JW Insider

19 hours ago, Anna said:

I guess this could be interpreted two ways, depending on what your assumptions about the Witnesses are in the first place. Whether you believe the Witnesses' policy is not to report because they want to hide perpetrators, or whether you believe the policy is to disfellowship as soon as enough scriptural evidence is gathered, regardless of involvement  of secular authorities.

So looking at it  from the second point of view this doesn't make much sense because what does disfellowshipping have to do with reporting to authorities?  So it makes me wonder if the point that was being made was that there was sufficient scriptural evidence to disfellowship at a congregational level, without even needing evidence from the authorities (such as forensics etc.) And was the "good job" referring to good job for not reporting, or good job for gathering enough evidence to disfellowshipp?

We will probably find that the appeal will include exactly those arguments in defense of the the WTS. On appeal, the judgment will likely be reduced to less than $10MM because the excuse to raise it to $30+MM was very tenuous. Appeal was guaranteed on that count alone. But if the WTS attorneys can move the fault to local congregation elders, then the monetary judgment will be minimal.

22 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

It may be the translator felt hesitant to pour out such a shocking phrase

That's interesting. Thanks.

17 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Not sure about this view as applying across the board. It is quite possible that there may be some who donate money to "the organisation" and who have "an extreme ego".

But to equate universally that unlaudable disposition with the notion that one could be "helping Jehovah" is not a logical or fair assessment.

I wasn't even implying that the sister who was speaking had a problem with extreme ego. I think this would be the rarest of problems of those giving materially. (I mentioned it with a view to those Pharisees who might have compared their own contributions to that of a widow's "mite.")

I misworded the statement with the word "only" but wasn't trying to be comprehensive. In the context of some recent videos and many of the Broadcasts on tv.jw.org, I have noticed a lot of statements where the term "Jehovah" is apparently confused with the term "Jehovah's organization." I had just seen two other JWB examples in the few minutes before seeing this one and thought I should speak up. (A little leaven, etc.)

It's just an opinion, of course, but I think it's very possible this sister in the video is doing the same thing (using the term Jehovah as a shorthand term for Jehovah's earthly organization) which I'm seeing by so many others. It's my sense that it is even becoming more common in convention prayers, which might be an indication of the influence of JWB. I have seen more examples on JWB than in print.

16 hours ago, Gone Away said:

So do you mean that the wording of Isaiah 7:14  was altered by post time of Christ revisionists of the LXX such as Aquila "Ponticus" of Sinope?

Yes. That's a part of it. Note the even the "free page" here:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561026?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Even some early "Church Fathers" thought that these changes were being made to undermine Christianity, and opposed the revisions and their authors (mostly directed at Symacchus and Aquila).

What I was reading was from other sources but Wikipedia implies the same here in the entry about Symacchus:

• Saint Jerome admired his style but faulted his translation in two areas important to Christians, saying that he substituted the Greek word neansis (woman) for parthenos (virgin) in Isaiah 7:14 and Genesis 24:43.^[13] Symmachus' Greek translation of the Pentateuch appeared in Origen's Hexapla,  . . . According to Eusebius Symmachus also wrote commentaries, then still extant, apparently written to counter the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew, . . . .

9 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

I think the real reason this pic was included is to show that Armageddon will definitely come soon. While Herd is still alive. This way they can say it’s going to happen soon without getting into a 1975 situation and locking in a deadline.

You have touched upon a real danger in the very specific ways in which the prophecy is interpreted for imminent fulfillment. I blew up the picture to 400 percent, and agree that Brother Herd is definitely intended, but don't know how much most of us will read into it. But other statements do make the concern about chronology real. The "subtext" is to renew faith in 1914, 1919, the Organization, etc., and equate pure worship (sacred service) with doing things closely associated with the directives we get from the Organization. 

Although our current chronology is based on unsupported interpretations, this does not mean that the book is not useful. In fact, our situation is very much analogous to the points made in Ezekiel. And, in general, I think these important spiritual lessons from Ezekiel are highlighted in a very useful way. Ezekiel was concerned about restoration of pure worship in spite of the very problems and temptations that pulled God's people away from pure worship in the first place, internally and externally. And now, after the temptations of Babylon, and a desolation of both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judea, it could be even more difficult to imagine such a restoration without Jehovah's intervention.

