Comments:
a very interesting article which only goes to prove that you cant believe everything you read in the press...the press from brooklyn that is. my congratulations on your research, but surely this must be troubling to you in consideration of how often the witnesses use historical context to prove a point.

Comments:
Really interesting reading! I'm a JW sister, and I've had some "issues" with points of faith as well. There's a great website run by an anointed brother who validates these issues, I found it to be a great source of encouragement. Its at: www.e-watchman.com

Comments:
Joseph, If you had just posted your e mail address we could have had an interesting debate. Perhaps you could be good enough to look at http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furuli.htm to see what really happened.

Comments:
I have been informed that Jonsson have been twisting my words, and I have been asked to clarify a few points. I would like to stress that it is not Furuli and myself who have egaged in an attack on Jonsson’s person instead of addressing the subject of chronology. It was Jonsson who started the whole thing by giving false information regarding Furuli in his book. Furuli was asked about this, and he replied on this web-page. Jonsson then accused Furuli of deliberately lying, and he called on Instebø and myself as witnesses in favor of Furuli being a liar. When I responded, telling that neither Instebø, nor I, nor anybody else have received the manuscript in question (thus Furuli is right and Jonsson being wrong,), Jonsson accuses me and Instebø of telling something that is not true. Jonsson should know that both Furuli, Instebø, and myself adhere to the high moral standards of the Bible, and that, if we deliberately told a lie, that would undermine our relationship with God. We should note that Furuli has never accused Jonsson of deliberately lying, only that he is not telling the truth. As to Instebø and myself, we are accused of hiding the truth regarding Furuli’s manuscript – we say that we have not received a manuscript of 110 pages, but hide that we have received parts of it, according to Jonsson. Today I asked Furuli to see his notes of 110 pages from 1986, and after looking at them, I testify that I have never seen these notes in whole or in part and I have never received them either in whole or in part. I also recognized all the pencil notes in the margin, deletions and expansions and extra sources added; all this showing that this is not a finished manuscript. The problem with Jonsson is not that he deliberately is not telling the truth, but rather that he has exercised a bad judgement and that he takes conjecture as fact. The following is what probably happened. I know Jan and Wenche Kalstø personally, and can tell that in the years before 1990 we never discussed chronological questions. That changed in 1990 when I assume that they read Jonsson’s book. Jan and Wenche and I may have had a conversation about chronology in that year, as they say, and in such a conversation it would have been natural to mention Furuli, because he was a close friend of mine, he worked with chronology, he had answered letters with chronological questions, and Furuli and I had discussed the same questions. Because we all knew that Furuli was actively discussing chronological questions with people who asked questions, I assume that Jan and Wenche drew the conclusion that I and others had received Furuli’s unfinished notes. So they presented this to Jonsson as facts. Jonsson evidently did not check the ”facts” by asking if Jan and Wenche had seen this manuscript or if they knew others who had seen it and could testify that they had received it. Thus Jonsson has used unfounded conjecture as facts. The real facts are that Jonsson has received and kept a stolen manuscript, and he refused to destroy his copies when the owner demanded so. His attempt to justify this by saying that Furuli distributed his manuscript has failed completely. He has not presented any evidence for this from the years 1987, 1988, and 1989, and his only ’evidence’ is a letter from 1990 which contains an assumption that is wrong. This is a behavior which indicate a complete lack of sound judgement - it is dishonest behavior. Jonsson has also violated one of the fundamental rules of a scholarly discussion. It is one thing to unknowingly ascribe views to one’s opponent that he does not have, and then knock these down. It is a completely different situation when a person definitely says: ”these are not my views,” and his opponent ignores this saying, and makes a rebuttal to the views that the other person has denied that he has. This is exactly what Jonsson has done in connection with Furuli. I have no intention of bringing extra reproach on Jonsson’s name. But I am sure that many readers will wonder about Jonsson’s judgement and moral qualities when he claims that one person (Furuli) is a deliberate liar, and two others whom he first has called as his own wotness against Furuli, accuse them of hiding the truth when they testify against Jonsson. Dan-Ake Mattsson