James Thomas Rook Jr.

As Muppet Ralph the Dog sez:
"Can't live with 'em ... can't live without 'em ..."

Agreed JWI ... in context, you are exactly right.

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.
 
.

Wouldn't you like to know what each one is actually thinking?
 

Don't worry ... remember in 2014 when they collected an average of $16 from every Brother and Sister on the planet to cover such things in full?
I probably missed the mid-week meetings where this was done in 2015 and 2016, and if precedent follows, the NEXT $16 collection won't be until this coming November.
However, It might have all changed and I missed it.
That, and/or their multi-billion dollar stock portfolio which can be liquidated is MORE that enough to cover EVERY damaged Kingdom Hall, and other Company property there is ...
No problemo!

Speaking of collections of dumb people who surround themselves with other dumb people ..... where incompetence is its OWN reward!
( I knew he was fake when he did rock, paper, and scissors!? )
Obama reportedly paid this guy $40 thousand Dollars for this.
 
 

That's why I have no objections to telling religious jokes on the Amish . ... they don't even have electricity ... much less computers.
They will never know !

Of course.
Once ANY organization becomes sufficiently  large, with real estate, a huge treasury of money that never stops rolling in ... to spend as they see fit, they start to worship themselves.
This is NOT new.
It's not even unique.
It is the normal evolution of human practices.
The next step is they begin to "eat their own" for not worshiping at the Altar of "Caleb and Sophia", in whatever form it takes specific to that organization.
This is NOT new.
It's not even unique.
The Catholics have been doing that for millenia.
It's worked so far.
 

W
My only concern is that it violates Exodus 20:4-5, and is BRAZENLY offensive to Jehovah God, apparently with no concern whatsoever.
NONE.
  Well, that, and the pain and suffering that we do to OURSELVES by destroying whole families to perhaps legitimately discipline ONE person.
.... there is THAT.

Precisely. But it gets a little more complicated because people can be mislead into thinking something else to what can actually happen in practice as is evident in the answers to FAQ
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/resign/#?insight[search_id]=475f2def-a58d-4618-aec5-5b7ebdc2505e&insight[search_result_index]=1
and
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/
Interesting

JTR, where we differ in our view point is that I do not believe that shunning disfellowshipped ones is being used for the consolidation of arbitrary political power and to generate fear among the cowardly.  I have no reason to believe that. (Just like I have no reason to believe Br. Herd would wear a 25K Rolex, knowing there are friends out there struggling on the brink of poverty).  I believe those who impose these things genuinely believe it is the right thing to do. That does not mean I am going to agree with it, nor do as they say, and I will let Jehovah be the Judge.

Sort of like a "temporary tattoo", eh?

Sort of like a "temporary tattoo", eh?

The rewards program goes like this, as an example ...
The JW singer Prince (PBUH) contributed about $38 thousand dollars a month to his local Kingdom Hall.  Most of this was sent to Brooklyn, which was then the JW Headquarters. 
In exchange, he lived a lifestyle, and had associates both personal and professional that you and I would be disfellowshipped for.
When he died of drug overdose, you could almost hear the salivating over his estate across State lines.
You have heard that after you die, you have to pay for your sins?
Down here on Earth there is an unofficial "good ol' boys" price list.
And don't even get me STARTED about the Australian JW Michael Jackson Day Care Centers!

There is a  danger here in that one can compaign for an issue of one's own making. Basically, unrepentance for serious sin is the reason for disfellowshippnig. The scriptures are pretty clear on this. The counsel on differentiating between spiritual fellowship and family responsibility is prettty basic and can be applied simply by following what was stated in 1981 :  For those sharing a dwelling, "Since his being disfellowshipped does not sever the family ties, normal day-to-day family activities and dealings may continue." For those not, " there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum." These seems perfectly adequate. For me, the rarity would be as compared to the contact with one sharing a dwelling, not the typical weddings and funerals only contact that many families engage in as a normal practice in today's world.
So how to apply this is definitely a matter of conscience. However, as with ALL conscience matters, other people's consciences are effected too. How we apply principles in these areas are always going to bring mixed reaction from others. Excercise of freedom must always be done discreetly in my opinion, and there is no harm in "playing one's cards close to one's chest." Paul at times chose not to excercise his freedom at all in matters that might stumble others.
However if one wishes to strike a defiant attitude in this matter, even to the point of maligning the Christian congregation because a paticular stance is taken on a conscience matter,  one is free to do so. But there are always consequences for this kind of behaviour. 
One thing for sure, running ahead of Jehovah or criticising his ways because of some personal discontent at what appears to be unfair, unreasonable or just delayed, (better ask Saul), will not bring good results. We only have to look at Sarah. She impatiently arranged for Abraham to produce offspring through her maidservant Hagar. This resulted in many problems and eventual estrangement. Then, after her (denied ) laughter at the prospect of having a child naturally, Jehovah stuck to his arrangements, which brought success, meanwhile, impatient humans scuttled around failing with theirs. Gen.16:1-16, 17:18-27, 18:9-15, 21:1-21 etc.. Even still, Jehovah provided for the casualties, as he also provides for those disfellowshipped today in keeping open a way back and even using right hearted ones in his kingdom work despite their estrangement. (Incidentally, he did provide even for Adam and Eve after their expulsion didn't he?).
This reminds me of the point in Ezekiel 43:8. Israel's profaning of God's name extended to those who said Jehovah's discipline of the nation ws a sign of weakness, or lack of protection, or some other negative connotation on Jehovah's name or reputation.
Rather like those who criticise Jehovah's disciplining of unrepentant wrongdoers today as a violation of human rights! How true the words: "Men given to badness cannot understand judgment, but those who are seeking Jehovah can understand everything." Pro.28:5. Those "seeking" can include suitably chastened disfellowshipped ones!
More to be said on this topic I am sure.

