Rolf Furuli has broken with the GB

by careful 95 Replies latest members private

• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Anybody who can investigate their beliefs to the extent Furuli claims to and still advocate 607 is hardly worth attention is he?
  It is one of those subjects that is beyond all sensible debate. How the cult made that original error is obvious and their history of defending it is risible. If Furuli can't see through that he is wilfully obtuse.

  The dude is 77 and a lifer JW...he is on the path to where we all are now...I think we need to give him time and he may change more of his views?
  
  He has massive emotional and sentimental attachment to what he has previously viewed? He may be on the start of the same journey we all took?

  Just a thought...
• 

  Finkelstein

  They will boot his ass out the door before he can say false prophets
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Furuli doesn’t seem to be arguing in favour of returning to a democratic system. From what I can make out, he reckons that the Watchtower organisation was democratic until 1938, which was rightly replaced by a “theocratic” structure. He argues that this “theocratic” structure started to go wrong when the governing body was formed in 1971, as Watchtower became increasingly dictatorial, until today he describes it as being autocratic. He seems to hold up a “theocratic” system of the early 70s as the ideal: with an all powerful, yet light touch president (an enlightened despot?)—no governing body—and local servants, somehow all cooperating and guided by Holy Spirit. Needless to say I think his distinction between theocratic and autocratic organisational structure is difficult to maintain. Maybe you need eyes of faith to see it, as he does invoke the actions of Christians in the book of Acts, apparently guided by Holy Spirit. The Watchtower has been pretty autocratic all along, with variations along the way. At the same time I think it’s fair to agree with Furuli that it’s increasingly autocratic under the current GB, with total financial, doctrinal, and organisational control gathered to the centre.
  
• 

  careful

  Many fine comments here, just what I hoped for when starting this thread.

  Sure, it is easy to write off Furuli as crazy for defending 607 and prophetic speculation. But SBF is looking deeper, namely, how this old guy has seen his religion crumble before his eyes in the last few decades.

  The guy has a serious issue with change, whether that change be right or wrong, left or right, up or down, from those he perceives as competent or incompetent. Like some have stated, this must have been building in him for years and has finally boiled over.

  He's 77 with not that many years left. I must wonder whether he wants to go out as a martyr. It sure looks that way. What he seems to not realize is that if he lives on even just a few more years, JWs will have cut him off and thus the people who might listen to him are mainly the apostates he now hates. He does not seem to think things out very well.
  
• 

  cofty

  Every utopian ideology follows a similar journey from hope to tyranny.

  Believers who are still enchanted by the dream, imagine that all would still be well if only the leaders hadn't lost their way. The fault is inevitably far deeper.

  Avoid all utopian dreams for the facile delusion they are. They ALL end in tears.
• 

  jp1692

  SBF: I think his distinction between theocratic and autocratic organisational structure is difficult to maintain.

  Well that would have to be so, since there isn't, and never, was any "theo" in the former to do any leading/governing/ruling. It was always only in the deluded minds of the "followers," including the ones claiming to have been appointed to be in a position of authority.

  Religions are nothing more than a delusional personals idea of what an imaginary "god" thinks of them and their fellow human beings. It's oddly circular and weirdly self-referential.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  Furuli likes his wacky taffy, doesn't he?
• 

  Phizzy

  SBF said " If you are open to reading a reflection from a lifelong devoted JW who continues to grapple with the belief system inside the perspective of believer then it’s a worthwhile read."

  Thank you for that bit of advice SBF, I was about to dismiss the book as not for me, having found books that were along similar lines to a degree, frustrating to read, because the obvious blindness of going a certain way along a path, and then stopping, seemed intellectually dishonest to me, and rather silly.

  But I have long wondered what exactly is the mindset that causes this phenomenon, and I think the book will help me to understand that, as Furuli is an extreme case. I can understand that the intellectual laziness encouraged by the org. affects lesser minds than his, and they stop following a thought line that should lead them much further, but this man is not the sad possessor of a lazy mind, and yet has , out of emotional attachment, and possibly pride, stopped short of going the distance.

