ComfortMyPeople

I definitely don't want to be doing that. But can you see the difference between the 1981 counsel
and the 1974 counsel
I see a big difference in the spirit of the admonition. (And especially so after watching the video)
Very true, and I feel the same way
Yes, true of course. That would be something the family who wishes to have contact with a disfellowshiped one would keep in mind. It would not be something that would be flaunted.
But that's the thing, I do not feel that I am running ahead or criticising anything that Jehovah has put in place, because I do no think Jehovah has put it in place! Not in the way it is being applied NOW, as per the video you will see on Tuesday, or whenever your midweek meeting is. (I know you are probably stating this generally and not specifically pointing at me, although if the cap fits it should be worn).
I do like your example of Abraham and Sarah.
I have a feeling it's not the actual discipline of "excommunication"  that they have a problem with, I think it's the right to associate with loved ones, regardless of what they may have done. Again, the WT of 74 points that out too: " Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring"  One can exercise that right whichever way one wants. Someone may not want to have anything to do with a relative who is a cold blooded murderer. But then there are others who will stick to their offspring regardless. However, we, JWs, are being told not to have anything to do with an "excommunicated" loved one.  One of the questions to the video is  "What helped them (Sonia's parents) to remain loyal? " Answer paraphrased from the video: "What helped them to remain loyal to Jehovah all these years I was disfellowshipped was the Bible account of Aaron...how he was told not to mourn over his sons who were  killed by Jehovah to show the entire nation they supported Jehovah’s judgement".  See how the entire spirit has changed? Now the right of blood relatives to see each other has become "pretend they don't even exist".
The other question was " How did their loyalty to Jehovah benefit Sonja"? Answer paraphrased from the video: "They knew, if they had associated with me even a little, just to check on me, that small dose of association might have satisfied me.  It could make me think that there was no need to return to Jehovah".  I have always felt there was something wrong with returning to Jehovah so one could associate with family again. Matt 22:37
We know Sonia was disfelowshiped for more than 15 years. One of her children looks like they could be at least 12. We are never told whether Sonia married her children's father and there is not a single mention of Eric again (the guy she got disfellowshiped for) She may have continued to live an immoral life, and after Eric had a dozen boyfriends, smoked pot and had each of the two children by a different man. But somehow, I have a feeling it would have been mentioned that she continued living an immoral life. What seems most likely though is that she married the man with whom she had the children. We also see that the grandparents had nothing to do with the grandchildren as this would have been indicated somewhere. When they started going to the KH they all sat at the back in the second school like outcasts. That was made clear. It doesn't even indicate that the children celebrated Christmas or birthdays. All in all it seems that Sonia's only "crime" all those years was that she remained disfellowshipped because she had not made formal steps to come back to the congregation.
 
 

I would say that the Watchtower Society has added the indefinite article into John 1:1 in a way that makes much more sense than adding the definite article. When it comes to the thoughts of early Christianity, I can only assume that "a god" is closer and much better than translating "the God." (THE God is understood, of course, by just translating "God" in a monotheistic context.) But I think that Paul explains it even better by saying:
(Philippians 2:6-10) 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— (Colossians 2:8-10) . . .to Christ; 9 because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. 10 And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.
 
The basic idea is shown in the word for "godship" is pretty much the same as our word "divinity."
*** Rbi8 Colossians 2:9 ***
“Divine quality.” Lit., “godship.” Gr., the·oʹte·tos; Lat., di·vi·ni·taʹtis. *** Rbi8 Romans 1:20 ***
“Godship.” Gr., Thei·oʹtes, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹni·tas. *** Rbi8 Acts 17:29 ***
“Divine Being.” Gr., Theiʹon, related to The·osʹ, “God”; Lat., Di·viʹnum. But although very common, the definite article is not always necessary to refer to THE God. It's still sometimes dependent on context. We don't translate "In a beginning, the Word . . . " just because the definite article is missing. And it could go either way here in John 1:49
(John 1:49) . . .Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel.” (NWT) This would just as proper as:
(John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel.” (not NWT, but common in other translations) But it would sound odd to say:
(John 1:49) . . . Na·thanʹa·el responded: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are a King of Israel.” But I think even this last one is just as OK as saying "a god" in John 1:1. That's because there might have been so much emphasis on the word "King." It's as if Nathanial was saying, you are not just here as a man, you are here as a KING!!!
I think that's quite possibly a way to look at John 1:1. Saying "a god" is just fine as long as we remember that the point was saying the same thing, that Jesus was not just in heaven as any other angelic being, but Jesus was in heaven as a GOD!!!
 