I did a lot of extensive research on the Mormons because I didn't want to speak in ignorance. I also went directly to their website as I wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth, much to the chagrin of one sister who chastised me for it, saying she only looks to our publications on any topic. I have no idea where she thinks our publications get their info from. In any case, if I were to become a Mormon because of looking at their website I would deserve to become a Mormon! It is a crazy religion, not crazy in the sense of weird practices so much, but rather crazy what people will believe with that kind of a foundation. It is so obviously fake, the charlatan that Joseph Smith was. And yet it goes to show that people are willing to believe anything. I could start my own religion of the  pink flying slippers and get a following. Even with a name like that. Angel Moroni, give me a break.

I agree with the sentiments of most of what you are saying, based the scriptures you cited etc. It is a difficult situation, and with so many variables, no one solution can fit all perfectly obviously. To sum it all up, and I think I have mentioned it before, what I have difficulty with is the way family members are basically told to shun their loved ones. In the video (we will all see at our midweek meeting this week) the mother has not had any contact with her daughter for 15 years, and has not seen her grandchildren probably ever (although this is not mentioned, we are evidently led to assume it). I really feel that no man has the right to order others what to do in this regard, and as for the interpretation that it is Jehovah's will, well I guess I have a difficulty with that too.
The WT 74/8/1 "Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones" was the best article regarding this subject. I wasn't ever aware of it at the time of its publication, as I was too young, but I came across it in the WT CD library when I was researching this topic. Evidently our view has changed and become a lot more extreme. I hasten to think this was due to the shake up in 79 with GB member Ray Franz etc. He was eventually disfellowshipped because of associating with a disfellowshipped person (not because of apostasy). It seems because they had made an example of Ray, they also had to carry it through with the rest of us. I think @JW Insidermay have some thoughts on this as he was in Bethel at the time. You can see what I mean when you read the 74 article compared with what came after 79 to the present. Here is an extract from it:
Par. 21 As to disfellowshiped family members (not minor sons or daughters) living outside the home, each family must decide to what extent they will have association with such ones. This is not something that the congregational elders can decide for them. What the elders are concerned with is that “leaven” is not reintroduced into the congregation through spiritual fellowshiping with those who had to be removed as such “leaven.” Thus, if a disfellowshiped parent goes to visit a son or daughter or to see grandchildren and is allowed to enter the Christian home, this is not the concern of the elders. Such a one has a natural right to visit his blood relatives and his offspring. Similarly, when sons or daughters render honor to a parent, though disfellowshiped, by calling to see how such a one’s physical health is or what needs he or she may have, this act in itself is not a spiritual fellowshiping.
Now that's what I'm talking about. It makes so much more sense, and I hate to think that this extreme clamp down we have now could have something to do with "politics" rather than spirituality. There are always reasons for change that we may not be aware of, and sometimes they may actually have little to do with the Bible.
 

