Gnosis Pithos

Perhaps GB as part of Kingdom administration (Kings , Priests....) have clear and sound position on this question. :))) 

Notice she still has her baby teeth?
 

Srecko, how well you have revealed Watchtower's hypocrisy.
“How horrible it will be for you, experts in Moses’ Teachings and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You are like whitewashed graves that look beautiful on the outside (a charity organization! ) but inside are full of dead people’s bones and every kind of impurity.  So on the outside you look as though you have God’s approval, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."  Matt 23:27,28 

As it is written in Bible, we have this: 
1)God made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law
2)Religious people made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law
3)Secular authorities made execution or some kind of punishment for ignoring/disobeying Divine Law principles that are incorporated in Secular Law

1 Samuel 14:31-35New International Version (NIV)
31 That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. 32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. 33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that has blood in it.”
:)))))) and going to toilet for small or big need is also natural.....
 

By your opinion, in this matter - Who is closer to Bible truth? JW or Amish?   

Divine Law is above our philosophizing. Or also, will said, above speculation by GB. 
None of us, mostly nobody, has any difficulty understanding the basic moral provisions that are the content in Divine Law. Some of the basics are presented in the 10 commandments. Jesus' 2 commandments are essence on all 10 and all 1110 or more if you like. And this is the closest to, what i have named, Natural Conscience, because the Source of Human conscience is WHO? GOD! We as some kind people of "faith", "believers" would normally be in harmony on that and such reasoning and statement. Would we? Bible said so.
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them." - Rom 12
God is the source of Perfect conscience in Adam and Eve, but He is also Source of Imperfect conscience in all people after them. If God have no problem to accept imperfect human conscience and products of such conscience,  by what license, by whose permission, GB have, GB takes the right to have authority over Conscience of JW members. How he acquired such a right? He named himself (self-appointed) as Distributor of "food" and an Official interpreter of "words" ("Guardians of doctrine" according to G. Jackson  testimony in front ARC)
So because of the fact how all people around the Earth have very close, similar moral standards. And that is the core of that part of my comments and discussion. And because that state of Conscience which is common to all humans,  it is not natural how GB making "interpretations on some Bible text" and by interpretations create rules that directs, channeled/ing people's emotions, mind and deeds.
Directed criticism at the policy of the WT does not include discussion of the basic moral demands we are obliged to do! Obligated as Human, not as Members of this or that.
 
  
 

If you "believe" in something what you see or hear directly that is not faith or "believing". You need to reconsider  the concept of belief, believing.
If you not want or if you can not accepting reality how that is possible and more of that, how that happened in some JW congregations, your personal attitude and opinion, not deleting reality of life events.  

Apologize, did I not understand this sentence quite correct?  "...Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children."....
I based my comment on this particular sentence.  

2016 Convention movie program rejects, disproves such yours conviction. At 6:15 phone ringing but mum ignored daughter call.
 

Geoffrey Jackson expose before ARC in 2015 mentioned this issue in answering to Judge questions. 

Natural God given Conscience vs Artificial, so called "bible trained conscience", imposed and ruled by GB
I hope that, giving like, upvote and approval on your perception ability, given by me to your comments would not insult you  

We're back to that problem again of trying to use the idea of conscience in a court of law as an obfuscation. You are right that very few Witnesses leave anything up to conscience. It's "spiritual" peer pressure to conform, where not conforming can result in anything from being looked down upon by peers, or a loss of privileges all the way up to being disfellowshipped yourself. I don't have a good solution, but I have seen the type of shunning of young family members that just seems childish on the part of the supposedly mature Witnesses who have to conform to the rule. 
I note that we no longer claim in court that corporeal punishment of minors is acceptable, and yet it obviously has Biblical precedent. I wonder if there's a way we would begin to conform to more modern norms of conduct, in obedience to the superior authorities in shunning cases, too.

It is a big world and I have not seen everything. I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

Very true. But we all know what would happen if it was found out you went on vacation with your dfd daughter or son. (Not yours literally of course!) It's one of these frustrating hard to pin down situations. There is a supreme court case going on in Canada right now where the dfd ex- brother is suing. But that's not what I wanted to say, but what is interesting is that the WT appealing the case mentions this in defense: "Disfellowshipping is not “a mandatory church edict” that removes family love. Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse".  Page 9, par 31
How can that be reconciled with what really happens?
To illustrate:  If it was a conscience matter, then if someones conscience said it was ok for them to spend time with their disfellowshipped relative, perhaps even go on vacation with them, then it shouldn't be a problem, and no one should judge that decision, just like if someone decided their conscience allowed them to take minor blood fractions. For that reason, because minor blood fractions really ARE a conscience matter, we don’t have articles giving us advice on how to avoid them, and videos showing us how someone successfully refused them etc. like we do with disfellowshipping.
So really, all the articles and videos are “biasing” us to shun, rather than truly leaving it up to our conscience. I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am just pointing out  that stating that it is a conscience matter is not correct, (actually it is dishonest) and could be used against us if proved.
Here is the case, but I know you probably won't bother to read it, and I don't blame you, you will just have to trust me that the quote I posted is really there
http://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/37273/FM010_Appellant_Judicial-Committee-of-the-Highwood-Congregation-of-Jehovah's-Witnesses.pdf
 