"Was god" does not make as much sense to me as "was divine." But this is based on other scriptures, not purely the Greek which could apparently go either way. I don't know Latin. I've actually studied it quite a bit in the past, and still read a bit for fun almost every Tuesday and Wednesday for about a half-hour, but I don't get very far. My youngest son studied Latin on his own, and got a 5 on a Latin AP test (the highest grade) and, for fun, had translated several Wikipedia articles into Latin. I did study Greek (2 semesters, and a lot of self-study) and Hebrew (7 semesters). A lot of Aramaic is included at no extra cost when you can read Hebrew. But these are not levels that make me anything more than an amateur wannabe.
I don't see any reason to translate an indefinite article in John 1:1. But in each of these languages there can be several different reasons to translate an indefinite article. Sometimes an indefinite article is OK even if a form of the definite article is used. (We even have examples like this in English, in expressions like: "The spider has eight legs." In some contexts, what this really means is that "A spider has eight legs." There are even examples that can go in the other direction, too. Not everything in language is straightforward.
One of my research projects at Bethel was a paper on Philo back in 1980, which led me to discover a brand new German commentary on the book of John by Busse and Haenchen. A portion of this same information is found in the Watchtower.
*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***
It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6. . . . When comparing Genesis 1:1 with the first verse of John’s Gospel, this commentary observes: “John 1:1, however, tells of something that was in existence already in time primeval; astonishingly, it is not ‘God.’ . . . The Logos (we have no word in either German or English that corresponds to the range of meaning of the Greek term) is thereby elevated to such heights that it almost becomes offensive. The expression is made tolerable only by virtue of the continuation in ‘and the Logos was in the presence of God,’ viz., in intimate, personal union with God.” Does that sound as if scholar Haenchen discerned in the Greek some distinction between God and the Logos, or Word? The author’s following words focus on the fact that in the original language no definite article is used with the word the·osʹ, or god, in the final phrase. The author explains: “In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that θεός [the·osʹ] and ὁ θεός [ho the·osʹ] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”  

I disagree with your doctrinal conclusions, but I have to admit that you have been treated unfairly in this thread. My impression is that @J.R. Ewing is not trying very hard to be coherent, and might just be playing a kind of game with absurd evidence to get you to say something just as absurd in return. I don't speak or study Latin very much, but from what I can tell that entire argument was wrong both linguistically and logically.
This so called "steady relationship" and "how often" they cite occult sources is clearly exaggerated, as it has been pointed out. If you were to read all of Luther's writings you might think (from things he admits) that he was also demon possessed. It's true that Clayton Woodworth took a very strong interest in the idea of demon influence, and he admitted in a documented speech at a Bible Student convention that he suffered from demon-possession for a time. He also claims that the demons while trying to fool him actually did reveal one true doctrine (about how Russell's "Vow" was foretold and through an Old Testament type/antitype representation).
Woodworth, I think, was the primary driver behind the reprinting and republishing of Seola, which he believed was inspired by one of the fallen angels of Noah's day. (A "demon," but one who was looking for redemption.) Woodworth was also the primary driver behind the promotion of the magnetic and radio wave healing devices. When I was at Bethel there was a room down at  the "Squibb" buildings (30 CH) kept locked away from Bethelites where artifacts were stored from the estates of long time Bible Students and Witnesses who had bequeathed everything to the Watchtower Society. This started some time during the Knorr presidency. Previously, Arthur Worsely, a long time Bethelite, recalled that whenever calls went out to donate Russell's publications for the Bethel libraries, that he was tasked with burning cartons upon cartons of them in the coal furnace.
Locked at Squbb, were shelves upon shelves of of hundreds of copies of the old publications, often extremely rare. And there were several versions of the Photo-Drama slides, old phonograph players, Rutherford's 78s,  and several of the E.R.A. machines advertised in the Golden Age. The E.R.A. machines were NEVER to be owned by Bethelites. (I don't think this problem would have ever come up except for one caught being smuggled through. And there was still at least one Bethelite I knew who bragged about owning one for himself.)
So there is some truth to these early problems, but it was mostly the editor of the Golden Age (Woodworth) who seemed ever-intrigued with the "demonic" aspect of things. Although Rutherford had agreed with the idea about Russell still communicating from beyond the grave in 1917 and a little beyond, it was Woodworth who continued repeating this idea in the Golden Age for many years afterward, and who may have even seen himself as being guided by Russell when he spoke of the Seventh Volume (mostly written by Woodworth) as the posthumous work of Russell. (In effect, written by Russell in 1917 even after he died.)
But you are mostly concerned with the Greber translation problem. I think that this has already been answered. Greber translated several verses in exactly the way you understand them, too, and this doesn't bother you or anyone else. I would have to agree that it was no doubt his own biases and belief system that influenced him to translate a few verses in ways that differed from the standard understanding of koine Greek. Whether this was really "spiritistic" influence from demons is probably about as likely as Woodworth being correct when he thought he was under demonic influence when demons "correctly" taught him how Russell's "Vow" had been indicated in Scripture. Or that Russell himself, as a spirit, had guided every aspect of the Watchtower after his death in 1916, including the book that Woodworth himself wrote.
But the most important thing is that the use of Greber's translation as a support was discovered to be a mistake. It was not chosen because Greber claimed spiritistic influence. His translation remained in the Bethel library, just as a couple copies of "Angels and Women" (Seola) remained in the Bethel library. When I see a new Bible translation, the first thing I go to is John 1:1, then Psalm 83:18 and a few other favorites. I'm sure that writers at Bethel still do the same thing. So, no doubt, the claim that Greber made about his method had been lost sight of and was used again by another writer at Bethel, even after others had previously noted the problem.
But it doesn't matter because Greber is not the place where support of our particular translation of John 1:1 comes from. It just happened to agree with an idea that the Watchtower had been promoting long before Greber's translation had ever been found. And we had mostly been using Benjamin Wilson's literal Greek to English portion of his "Diaglott" to make that point.
John 1:1 is still controversial, which is even admitted by some Trinitarians. We shouldn't rely on it for a specific doctrine, but it should be a part of all the evidence related to the Trinity doctrine. John was no doubt trying to convince Christians about how great and mighty and divine Jesus was and is. So this verse is part of a context that includes the entire book of John and then the rest of the Bible. After I left Bethel, there was a new writer in the Writing Department at Bethel who understood Greek as a scholar. He was asked to do a full study of the John 1:1 issue and his article was unusable because it showed there was just about equal weight to both sides of the controversy. This actually surprised a lot of his colleagues, who wished for a more clear-cut winner. But Trinitarians, I believe, are in the same position, which is why some also admit that there is no clear-cut winner, based on this one verse.