I am glad your sister-in-law has been reinstated. I see no reason why your mother-in-law should have rejected her grandchildren on the strength of your sister in-law's foolishness, regardless of any narrow-minded interpretation that some might apply to her actions. She of course would have to endure any consequences, even unjust ones, should they come as a result of her conscientous (hopefully) decision. But really it only goes to show why Jehovah has standards, and why the penalty for violation can seem severe. Look at the trouble caused for your mother-in-law. Same with Eve. Death penalty for "scrumping"? Bit Victorian isn't it? Huh, just look at the consequences for everyone else! 
It is difficult for us to know what the boundaries on these natural feelings are/should be. We are imperfect, and even if we were not, Jeremiah's words would still be valid: "I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jer.10:23.
Wasn't Abraham asked to go against against natural human affection and decency that we were created with? (Gen.22:2). But his faith in Jehovah moved him to obey what must have seemed more absurd than what his wife had been presented with many years earlier (Gen.18:12).Jehovah resolved the problem for him, but Abraham had no idea of the outcome until the matter was resolved. (Gen.22:8; 12). The important thing was that his faith prompted his obedience and gained him Jehovah's favour in a very special way. That opportunity is open to us all (James 3:22-23).
We can all point to examples where making our own decisions when faced with an unpleasant choice leads to a seemingly successful outcome. A typical example of this is the injunction to marry "only in the lord". Any number of experiences can be cited where brothers and sisters have flouted this counsel, and lo! The "unbeliever" has started a bible study and has become one of Jehovah's Witnesses! As if this vindicates a course of disobedience to Jehovah.
Does this show the "only in the lord" injunction to be faulty? As faulty as some would claim the way in which the disfellowshipping injunction is applied? I think it more indicates the mercy of our God Jehovah who "has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has he repaid us what our errors deserve" Ps.103:10. Also, his impartial and forgiving nature in that he does not withold his blessing even from those who are seemingly gained by the actions of those who have ignored his counsel.
What is often overlooked in these matters is the calamity that can befall others when the results of these self-willed decisions do not turn out so well. Or what about the fact that "because  sentence against a bad deed [by one person] has not been executed speedily, the heart of [other] men [or women] becomes emboldened to do bad" (Ecc.8:11)? Then Jesus words at Luke 17:1-2 become more significant do they not?
But then of course we all need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Ph.2:12) do we not?  And accept the consequences of our choices (Gal.6:7). Sometimes this can be a lonely place (Pro.14:17), but then a stand on principle is not always easy (Luke 9:23). One thing for sure, "it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him". Ecc.8:12.
 

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 don't think anything of significance has changed since the 74 article. There is a bit of counsel designed so that persons do not get overly casual with disfellowshipping just because it is a relative, but there is nothing fundamentally different. And it is just counsel, albeit strong counsel. But it is nothing more. Having said that, I have never been there. But the things Franz speaks of today would not get one in hot water. Certainly not The Boot.
Could it cost one privileges in the congregation? Dunno. But if it does, it does. Life goes on without privileges.
And the advise I gave our very own Rocket Man is actually good counsel. If anyone is paranoid, take a screen shot of the FAQ and carry it around with you. And then carry on in accord with it.

The article does not show a date of death.
It states he was born in 1919.
I have noticed that Lawyers seem to live longer than normal people ....
... perhaps to give them time to repent.
I know that there is NO record of a Lawyer EVER being eaten by a Shark.
... professional courtesy.
 

Wikipedia has a good insight on this "phenomenon" of children taking stands BEFORE it becomes company policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis
As these Passport Applications, each requiring a pledge of allegiance show ....
Everyone is equal ... but some are more equal than others.
 

You gotta lot of moxie, JWI .... even Jesus did not slander Satan.

As Muppet Ralph the Dog sez:
"Can't live with 'em ... can't live without 'em ..."

TTH:
Perhaps I will fire up my old software, "Dragon Naturally Speaking, Version 12", (DNS) which I bought to write MY books with, and it will transcribe my voice almost as fast as I can speak with about 99.5% accuracy, and get into a phone book long debate, just for the fun of it.
I have been trying to use previous versions over many years, and it (for me) was all hopeful thinking junk.
I wasted money on all that came before version 12.
Version  12  evolved into a TERRIFIC piece of software.
So good, I have NOT considered an upgrade.
Remember though ... I used to do Solar Insolation calculations for a living, at $105 an hour ( plus per diem ) ... and if I did not understand what I was doing the engineering firms I worked for would fire me in an instant.
I am also an avid amateur astronomer and amateur astro-physicists only to the level of popular science magazines such as "Scientific American" BUT I can naturally visualize energy transfers between materials, and thermal inertias and dynamics .... it drives my wife crazy I gush about how light and energies beyond visible light bounce off, and is absorbed by things,  when I am driving.
I use Reverse Polish Notation math, and she teaches Algebra in High School .... a completely different way of thinking.
One problem with extended debates is that the watchers often do not have enough background to understand  ANYTHING ... except that someone appears to be losing, and someone appears to be winning ... and If I did it .. it would be to teach physics and astronomy, and the laws of thermodynamics, for the fun of it.
I care NOTHING about winning for the sake of winning.
Except perhaps in a gun fight.
Besides, one of my dogs had an "accident" in the corner of my writing room, and I have to clean up dog poop.
After that, I am fixing us blueberry pancakes for breakfast.
I will try not to get those three  jobs  mixed up.
In the meantime ... see if Ebay will sell you an old version of DNS version 12, cheap ... it's worth the search, and you may want to carefully read Wikipedia's article on Milankovitch cycles, at the following link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Those two  are extremely helpful.
So is winning a gun fight.
.