   In the very book with which the Bible begins, at Genesis 3:15, the Almighty Governor of all creation made known his basic thought . . . . In the very book with which the Bible ends, at Revelation 11:15-18, the rightful Governor over all mankind gives prophetic description of his take-over of his long-suspended governorship . . .
Other examples from the book are typical of the kind of writing from FWF, that even the proofreaders would likely have been hesitant to question if it looked like a possible mistake. I mention this because the following quote is the location in the proofreader's copy which has a red pencil question mark by the number 605, with the word "ask?" in the margin.
*** go chap. 3 p. 39 par. 4 Predicted World Changes up till God’s Kingdom ***
Human society so deeply divided politically as it is today, and has been since World War I, was not forevisioned indeed by shortsighted man. But are we aware that this political state of human affairs was prophetically illustrated more than 2,580 years ago, or about the year 605 before our Common Era?
I don't know if she ever asked. But you can just see the wheels turning in her head: 2520 prior to Oct 1914 was Tishri 607, so 2,580 years from 607 was Oct 1974. So Tishri 605 was 2578 years prior to Oct 1974, and this book is being proofread in late 1976 or early 1977. This would mean that if the Daniel 2 dream (referred to here) was very late in 605, getting close to 604, then this book might potentially be released a couple of months "less than", not, "more than" 2,580 years ago. No big deal. But wouldn't it be better to say "about 2,580 years ago" instead of "more than"? And why be so teasingly pedantic in the first place?
But where did he (FWF) even get the date 605 for the Daniel 2 dream? 
 The idea is from Daniel 2 about the second year of Nebuchadnezzar:
(Daniel 2:1) . . .In the second year of his kingship, Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar had a number of dreams. . .
This is for another topic, but it's all about the controversy over whether Daniel would have begun counting from one of the major exiles, or from his own exile, if different, or from the normal way of counting the rulership of a king. Note the discrepancies below:
*** w00 5/15 p. 12 par. 17 Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day ***
During the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as world ruler of Bible prophecy (606/605 B.C.E.), God sent him a terrifying dream. According to Daniel chapter 2 . . .
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
Discussing events in the 20th year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 605-Nisan 604 B.C.E.)
And this is based on the WTS chronology system, and doesn't even take into account the actual date of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, matching the Biblical record, and based on thousands of pieces of archaeological and historical evidence:
*** kc p. 188 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into exile.
In fact, FWF's 1977 book, just a bit further down from the 2,580 quote above, spells out the standard WTS chronology, except that I don't know where FWF got the info that Nebuchadnezzar was part of the overthrow of "632" seven years years before his WTS accession year AND twenty-seven years before his actual accession year. The first mention anyone knows of for Nebuchadnezzar is about 607 BCE (or 627 WTS dating) which is about 5 years after the assumption below:
*** go chap. 3 pp. 48-49 pars. 25-26 Predicted World Changes up till God’s Kingdom ***
In 632 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar shared in overthrowing the Assyrian World Power and thereby set up the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which ranked as the Third World Power of Bible record.—Nahum 2:8 through 3:18; Zephaniah 2:13.
About twenty-five years later, after Emperor Nebuchadnezzar was used as Jehovah’s instrument to destroy unfaithful Jerusalem, the prophet Daniel’s words applied: “Into [your] hand he [the God of heaven] has given, wherever the sons of mankind are dwelling, the beasts of the field and the winged creatures of the heavens, and [you] he has made ruler over all of them.” (Daniel 2:38) This was the case, because, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E., a typical kingdom of Jehovah God ceased to exist on earth.
FWF gave indications in 1977 and 1978 that he was not reacting well to the push-back on this 1977 book. His "morning worship" comments began to take smart-aleck  pot-shots at those who were not lapping up the "food in due season." The attitude was similar to the time when he expressed his anger at those who thought Jesus was the mediator of every "Tom, Dick, and Harry."   

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

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

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

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.

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. 

Looks like partly a copy and paste. But not, evidently, to give a different perspective. It seems quite possible that the words could have been that way in a 5/24/2020 edition and not in a 5/25/2020 edition.
I say this because 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. Sometimes with such e-books the author has the opportunity to make changes on the fly and continue editing as early copies are going out. 
Here are the closest quotes to yours. Yours matches the supposed quote at https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/05/26/in-new-book-a-prominent-jehovahs-witness-trashes-the-faiths-governing-body/

Today the members of the GB have all power in connection with the
doctrines, the assets, and the money. No one has the right to question their
decisions or their words. And this collides head-on with the words of Paul
in Galatians 5:1 (NWT13):
And in another place he says:
I believe that the members of the GB are sincere
persons. But they have taken a position among the Witnesses that violates
many Bible principles. They have become a government with all power.
And in another place he says:
During the last part of the 20th century, the members of the GB gave
themselves more and more power at the expense of the bodies of elders .
The GB functions as a government for JW with unlimited power over the
doctines [sic], the assets, and the money.
And in another place he says:
Because no one can call the members of the GB to
account, they have been able to lead the organization in the direction of
their choice-they have formed the organization into their own image.
The present organizational structure, where the members of the GB
believe that they have both the obligation and the right to be a government
for Jehovah's Witnesses, has created great problems.
And in another place he says;
The problem, however, is that the definitions of apostasy are self serving
because it is the GB who defines what "Jehovah's arrangement"
is. And the definition is that the GB serves as a government for JW with
unlimited power. Thus, any opposition to the GB is per definition
apostasy because it "is undermining the confidence of the brothers in
Jehovah's arrangement."
In spite of the fact that the GB has the upper hand, my conscience
has driven me to write this book, and I leave the judgment to Jehovah.
And in another place he says:
Because I have had responsible positions during
these years, I have witnessed how the organization has gradually become
more and more autocratic, until we have the situation today with the GB
functioning as the government of JW with unlimited power.
And in another place he says:
If a Catholic man . . . becomes a member of a JW congregation, the man becomes a part of an organization
that is more hierarchical and more dictatorial than the Catholic Church. This is a
situation that violates several Bible principles.
And in another place he says:
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.
So all the words are there, some in different places, and it would take some cutting and pasting to produce the exact same sentence in the quote you found. But that quote does not manipulate the meaning of Furuli's quotes, so I suspect they may have easily once existed in the Introduction (or another place?) as you quoted them. Or the site was very sloppy. Either way, what Furuli actually said sounds very similar, overall.

Closed? It was all open when I started here many moons ago. I see they've moved the furniture around and plastered over some doorways since I last dropped by. A little disorienting but hey, this door was still open so here I am. Never fear, the only JWs I eat for breakfast are Neil and that Allen/Wyatt Earp guy (is he still posting?). 
@scholar JW Hi Neil 🙂 Good to see you're still kicking around. So, how do you feel about Rolf taking a stand against the Governing Body and rejecting the current Faithful and Discreet Slave doctrine (the FDS doctrine, @Arauna)?