Some people go to college six years to make some reaaaaaly cool candles, man.
Some people go to college because it was expected of them, by parents who paid for it.
Some people go to college because they KNOW through pain, disappointment and many tears they are not sharp, intelligent, or coordinated and strong enough to survive any other way.
Through the genetic lottery, and no fault of their own ...  they are naturally incompetent at everything, and need to be TRAINED to do something that will pay the bills, or to become educated enough to be able to survive in a normal conversation without being pitied or being made fun of.
Through grit and hard work, incredible years of hard work, they LEARN to survive in a hostile world without being a burden on others, and have productive lives of true worth, REAL self respect,  and REAL earned dignity. 
Those are the people that NEED college ... and have my REAL admiration.
... also the REAL admiration of employers.
Not everyone can be a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs .... and that is a fact.
They changed the world .... most of us just do not want to be buried early.
 
.

Agree
Good observation, and I have noticed that too.
I agree with this completely. And of course as well as it being a protective arrangement AND a restorative arrangement as well. Personally I have known quite a number of those who were disfellowshipped and have come back. Those ones are usually those who have committed some sort of sin pertaining to a "weakness of the flesh" but still believe we have the Truth. As soon as they put their fleshly side in order they are soon reinstated.  But "my" problem is with the minority of cases where although having put their fleshly side in order, they no longer desire to preach to others or go to meetings twice a week (for whatever reason...losing faith etc.. etc.) These ones have no chance of being reinstated because one of the prerequisites is meeting attendance.  Maybe one day they do wake up. My sister in law was gone for 20 years! She was disfellowshipped for having sex with her boyfriend (who later became her husband). But her being gone for so long was mainly circumstantial because she had moved to a country where Witnesses are banned and her husband was strongly opposed. Then her husband died and she moved back to the USA and was able to take steps for re-instatement.  Interestingly, my mother in law never cut ties with her and even went to see her in the other country several times when she was still disfellowshipped. So when my sister in law applied for reinstatement it wasn't so she could associate with her mother, because she was already doing that,  but it was because she genuinely wanted to return to the Christian congregation, and to Jehovah (although she said she had never lost her relationship with Jehovah). Now if my mother in law had followed the Slave's instructions as per the video where the daughter returns after 15 years,  she would have not spoken to her daughter for 20 years, nor seen her grandchildren.  I cannot put my finger on it, but something tells me this is not right, it goes against natural human affection and decency that we were created with. I cannot help but wonder if it's right for US to judge the situation by the standard of Aaron's sons who were directly put to death by Jehovah, and the Israelites who were to stone their own children to death for dissidency. Things are different now. Isn't Jehovah going to punish individuals himself at Armageddon? As you know, I have nothing at all against the congregation being kept clean, what I have an issue with is the family being told how to act. I feel it should be at the discretion of the family how they handle the transgressions of a loved one.
I like that

I'm very sorry you are going through this, @ImStrugglingBad, but please be assured you are not alone. I'm also very sorry about the close friends you've lost. But I'm glad you have had some understanding and support from the congregation - not everyone gets that.
It's worrying that the stress and depression has reached levels so that you want to self-harm. Please, please contact a suicide prevention helpline if you are getting these urges.
https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/help-yourself/lgbtq/
http://oneloveallequal.org/2016/08/24/self-harm-hotlines/
As I said, you are not alone. You might like to read stories of those who have been struggling as you have.
http://www.jwhc.info/a-personal-story.php -This site has a private forum where you may find support from fellow gay JWs. I don't know the quality or vibe of the forum,  so you'll have to figure out for yourself whether it's a healthy and comfortable place to be.
There's also this person's experience you might like to read: http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/blog/gay-jw-hardship.php
You are valuable, wanted, and loved. There will be a way through this. Please hang in there. (((Internet hugs)))

There is a danger of drawing a false conclusion from your statement here. Greber's rendering of John 1:1 is not true because it is demon-inspired. It is true because it is true. That is what the Watchtower agrees with.
Satan himself quoted accurately from scripture, yet this does not detract from the truthfulness of those texts. (Luke 4:10-11). Luke was not supporting Satan by including his words in the sacred text.
Caiaphas, the High priest,  prophesied correctly in connection with Jesus death. (John 11:49-50) Although  he was one of the "offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33) and from his "father the Devil" (John 8:44), this did not effect the truthfulnes of his utterance. The apostle John's inclusion and explanation of this man's utterance did not indicate a support for him and his wicked master. 
So there is no contradiction ...sir.
However, there is a further danger that these words of Jesus could apply to your argument if you omit to check the reasoning carefully before pressing "Submit Reply":
"Jesus said to them: “You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God" Matt 22:29 

