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

[Srecko Sostar]

49 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Attending college as an adult is not the same as attending as a teenager.

This sound good for introducing new approach and view about "higher education" issue. WT publications and public lessons now should include advice how "higher education" is recommend only for adult JW members in their 50s.  :))

[TrueTomHarley]

15 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Rolf makes a point that students rarely have to even see each other in today's universities

Do they look like they’re not even seeing each other when you see photos of any campus?

[TrueTomHarley]

On 6/4/2020 at 10:47 AM, JW Insider said:

And watching how people think has always been of great interest to me.

If you say, as Rolf does, that the GB has lost their way, are you not implying that you know the way? Otherwise, how do you know that they have lost it? Maybe it just turned out a little more convoluted than you had anticipated.

It seems a very bold claim to make. Everyone has a wish list. I do. On some of the items, I think they are knocking it out of the park. On some other items, I say “I wish they wouldn’t keep doing....”

But never in 1000 years would I frame it as, “the GB has lost its way.” I would confine myself to saying “I didn’t get mine.”

Hopefully for Rolf, he will one day read an article about how “certain well-meaning, but indiscreet, brothers who have....” and nothing further.

[Thinking]

On 5/28/2020 at 1:17 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

At the beginning of Furuli's book there is a paragraph referring to a certain letter sent to {the congregations? the elders?} The paragraph in question says:

The letter of 15 June 2018 changed this situation:
We would like to inform you of an updated policy with regard to
whether a Christian may administer a blood transfusion if he is directed
to do so by a superior. The previous policy was that it would be a matter
for a personal, conscientious decision whether to obey such an order.
However, after carefully reviewing the matter, the Governing Body has
determined that administering such a transfusion is so closely linked
with an unscriptural practice that one unquestionably becomes an
accomplice in a wrong practice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate
for a Christian to administer a blood transfusion under any
circumstance.—Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:28, 29.4

I would like to mention that I cannot find this letter. I have looked again in the letters to the elders section of our branch in Spain, but I have not found it. I am not saying at all that Furuli is not truthful, only that I cannot find this letter. Maybe someone could help me out ...

 

I remember this but that date seems to be way off from my recollections???

it affected a few of us in the cong...then again maybe it was a second letter re-emphasising their stand on a persistent practise.?

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Funny how, now you [JWI] praise Furuli because he has lost his way also and you are now willing to defend him at all cost when you heavily criticized him in his earlier works of defending 607 BC.

Rolf should have come here to sow his oats. Why didn’t he? I can think of at least one that he would have gotten on with just fine—there are others, too, I am sure—and indeed, even I would not append laughing emojis to his each and every post like a rat in a Skinner cage.

Instead, he wrote a book. What is wrong with the fellow? He is now hero to people he cannot abide, since his problem is with the divine/human interface and nothing else whereas they, by and large, want to scrap it all. I mean, who is his target audience? The enthusiasm of ex-JWs at his “new scrolls’ is surely tempered by his staying “true to course” in his own eyes. “Maybe his expulsion will cause him to ‘wake up,‘” someone says hopefully. I don’t think so. He seems to have counted the costs beforehand. He is content to revert to the fellowship of “scientists” and the (they must be relatively few) “elders” who will still chum with him. Maybe the latter are here. The next newbie that I assume is Allen but doesn’t really sound like Allen I will give due scrutiny to.

Does he write his book because he is trying to trigger “reform?” From who? From the airy world of academia that the GB pays no attention to other than to observe that the more prestigious the university the greater the contamination? The guy’s got a screw loose. Jettisoning the brotherhood for the sake of getting in good with the scientists and renegade elders? I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and my brothers would find out about it to lend support in a matter of hours. Billy the Kid, nice as he is, would not learn of it until he read my obituary.

[Anna]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Does he write his book because he is trying to trigger “reform?” From who?

That was what I wondered too. Assuming he sent the book to the GB first, then he must want the GB to reform. If that's the case, and it would be the most logical assumption, then why publish it for everyone else to read?

And if he sent it to the GB first, and didn't get a response, then is publishing it a tantrum, for being ignored? 

[TrueTomHarley]

12 hours ago, Anna said:

And if he sent it to the GB first, and didn't get a response, then is publishing it a tantrum, for being ignored? 

The guy doesn’t even know how to go apostate properly. You can’t sing “The Kids are Alright” as you’re doing it. He could have at least dug pits of bitumen for elders to fall in when they came calling.

Where is that article about there being Jehovah’s world and Satan’s world, from which arose the cute saying that you can’t sit on the fence because Satan owns the fence. Does that not precede the GB so presumably he has no issue with it? So, what? Does he think that—yes, Satan my be misleading the entire inhabited world, but not at the university—they are far too smart for him there.

After the wheel is invented, nobody says it was invented wrong unless they are prepared to invent another one. It may be that all the “improvements” I have in mind, were they ever adopted, would blow everything to Kingdom come. You get your head around the way things are, unless you see a parallel bunch doing everything just so, minus the things he gripes about. Since there is none, it is only modest to conclude maybe that is part of the package—maybe the package is the only way it can be. Maybe if his “reforms” were adopted of a kinder gentler package, the wolves would thank him—“All the better to eat the sheep, my dear,” perhaps they would say.

 

 

[JW Insider]

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	Proverbs 15:2 – A scoffer does not love one who reproves him, he will not go to the wise	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	Proverbs 13:1 – “…A scoffer does not listen to rebuke”	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	Proverbs 9:8 – “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you..” . .   Proverbs 26:24-26 – “He who hates disguise it with his lips, but he lays up deceit in his heart.  When he speaks graciously, do not believe him, for there are seven abominations in his heart.  Though his hatred covers itself with guile, his wickedness will be revealed before the assembly.”	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	Proverbs 9:7 – “He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself…”	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.

[JW Insider]

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.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

 Three of you in panic. Looking for ways to put the man down. So funny 

@TrueTomHarley  @Anna  @JW Insider   Are you getting worried about your dear old GB ?

Or are you getting worried about the complete CCJW / W/t ? 

You all know that the CCJW is in a mess. (Australia and IICSA UK for a start, possibly loss of charitable status in both countries). Hence i think you are panicking. 

But you also clearly show how you are brainwashed by the GB's mentality. You just cannot accept that this man did something ON HIS OWN. You have to link him with others. 

TTH is probably unhappy that this man's book will actually get some attention whereas Tom's might not. And no i haven't read it yet. But do I need to as its already been dissected on here ? And yes Tom he probably would have had my support on some things. 

Anna trying to make the man look small by suggesting he had a 'tantrum'. 

JWI talks about a 'subtext' in order to put this man down. 

If you three are an example of what the CCJW is now, then I'm glad I'm not part of it.  The Org needs cleaning out and new Anointed Servants need putting in place by Jesus Christ using Holy Spirit, but you lot have lost your faith and no longer believe in God's active force. 

Seems the best you can do is criticise a man that tried to help the Org move forward.

 

[Witness]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Like the GB, maybe?  Every scripture that you gave us to support the traits of narcissism, can be directed to them.  Perhaps majority of the elder body are narcissists also?

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Looking for ways to put the man down.

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.

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Or are you getting worried about the complete CCJW / W/t ? 

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.