  I say pride, because I am sure that it is very difficult to humble yourself and say " I have been a blind fool for all my life", and he seems not to want to get to the point where he would have to do that. And yet we all have.
• 

  Vidqun

  What a web she weaves. The wheel has indeed turned a full 360 degrees. From Jonson’s book, “The Gentile Times Reconsidered,” first an honorable mention of Raymond Franz and colleagues:

  Several years before the treatise was sent to the Brooklyn headquarters, some members on the writing staff had begun to see the weakness of the prophetic interpretations attached to the 1914 date. These included Edward Dunlap, former Registrar of Gilead School, and Governing Body member Raymond Franz. These researchers, therefore, could agree with the conclusion that the 607 B.C.E. date for the destruction of Jerusalem is chronologically insupportable. Some others on the writing staff, too, who read the treatise, came to realize that the 607 B.C.E. date lacked support in history and began to feel serious doubts about the date. (The writing staff at that time included about 18 members.) Even Governing Body member Lyman Swingle expressed himself before the other Body members to the effect that the Watch Tower organization got their 1914 date (which depends on the 607 B.C.E. date) from the Second Adventists “lock, stock and barrel.” However, the attempts by Raymond Franz and Lyman Swingle to bring up the evidence for discussion on the Governing Body met unfavorable response. The other members on the Body did not see fit to discuss the subject, but decided to continue to advocate the 1914 date.—See Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1983 and later editions), pp. 140–143, 214–216.

  I agree with Phizzy. What Furuli now needs is a good dose of humility, something that he lacked throughout his literary career. He always wanted to be accepted and respected by his peers. His downfall was for him to be without originality or imagination and clinging to Freddie Franz’s version of JW Theology. This brings me to Jonson’s criticism of some of Furuli’s literary accomplishments:

  Furuli published this book at his own expense. On the back cover of the book he presents himself this way: Rolf Furuli is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo. He is working on a doctoral thesis which suggests a new understanding of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew. He has for many years worked with translation theory, and has published two books on Bible translation; he also has experience as a translator. The present volume is a result of his study of the chronology of the Ancient world for more than two decades.
  

  Introduction: The hidden agenda
  

  Furuli does not mention that he is a Jehovah’s Witness, and that for a long time he has produced apologetic texts defending Watchtower exegesis against criticism. His two books on Bible translation are nothing more than defenses of the Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Bible. He fails to mention that for many years he has tried to defend Watchtower chronology and that his revised chronology is essentially a defense of the Watchtower Society’s traditional chronology. (See above, pages 308, 309.) He describes his chronology as “a new chronology,” which he calls “the Oslo Chronology,” (p. 14) when in fact the 607 B.C.E. date for the destruction of Jerusalem is the chronological foundation for the claims and apocalyptic messages of the Watchtower organization, and the 455 B.C.E. date for the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is its traditional starting point for its calculation of the “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24–27.
  

  Summary In this review of Furuli’s book, we have seen a number of insurmountable difficulties that his Oslo Chronology creates not only with respect to the extra-Biblical historical sources but also with the Bible itself. The amount of evidence against Furuli’s revised chronology provided by the cuneiform documents — in particular the astronomical tablets — is enormous. Furuli’s attempts to explain away this evidence are of no avail. His idea that most, if not all, of the astronomical data recorded on the tablets might have been retrocalculated in a later period is demonstrably false. Furuli’s final, desperate theory that the Seleucid astronomers — and there were many — systematically redated almost the whole astronomical archive inherited from earlier generations of scholars is divorced from reality.
  
  

  Furuli’s approach, then, is not Biblical as he claims, but sectarian. As a conservative Jehovah’s Witness scholar, he is prepared to go to any length to force the Biblical passages and the historical sources into agreement with the Watchtower Society’s Gentile times chronology — a chronology that is the foundation cornerstone of the movement’s claim to God-given authority. As I have amply documented in this review, this sectarian agenda forces Furuli to fabulate more wildly than Sheherazade; the legendary Persian queen and storyteller of One Thousand and One Nights.

  Perhaps he now realizes history is not going to be kind to him and his literary legacy. Now would be a good time for him to have a rethink of his philosophy in life. Perhaps work on original content and get out from the shadow (curse) of Freddie Franz.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Avoid all utopian dreams for the facile delusion they are. They ALL end in tears.

  +1000