One day you (correctly) highlight the fact that it is the uneducated, unlettered and ordinary persons who can more easily see the wisdom of God's word, and at other times I see you touting someone's education, PhD's, and titles as proof that persons like COJ, for example, should be judged as unworthy of consideration.
Exactly! I believe you are exactly correct on this point. (Although I'm not sure why you brought it up.)
Exactly! Russell could NOT have predicted anything concerning 1874. As far as we know he was even disdainful of Second Adventist chronology until late in 1875 or early 1876. So whatever you meant by the question" "So contrary to an ex-Bethelite assurance in Watchtower knowledge?" you are right to point this out, just as I have, by the way.
A complete non sequitur. Just because I have pointed out the same thing you just did, you were forced to use a kind of "vagueness" about this supposed accusation involving an ex-Bethelite. I'm sure you knew that I have never ever even implied that Russell claimed the end of the world in 1874. So to answer your question about "who then makes a play on words" the answer is quite obvious. You just did! 
And it's this same kind of twisting of words and meanings about which many people have pretended that doctrinal issues have been answered. This is one of the bad things that happens to Witnesses when they have doctrinal questions or believe that they can see a contradiction in some of our traditional teachings that go back to the time of the Bible Students. If the question cannot be answered through bluster and wordplay, then the next step is to just dig in our heels and call the questionable doctrines "spirit directed truth" and associate all concerns and questions as "apostasy."
'Nuff said! Thanks. I didn't see myself, or you, or TTH, or anyone else here claiming to be well versed in English or commanding the language better than any other.

Exactly!
You are probably thinking only of the times when Russell and Rutherford held beliefs that we now consider ridiculous. I was thinking about the times when Russell and Rutherford made statements that were Biblically and logically true. (For example: when Russell pointed out that the wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine mentioned in Matthew 24 were NOT signs of the last days, but were the kinds of things that "must happen" over the entire course of the 1,800+ years since Jesus mentioned them. Or when Rutherford spoke about how evidence works, and how one piece of evidence is not worth that much, but when two or three pieces of corroborating evidence confirm each other, the likelihood of truth cannot be overlooked, and when that is multiplied half-a-dozen times we have something that might as well be called absolute truth.)
But you should recall, too, that it is the Watchtower, not any of us, who have clumped together the Bible Student ideology with the Witness ideology. The Governing Body is identified as beginning in 1919 among Bible Students. Elijah is now supposed to be a prophetic picture of Russell from the 1870s to 1916 preparing the way for these "Bible Students" to come on the scene 1919. Some of the major Bible Student traditions that have been dropped were not dropped until 1943/4, and one of them in 1961/2. Of course, many of the Bible Student traditions have not been dropped at all. And many of them should not ever be dropped because they were correct from the start.
There is no more need to go back to the problems of ancient times to use them as a justification for making the same mistakes in modern times. The examples were meant for our instruction. When Jesus says to watch out for something it is so the same mistakes are not repeated in future generations.
To some it could sound like you are suggesting that the next generation of Witnesses should break off and form their own association, something like what Rutherford did, or even what you suggest Jesus was doing in breaking off from Judaism.

It has been typical of AllenSmith, J.R.Ewing, Gnosis Pithos, etc., to rely on a kind of "word salad" or various other types of "plays on words" and twisted and incorrect meaning of words. The problem is that while you probably think that it defends a particular Watchtower tradition, it ends up highlighting the weakness of that same tradition. For example, if the word "people" in the above statement of yours refers to people in the Writing Department at Bethel, then it makes more sense. 
This isn't exactly on topic, but in a way it really is. Consider: 
One of the bad things that can happen to a baptized Witness is that she is reading the Bible, runs across a passage that raises a question, then she studies the Watchtower's answer to that question, and her study reveals one of the contradictions or weaknesses of the traditional explanation or a recent update to that explanation. So she goes to the elders where her question reveals doubts, and because it is a question that the elders are unable to answer, she immediately comes under suspicion of having been influenced by apostates. But because her question is not solidly answered, then the same thing might happen again with a second difficult question, so that a pattern has now emerged and some elders might take this as evidence that she is now most definitely under the influence of apostasy, so they must shift the subject to a question of loyalty and obedience. In her frustration at having the topic changed from answering her question to a question of loyalty, her frustrated demeanor is seen as rebellion and an unwillingness to put herself under the authority of the elders or the Governing Body. She may not be disfellowshipped for this, as she might surely have been between 1979 and 1986, but the perceived haughtiness of the elders' response pushes her away from the congregation and she begins to draw away from close association. Her joy is gone and she now finds it physically and mentally depressing to go to the meetings.
You may not have run across such a case, but I did. It was a sister who moved into our congregation in the 1990's, who attended for a while and then disappeared. When my wife spoke with her, this was her exact explanation for why she had moved into our congregation. She had hoped that the attitude she saw displayed was going to be different, but she saw the same kind of haughtiness among some elders and couldn't "shake" the feeling that it would just happen again.