Also, the clarifications move us into a place where we can get much more value from the book without using it to judge Christendom, or highlight the distinctions between the anointed remnant and the great crowd, for example. One of the clarifications even moves us further from the temptation to specifically apply everything to the beginnings of the Organization under Russell and especially Rutherford in 1917/1918. I think it's clear that all of the clarifications move us closer to truth. Here are just a few of those clarifications.

Note the elimination of dividing the other sheep from the anointed. Also, the earlier "man with the writer's inkhorn" was considered to be Russell himself, then a strong implication that it should be Rutherford himself. This is a welcome change:

• Previous understanding: The man with the inkhorn represents the anointed remnant. By means of the preaching and disciple-making work, the anointed are now putting a symbolic mark on the foreheads of those who become part of the “great crowd.”—Rev. 7:9.
• Clarification: The man with the secretary’s inkhorn pictures Jesus Christ. He will mark the great crowd when they are judged as sheep during the “great tribulation.”—Matt. 24:21.

The meaning of the "two sticks" could be interpreted as a reversion to the distinction, but recall that these two sticks are united.

And next we lose the self-righteous judgmental attitude toward "Christendom."

• Previous understanding: Unfaithful Jerusalem is a prophetic type of Christendom. Hence, the destruction of Jerusalem prophetically foreshadowed that of Christendom.
• Clarification: Conditions in unfaithful Jerusalem—such as idolatry and widespread corruption—remind us of Christendom, but we no longer refer to Christendom as the antitypical Jerusalem.
• Reasoning behind the change: There is no clear Scriptural basis for such a type-antitype approach.

And here is one way we have begun removing the specific emphases on 1917, 1918, 1919, 1922, etc., by moving the focus from this period back the 2,000-year period preceding the types of clarifications from about a hundred-year period beginning 1919 .

• Previous understanding: In 1918 the persecuted anointed were brought into captivity to Babylon the Great, experiencing a deathlike condition of near inactivity. That short captivity ended in 1919 when Jehovah revived them as Kingdom proclaimers.
• Clarification: The deathlike condition of spiritual captivity lasted a very long time and began much earlier than 1918. It started in the second century C.E. and ended in 1919 C.E. and basically parallels the long growing season in Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds.

We haven't completely removed the unsupported chronology, of course, and the book even references the God's Kingdom book for further support, but I appreciated all the changes nonetheless.

On 10/18/2018 at 12:32 AM, Space Merchant said:

That being said, the SJWs have been given a new name, NPCs which I find somewhat funny.

What did I miss?

11 hours ago, Anna said:

There must be a proper investigation in the first place in order to find no solid proof or no witnesses or the telling of lies. Usually the elders take any report of child abuse very seriously.

A site that appears closely related to Barbara Anderson's activism has an article claiming to be from an Elder who recently left over the same issue of Child Sexual Abuse. https://scaars.org/2018/10/16/an-insiders-account-about-how-a-report-of-child-sex-abuse-is-handled/

It highlights the problem brought up by John Butler. These are from 3 through 6 of the 10 bullet points from that article:

• Two elders would be assigned to talk to the victim and her parent to gather details. If they determine that the child is giving a truthful account, they would report back to the Coordinator about their findings. The proper legal authorities would still not be notified.

• Their next step would be to call the Legal Department of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBS) in New York. The Legal Department would then direct them as to whether or not they are legally obligated to contact the proper legal authorities to report the case. The default stance taken is that, unless there is a specific state law directing them to do so, the authorities need not be notified.

• The elders then determine if there will need to be an internal judicial hearing about the accusation. If there is only one witness to the abuse, as is the case in almost every instance of sexual abuse, they will not pursue it further. If there are two witnesses to that specific instance or if there are multiple reports from different children that this has happened at the hands of the same person, they will form a judicial committee to determine whether the offender is repentant. This committee will decide whether the offender can remain a member of the congregation or will be excommunicated, or disfellowshipped according to Jehovah’s Witness nomenclature.

• If the offender is not disfellowshipped, other members are not informed about the situation. At the most, an announcement might be made that the offender was “reproved” but displayed repentance. No mention of the type of crime will be divulged to the congregation. Parents will be unaware that a sexual offender is in their midst. They will continue to socialize and trust that their children are safe even in the presence of the offender.

18 hours ago, Judith Sweeney said:

There was a young lady named Ruth who vowed to tell only the truth

She said she would die before she would lie and she died in the prime of her youth. 

Awww! That's even more tragic than the one about the lady and the tiger.