 
 

This kid was in adult age at that time and rest of family has been couraged  to maximally limit contacts with him and "counseled" how spiritual health of family would be better if df kid find another place for living. "Counsels" was in all kinds of instructions, Bible, examples from WT publications and informations that elders have on such matters.  As to my knowledge, this df kid feeled this emotional coldness and spiritual pressure that was puted on rest of family and because such conditions lived the house. How was looked all that in everyday real life i do not know, but it is possible to imagine all tensions, fears, tears, inside battles of mind and heart...   
You can not believe that such young children were baptised in JWorg ? :)))      
 

Though some might say it is a matter of semantics, I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.
I doubt it. Not that you 'recalled' it that way, but that it was true.
 
I rather doubt this, too, if the child was the minor you imply he/she was. If I recall, when the subject of df'd family members was discussed in literature, it was a given that association would take place with a minor, but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

I know some JW members (family) with very sad experience. Family with few children. Parents are divorced. One parent stayed   with 4 minor children. The oldest was baptized in age of 6 as i recall. Then with time all other children was baptized but also in young teenage age. First child was df about in time of high school. Stayed under same roof, but  rest of "faithful" members reduce very much contacts. Elders made pressure on family to throw df child out of home. And child was gone after some time. One by one rest of children was also left JWorg. In one moment while they was been member of cong. elders made pressure and rebuke all them because they (children) spend few days in summer time with their df father. After such emotional torture of elders one minor kid cut vein on hands and must be hospitalized. After that "last drop" for her young mind and emotions, all went down. She is "damaged". And no one of elders take responsibility for her "soul".      
Is that good material for Court? Is that violation of Human Rights that was made under/because of Church Rules and Policy? Is it possible to separate so called "religious, doctrinal interpretations of Bible text" with "rules and instructions made by JW Clergy, Priesthood" vs Natural Law vs Secular Law?  
WT JWorg are private Company in the very core, in essence. And as such been legalized in various country as Company, Charity Society or similar entities. As such is under some General Law and Acts. Every JW member became member, get status of membership at the moment of baptism. And by that act  Contract was made between minor children or adult person and WT Company.   
Court have no interest to made decisions is some religious teaching or doctrine right or wrong, true or false. But when belief system produce "emotional torture" and other sort of torture, intellectual, spiritual, psychological - then that can be material for secular authorities.  

Very true. But what I find the problem is, is when someone no longer wishes to be a Witness after they have been dfd and after they are no longer practicing what they've been dfd for, so of course there is no chance of them being reinstated, which means they will be shunned forever with all it's implications (loved ones will not talk to them ever again)....

Ask any parent whose child (adult or otherwise) is disfellowshipped.

Of course it doesn't apply to the one whose association has ended. They can do what they like obviously since they are no longer bound by the rules of the congregation.
But rephrase it to say "....ask yourself these questions if you are an active member of Jehovah's Witnesses" and see whether the prospect of shunning has an impact on your answers.
 

Hehe, Violations of Human Rights is when WT JWorg and their representatives forbid  JW members to exercise their Personal Human Rights and talk, or make social contacts on all levels or to sit and eat and drink if wish, or even say simple "hello" on the street to ex-member. This WT command are with the threat of excommunication, disfellowshiping. If that not be with such extreme consequences many JW members will communicate with ex members. And many of them doing that. I am ex member of JW church and on my glad surprise more JW members find that is all right to speak with me. They "disobey"  WT interpretation on canonic text  but obey their god given Natural conscience instead Artificial "bible learned conscience" that is imposed and runned by WT Corporation.
And as Court say, "their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text. . . ."
Perhaps Court (because of wisdom, ahaha) do not want to involve themselves in endless reasoning about what some bible text mean and how is to be understand. But all other people who want to tell something are Free to tell and comment.  

No. I like to be fair, so I hope my perception was fair too. I generally try not to defend something that is obviously wrong or indefensible.

What is a Christian Man's MORAL responsibility to protect his own life, or that of his immediate or spiritual family?