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

Spent from July 8 to July 22 this year in Anguilla. Brothers we called there yesterday are all suffering from damage to their homes and several vehicles. No reports of loss of life that they know of on the entire island yet, although injuries reported. To get to Anguilla (three times now) we fly into St. Maarten and take a ferry (although you can also switch planes in Puerto Rico or St. Maarten for a smaller plane that is able to land in Anguilla's smaller airport). Damage at both airports, and a lot of runway debris to clean up. Most homes of Witnesses there are in very low-cost housing construction: concrete walls with metal roof. Several roofs went flying, exposing the contents of home to a lot of water damage. From St. Maarten there was no report yet about the brothers, necessarily, but there are a couple of deaths and several injuries reported in both St. Maarten and St. Martin. 
[Updated edit: 1 person dead in Anguilla, not a Witness.]

We sometimes make broad application of selected verses in God's Word as if there were no exceptions or as if they are true in every case. 
A legitimate example of this might be Heb. 6:18 "...it is impossible for God to lie." An example of another verse where we might not assume to make a broad application of is Proverbs. 16:7: "When Jehovah is pleased with a man's ways, he causes even his enemies to be at peace with him." Is that always the case? We might say it was true during Solomon's reign, but what about other faithful servants of Jehovah who obviously had enemies that were not at peace with them? (David, Jeremiah, Jesus, JW's today...) Could we reason conversely that if they/we had enemies, Jehovah is not pleased with them/us? Hardly. It's just that making a broad application to some passages raises obvious questions.
Another scripture to consider is that found at Psalm 119:165: "Abundant peace belongs to those who love your law; Nothing can make them stumble ("for them there is no stumbling block")." The conclusion often drawn from that is that "true" worshippers can't be stumbled. But the reality is that quite often true worshippers are stumbled. If fact, that is not only a fulfillment of Bible prophecy, but in line with the warning Jesus gives at Matthew 18:6: "But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea." So clearly both Jesus and Paul (Romans 14:21) indicate that our "brothers" could be stumbled by the choices we make (even if those choices may be "lawful" according to our conscience.) Is there a contradiction here? It might seem that way and has in fact to some (this isn't the first time this issue has been raised.) If you you look in the CD WT library at all the references (it will take a lot of time) you will see that generally these articles focus on one OR the other without considering how one relates or contributes to our understanding of the other - but not all. Either "nothing can make true worshippers stumble," OR "be very careful about stumbling or fellow worshippers by the way we act on our conscience."  Is it fair to assume that those who stumble are not "true worshippers" or "not of our sort" going out from us? Hardly, because Jesus clearly identified such as "little ones who have faith" - and yet could be stumbled. However, as mentioned earlier, not all articles present these verses as an "either - or" situation. Here are some comments from the WT that explain this seeming contradiction:
"True, were all Christians fully mature, there would be no danger of stumbling another: (Ps. 119:165). but since not all Christians are strong in faith and mature, we must exercise care."
"The person being stumbled to a fall might be a 'little one,' but that would not minimize the seriousness for the one causing the stumbling in this case. Why not? Because it involved "one of these little ons that believe." This would designate a believer in Jesus as the messianic Son of God. The belief of such "little ones" puts them on the way to everlasting life. So, if anyone willfully, purposely, inconsiderately caused such a 'little one' on the way to eternal life to take due offence and stumble out of the the living way into destruction, it would be tantamount to committing murder. It would show a lack of love for the one stumbled." 
So we can surmise that Psalm 119:165 basically refers to those who have a level of spiritual maturity, because they "love God's law" and "rove about in it," - (but that might not be true of all true worshippers). Likely these mature ones would have experience in applying God's law -  and eating "solid food" (as mature ones would do) and so not be stumbled by what might stumble newer ones. But those newer ones acquainted only with "milk" and with weak consciences, could in fact be stumbled and we have to be careful about that. 
Finally, depending of the severity of the circumstance, even mature ones have stumbled by what they may have seen/heard/experienced. Therefore, the admonition at 1 Corinthians 10:12 is important: "So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall."
 

