Rolf Furuli New Book

by dozy 28 Replies latest jw friends

  • dozy

    For those who haven't come across Furuli before , he is a 77 year old Norwegian professor and is ( or was ) one of the few "scholarly" JWs used by the Society and used as a source on various matters ( especially 607 BCE ).

    However recently he has fallen out with the GB and has published an interesting book - like many recent scholarly apologists , he seems to be going down the road of disagreeing with the authority of the GB but still holding that the JWs is the one true religion. Kind of "lions led by donkeys". Whether this view will continue is anyones guess.

    Anyway - an interesting read during these days of lockdown....

    Free ( so far ) download here - 9 languages available

  • Biahi

    According to Jonas (aka Goatlike Personality) Rolf has been disfellowshipped for apostasy. Oh, no! Lol

  • slimboyfat

    That’s disappointing, but hardly surprising if true. I kind of hoped Watchtower might break the habit of a lifetime and open a dialogue on difficult issues, instead of knee jerk expulsion and censorship.

  • RolRod

    Yep, he was DF'd. But what do you expect, they always alienate those most staunch supporters.

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    I wonder if they actually read the book first.


  • Magnum

    Can't wait to read it. You know the Great Leaders had to get rid of him. How dare anyone counsel them and/or challenge their authority! They can't let any holes open up to allow for any kind of challenging/questioning/etc. They are in the right hand of Christ! Just look at their history; it shows such ().

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    In chapter 5 (Disfellowshipping Based On Human Commandments) page 209, Furuli states that the Governing Body have a militant mindset toward disassociated ones that needs to be abandoned:

    "...This means that if a Witness writes a letter saying that he or she will resign from being a Witness, he or she will be treated just like a disfellowshipped person and will be shunned. This is an expression of a militant attitude, and in the absence of clear Scriptural instruction, this practice should be abandoned. This is, in reality, the same as to use two different balances and scales, one set of balances and scales when a person changes his religion and becomes a Witness, and another set when a person changes his religion and leaves the Witnesses. Moreover, the justification for this attitude is wrong."

    He cannot be the only one of WT top brass who feels this way. My guess is many WT Bethel elite feel deep down that the WT GB have too much of a militant attitude toward any who simply want to walk away from this cult.

  • JW GoneBad
    JW GoneBad

    Governing Body Of Jehovah's Witnesses = Militant Attitude!

    This equation is a keeper!

  • Longlivetherenegades

    CoC back in spotlight.....This is, in reality, the same as to use two different balances and scales, one set of balances and scales when a person changes his religion and becomes a Witness, and another set when a person changes his religion and leaves the Witnesses.

    He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous
    are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

  • slimboyfat

    I agree totally with Furuli’s point that there is a double standard. There was a Watchtower in the past couple of years that stated the double standard explicitly. In the very same ‘study’ it complained about non-JW relatives who cut off family just for ‘studying the Bible with JWs’, and yet boldly insisted that apostates who ‘leave the truth’ must be shunned. It’s hard to understand what kind of mentality allowed the Watchtower writer to put those contradictory sentiments into print.

    However, Furuli doesn’t go far enough. If the implication is that nobody should be shunned for simply ‘walking away’, but that shunning is okay for serious sin such as fornication, then there is a problem with that. There must be thousands of children of JWs worldwide who are being shunned by parents for ‘fornication’ that is decades in the past, or for coming out as gay. That’s indefensible too, and I’m not sure exactly where Furuli is drawing the line here.

    I know one story of a family, two parents, and a son, who moved to Australia when the son was 15 years old. They only lived in Australia for two years and then returned to the UK. While they were in Australia the boy managed to get himself disfellowshipped for being intimate with his girlfriend. When the family returned to the UK they dutifully told the local congregation about the boy being disfellowshipped (this was back in the 1950s and there’s a suggestion they could have hushed it up and got away with it, but they informed the congregation as the ‘honourable’ thing to do) so the boy was totally shunned by his old congregation he had grown up with. He tried at various points in his life to get reinstated but he just couldn’t stand attending meetings where no one would talk to him. His parents maintained minimal contact with him for the rest of his life, even this minimal contact drawing criticism from some, and other JWs wouldn’t talk to him at all, until he died relatively young in his 60s. How does a policy that results in such absurdity make any sort of sense?

Share this