I came late to this discussion, knowing that my viewpoint on this particular subject is based on what might seem a bit radical to some. So I apologize in advance for the opinions to follow:
I wouldn't suggest "civil disobedience" either, but to your point, the earth didn't open up when Rutherford successfully attempted his own hostile takeover of the Watch Tower Society from 1916 to 1919 (technically, until 1931). After all, he went directly against the leadership of Russell and illegally went against the leadership of the majority, physically shutting that majority out, until he could put his own majority in place. But this is another one of those potential contradictions of a similar nature to the contradiction that forms the basis for this topic. We forgive him for bending the law and for several ethics violations because we are sure that, in the long run, he had the "truer" religion compared to those he outmaneuvered.
Yet, this also suggests that the 'guide from history' has more to do with how we respond to the true Leader, the greater Moses, Jesus Christ. Thinking of men as effectively taking the place of Jesus as head is merely an expedience for modern organizational purposes, and is not related to theocracy, which is rule by God. If a doctrine shows up differently in God's Word from the way it shows up from the GB, then we surely have nothing to fear from merely obeying God as ruler rather than men. That's the true definition of theocracy.
But we don't initiate discord, either. That's for the exact same reason we accept and respect the GB in the first place. We appreciate that the role they take on is for keeping order and for efficiently carrying out our ministry in an organized manner. So we gladly subject ourselves to the decisions of an organizational Governing Body. I don't see why anyone would object to that. Besides, it's working; the worldwide ministry is becoming increasingly more organized and efficient through this arrangement.
These men also maintain "doctrinal order" by taking on the role of "guardians of the doctrine." This can be a very good thing. Teaching materials, presentation materials, publication content, dramas, videos, convention talks are coordinated and this produces less confusion. When a change is made it is often highlighted and even if not, there are usually efficient ways for us to discover and explain the change. We appreciate that the work done to find the support for these doctrines scripturally is taken very seriously and we have no major doctrines without some Biblical reason for it, even if that reason (for a former doctrine) was based on an admitted misunderstanding. 
I won't use this topic as a place to show the kind of trouble that can happen if the "guarding" part is taken more seriously than fixing any misunderstandings, but I think that should be obvious, from our own history. But the point is that it should not be difficult for any of us to rattle off anywhere from 10 to 20 doctrinal changes and changes in procedures that came about through "public pressure" even though this public pressure was not well-known to most of us, nor was it any kind of civil disobedience.
I can think of a couple cases where it really was something like civil disobedience from the rank-and-file Bethelites, for example, but I am referring primarily to the public exposure of certain embarrassing doctrines by ex-JWs, or the pressure of civil courts and tax courts (US, UK, Belgium, Australia) and scrutiny of doctrine by psychologists, surgeons and law enforcement. Add to this an unknown number of letters that came in from Witnesses whose questions and objections really have been taken seriously over the years. It must be a lot more than some Witnesses and others here would believe.

Cos:
What you have stated is OPINION.  You have proved NOTHING, except that you can type.
Both God and Christ have a personal name ... what is the Holy Spirit's name .... Casper?
If so, it must be a FRIENDLY spirit.
YEAH, that's the ticket!
( ... for those in Rio Linda that was intended to be biting sarcasm .... because the Holy Spirit does NOT have a personal name ... and God and Christ do! )
note:  ... descriptions do not count as personal names, no more than a warm blanket does... um .... not being a person...
.
.
Even my seven dogs have personal names ...... in human English .....  I don't know if that is true in Arf.
.
 

The most recent persons I studied with who symbolized their dedication through baptism were the father and mother of two children, a pre-teen boy and a much younger girl. We absolutely discussed what baptism means in terms of their association and the potential for disfellowshipping. In fact, we spent hours on the subject, because the mother was a smoker, who needed a lot of moral support to help her quit, and she was (and still is) allowed to call the house any time day or night getting through the tough time she had in giving up the addiction. In fact, they put off baptism for at least an extra 6 months to be sure she was completely over it. But our studies also included a discussion of what can happen to children, too, and the pressure we can end up unknowingly putting on children and the emotional pain that could result if the decision of a child is not really his (or her) own decision, but primarily a way for the child to please their parents.
So up to a point, I do, but I have probably over-used or even misused this verse:
(Matthew 10:33-37) 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. I'm wondering if this is really all that applicable to the variations of choices people make today. If their children grow up and become atheists, for example, are the parents really required to initiate that division? I read the verse carefully, now, and realize that we are not the ones creating this division and creating enemies. We are the ones who continue to love our enemies, the same way Jehovah continues to make it rain on both the righteous and unrighteous.

I'm certainly not going to claim I can explain it. But I think that TTH is accurate. He says that:
This means that yes, absolutely, we have two sets of scales on this one, but only because we are sure we deserve a different set of scales. I don't think there is any other way to see it either. It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to:
(Hebrews 6:4-6) 4 For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit 5 and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, 6 but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame. (2 Peter 2:20-22) 20 Certainly if after escaping from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, their final state has become worse for them than the first. 21 It would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it to turn away from the holy commandment they had received. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.” So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street. Of course, this does not mean it is ethical to imply that it would be as easy to leave the JWs as it is to become one. We do make it difficult, and we do use emotional blackmail, but we believe we are justified. We believe that the "tough love" of shunning will shame people into coming back and that if we win back a brother through shaming that we have thus protected their prospect for eternal life. But should we tell people this before they are baptized, and perhaps show them a video presentation about the worst-case scenario? Should we justify it with the fact that many other people also shun others whether for feelings of religious superiority or sometimes just feelings of cultural or supposed moral superiority -- or sometimes just purely for emotional blackmail based on rationalizing juvenile behavior? 
In my view, the answer is yes, absolutely. We should show new converts how we shame people. We should be PROUD of everything we do with respect to our preaching and practice. If we think anything we do or teach should remain in the dark, then that can only mean we are ashamed of it. We would be hypocritical not to show it and explain it. We can tell people we think that the "love" behind shunning is worth it in the long run.
(Hebrews 12:11) True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. If we are not proud enough of a practice to explain it up front as part of the conversion process, and explained by an elder prior to baptism, then, of course, we should change the practice.
Also, you are probably aware that I don't think we handle shunning in a completely biblical way. And another way to look at the verses above (about returning to vomit, re-nailing the Son of God), is that they are not about any specific religious organization, but about a specific type of personal relationship with Jehovah that is rejected.

That is true to a point, and especially with regard to the JW community in general. However, with family it IS different, if we are going to be honest about it. If there was  an option whereby a family was able to associate with an apostate loved one and it was deemed OK, I am sure there would be many families who would. I can give you examples of quite a few, whose family members were raised as JW but picked another religion (my step son became a Mormon) and the other JW family members freely associate with them, some more, some less. Why, because they never chose to get baptized as JW. But really, they knew the truth, just didn't appeal to them for whatever reason. But if one gets baptized, and later on the truth loses it's appeal and they "apostatize" then that's a whole different story as we know. But really, the only difference is a vow that they broke between themselves and Jehovah. The vow wasn't made between themselves and the family, it is exclusively between them and God, so why should family loyalty/disloyalty play a part in that equation at all?

If we are going to be honest about this though, those who do wish to depart are very often at a dilemma because they know that if they do, the family will- if they value what makes the truth the truth - no longer speak with him. This dilemma has caused many to try and get around it by purposefully slowly drifting, without getting disfellowshipped, or, if already disfellowshipped, plan to make a show of coming back, get re-instated, and then become inactive.  I know of both scenarios personally.  And it is becoming more and more the norm now, as people are "wising up". Now what is the point of that? 

When it comes down to the grass roots, it’s all a numbers game. What would kings be without subjects? Governments have been overthrown and changed by the sheer power of numbers. If there is no support for a cause or idea, it dies out. No matter how ingenious. The only being that doesn’t need numbers is God. He needs nobody’s support to exist or to be the rightful sovereign. He needs nothing at all. He is the arbiter of right and wrong, he is the ultimate lawmaker.
On the other hand the GB need  numbers because without numbers it would be just them sitting in their office and Jehovah would have to have the stones cry out instead. If NO one cooperated with a policy, then this policy would fall flat, it would just be on paper. If EVERY member of JWs decided they would no longer cooperate with certain policies, where would those policies be? Of course this is not likely ever to happen, but the point I am trying to make is that many policies exist only because of the support they get. (and I am obviously not talking about what’s black and white in the Bible). So the GB are by no means unaffected by numbers. I dare to go as far as giving an example with the shaking up with regards to child sexual abuse. The society is and has changed the policies BECAUSE of numbers. The item at the convention about protecting our children was in response to the shake up. Had no one ever said anything, there would likely be no talk. Some have tried for this change decades before, but it took a government, (and one that made all the hearings transparent and available on line for anyone to reference), to make change happen. We are only human, the GB are only human, they need US to make anything “work”. The recent CO we had made an interesting remark, which when he said it made me remember something JWInsider said on here once. When I commended him for something he (the CO) said, he replied that “he just put it out there, to see if it will stick”. This is similar to saying if it gets support, we will go with it. This was in a small scale apparently what the GB do. Sometimes it is merely trial and error. If we get too strict here…we might alienate our friends… If we are too lax here we might lose them to sin….
Br. Jackson, during the inquiry into institutional child sexual abuse, conceded that yes, there are some things in our (at that time current policy), that can be changed if they don’t go against our understanding of scripture, or their principles. Why didn’t these things get changed before? Because they were never brought up, at least not by an entity that mattered.
Why, numbers matter in a congregational setting too. If everyone complains about brother so and so, you can bet something will be done, rather than if no one says anything. It’s part of one of our policies too, judicial cases are set up when they meet certain criteria, and one of these criteria is how wide spread is the case regarding the accused known, do many people know about it, or have many people complained about it….
So the point I am trying to make is that some things have and can change depending on the “notoriety” these thing get. And JWs as an organization are not immune to this. I’m still waiting for when families of disfellowshipped ones will not be “made” to shun their loved ones, but it will be left up to them whether they do so or not.
 

TTH:
Never in the history of the world has the majority EVER been right ... the most they can hope for is consensus.
YOU CAN VOTE TO KEEP THE PEACE, AND HAVE "ORDER" .... BUT YOU  CAN NOT VOTE ON TRUTH.
...and JWI's posts DID wear me down ... but to the best I could tell, every word was true. 
The fault was MINE .. not his, that I do not have the patience anymore to be a scholar. 
To more or less quote Alex Guiness playing Dr. Zhivago's policeman brother as he was in the snow watching Dr. Zhivago tear apart someone's fence for firewood "My brother is a much better man than I am, but that does not bother me ... I have killed much better men than I am, with a small pistol.".  If you do not get the philosophy behind that statement .. it means some things are not important ... and some things ARE.
And as far as kids squabbling in the car back seat with  siblings and whining 'are we there yet? ... we are adults with legitimate concerns ...legitimate real world problems .... Hurricane Harvey immediately comes to mind ... and we are told if we do not shut up, Big "Brother" Dad is going to stop the car and throw us outside ... and anyone else with legitimate concerns and complaints that dares disagree with his authority will also have the same fate.
That is an excellent way to keep order, but it is by extortion ... when the siblings  recognize  there is NO process  for the redress of legitimate grievances that exists ... none whatsoever.
Big "Brother" Dad, as always, knows what is best ... to maintain his position.
So ... one adult is treated like a child, and expelled from the car, the other adult siblings are also treated like children, with nothing of value to say ...   and are threatened to be ALSO expelled if we do say it, and some are for that reason! ..... and the grievances  go unanswered.
And the roadside becomes littered with the bodies of legitimate complainers. Dad does stop to paint with a broad brush in white, on both sides of the car "Celestial Chariot", as he grew up in the 50's when men named their cars.
And besides ... he can always get MORE children. He knows that so very well.
In Russian State Orphanages they bind babies in cloth so they cannot move their arms, and when they cry they are ignored. After awhile... they stop crying, because no one ever comes to show them tenderness and love .... and their "Big Brother" sees this as a good thing, because when they grow up, they will make excellent, totally obedient citizens and soldiers. 
It will never occur to them that they are anything else but machines to serve the State.
Sound Familiar?
Here is the quote:
" I told myself it was beneath my dignity to arrest a man for pilfering firewood.
But nothing ordered by the Party is beneath the dignity of any man.
And the Party was right: one man desperate for a bit of fuel is pathetic; five million people desperate for fuel will destroy a city.  That was the first time I ever saw my brother.
But I knew him.
And I knew I would disobey the Party.
Perhaps it was the tie of blood between us, but I doubt it; we were only half-tied anyway, and brothers will betray a brother.
Indeed, as a policeman I would say get hold of a man's brother and you're half-way home.
Nor was it admiration for a better man than me.
I did admire him; but I didn't think he was a better man. Besides, I've executed better men than me with a small pistol. "
                            But nothing ordered by the Party is beneath the dignity of any man.
                                       But nothing ordered by the Party is beneath the dignity of any man.
                                                      But nothing ordered by the Party is beneath the dignity of any man.
                                                                             But nothing ordered by the Party is beneath the dignity of any man.
                                                                                          *
... and therein is where the crime lies.
.
 

Actually, it was Charles Taze Russell ....in
the very FIRST issue of the Watchtower.
July 1, 1879 in the article "What is Truth?"
Here is the full text of the article ....
"WHAT IS TRUTH?" This question is one which every sincere Christian should ask and seek to answer. We should learn to love and value truth for its own sake; to respect and honor it by owning and acknowledging it wherever we find it and by whomsoever presented. A truth presented by Satan himself is just as true as a truth stated by God. Perhaps no class of people are more apt to overlook this fact than the Christian. How often do they in controversy overlook and ignore truth presented by their opponents. This is particularly the case when arguing with an infidel. They feel at perfect liberty to dispute everything he says on religious subjects. This is not the correct principle. Many infidels are honest— as anxious to speak and believe the truth as are Christians— and if in converse with them we ignore truths which they may advance, we not only fail to convince them of our truths, but put an end to all hope of reaching them; for our failure to admit the evident truth which they advance begets in them contempt for the one who is not honest enough to admit one truth because he does not see how it can be reconciled to another. Accept truth wherever you find it, no matter R9 : page 3 what it contradicts, and rely for ability to afterwards harmonize it with others upon "The Spirit of truth, which shall guide you into all truth," as Jesus promised. Truth, like a modest little flower in the wilderness of life, is surrounded and almost choked by the luxuriant growth of the weeds of error. If you would find it you must be ever on the lookout. If you would see its beauty you must brush aside the weeds of error and the brambles of bigotry. If you would possess it you must stoop to get it. Be not content with one flower of truth. Had one been sufficient there would have been no more. Gather ever, seek for more. Weave them together as a garland —"Bind them on thee as a bride doeth." "Bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man." Prov. 3:3. C. T. R. I believe that covers it ALL.
Oh ... and JW Insider ... thanks for the "setup".
 
.........

I realize that I am not an elder or former elder such as some of you are but I know what Loyalty to Jehovah is. And since a forum such as this one it is impossible to determine who is or is not an apostate, disfellowshipped or pretending to be a brother while dispensing divisions  and we are obviously associating together here it is my decision to now leave as I wish to cherish true Loyalty to my Creator. 
Loyalty is important to me personally probably because my two previous marriages ended with my wife committing adultery although we were married for 7 and 10 years. So I can see how Jehovah must feel when someone who says they love you are disloyal to your face. I am currently married to my wife of 8 years and I believe we both must continue to develop loyalty to GOD FIRST then to each other. "Do ALL things for God's glory" 1 Cor. 10:31. And I no longer feel it is for me "God's glory" to be here. Goodbye.

I wish you the best in your endeavors. Thanks for all the input, and of course, if you decide to participate again, I'm sure you will be welcomed. Whether or not I am still here will be based on several factors. It's nice to find a place where one can show complete loyalty to the truth and still not hold back in sharing all aspects of the good news that we have found spiritually profitable. While no one can compare themselves to the Apostle Paul, we should still strive to be imitators of him. 
(Acts 20:20) 20 while I did not hold back from telling you any of the things that were profitable nor from teaching you publicly and from house to house. But as some have pointed out, this place, although a useful public forum for ideas to be shared, often becomes a place where opposers of scripture, and opposers of truth and evidence can become ridiculously juvenile and ill-behaved. And while joking and enjoying a laugh, and light-hearted association can be just fine, the propensity for unloving insults, sniping, and sarcasm can easily rub off on any of us. I have recently felt embarrassed at the way in which fellow brothers have claimed to proudly make a conscious decision to disregard Bible truth as long as they are generally confident that the men they choose to follow are backed by Jesus and Jehovah. This is so much like the high-control thinking that certain men have been able to achieve in several of the religious associations of Christendom, and I fear the trend of attracting more and more persons who are happy and proud not to think about scripture and evidence and truth.