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It is also fiscally bankrupt, and the Society that entertains such madness cannot long exist as a viable Civilization.

Yep. The reason this idea of covering pre-existing conditions works well in many other countries but not in the United States, is that in those countries where it works the best, health insurance is defined into a (fairly large) portion of the taxes that EVERYONE pays. It can therefore afford to cover everything: current conditions, pre-existing conditions, future conditions, and the possibility of conditions that may never occur. The stupidity of the attempts, so far, at "universal healthcare" in the US is that they are PARTIAL. To work, everyone would have to pay, even if through taxes, to a complete system that addresses the financial costs, profits (and abuses) of insurance, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies, and the entire health care infrastructure (ambulances, EMT, drug stores).  Most politicians are basically "snowflakes" who could never stand up to an entire system that gets more and more profitable to the millionaires at the top of the health care chains. During every US presidency since 1980, literally billions are spent by these industries in lobbying, marketing and propaganda so that no complete solution will be implemented.

7 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Unless you are willing to mount and ride one

There was a young lady of Niger, 
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger; 

They returned from the ride 
With the lady inside 

And the smile on the face of the tiger. 

16 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Whenever you serve someone, in can be reasonably be said that you are ‘helping’ him, can it not?

Our efforts in working shoulder to shoulder are ways to help one another, encourage one another, and in some tenuous way, I would agree that they could "help" Jehovah. I think a more accurate way to work in the idea of "helping Jehovah" is that we can be serving Jehovah in a way that "helps" him answer "Satan's" challenge. And I would glady concede that it is possible to give money and see a relationship between this type of "giving" and "helping" Jehovah in that way.

I once heard a couple of brothers responsible for an article on "the vindication of Jehovah's name" arguing (reasonably, not heatedly) about whether we are "helping" to vindicate and/or sanctify his name. One used the idea that if Jehovah needed to, he could make the rocks cry out, or send an army of angels, and this was actually used as part of the argument that we are "helping" Jehovah, avoid the need to use rocks or angels. But the other side of the argument was that it is not our work and effort and resources that is of any value to Jehovah, but it is our appreciation and love for him that is the motivation for those efforts.

This is, of course, part of the same solution to the apparent contradiction that Paul says that the works don't mean anything without faith, and James says you cannot have faith without works.

• (James 2:24) You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone. (also Romans 2:13)

• (Romans 3:28) For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law.

It's because true faith always produces a motivation, i.e. "works." But works don't prove anything because they could just as well be from a "worldly" motivation. This is why James could say that true religion that is spotless will look after orphans and widows, for example, without being "spotted" or sullied by the motivations common to the "world." -- James 1:27. And this statement is immediately preceded by:

• (James 1:25) 25 But the one who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and continues in it has become, not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; and he will be happy in what he does. [proper motive]

At any rate, there are many Scriptures containing the idea that we cannot actually give anything materially to Jehovah. He already owns everything. A better way to express the entire idea is the way the Watchtower once said it:

*** ws17 April p. 32 par. 16 May Your Volunteer Spirit Bring Praise to Jehovah! ***

• 16 Jehovah gives us an incredible honor by letting us support his rulership. Since the time of Adam and Eve, the Devil has wanted humans to take his side against Jehovah. But when we support Jehovah’s rulership, we clearly show Satan whose side we are on. Our faith and loyalty motivate us to volunteer in Jehovah’s service, and this makes him very happy. (Proverbs 23:15, 16) Our God can use our loyal support and obedience to answer Satan’s taunts. (Proverbs 27:11) Our obedience is something we can give to Jehovah that is precious to him and brings him great joy.

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What! You would prod a tiger in its lair?

That picture just makes me wonder for how long I could pull on that tiger's ears before I'd have to let go. ?

• (Proverbs 26:17) 17 Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.

10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Can you prove the Watchtower willingly hide child abuse Elders as the Catholic Church has done with their priest?

Rumor has it that the problem in the Montana court case that produced a 34 million dollar judgment against the Watchtower (to be appealed) made it very easy for the jury to agree. It was because the local elders had destroyed so much of the paperwork, but that the S77 form that they sent to the WTS had said explicitly that they were able to disfellowship him without any report to the authorities (in a state where it is illegal not to report). Unfortunately the WTS had attached a note to the returned copy for the local file saying, in effect, 'Good job.'

This is why the judgment was based on a percentage of the supposed value of the WTS itself.

16 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Too bad, allensmith34 is not around to see what the parrot already knows.? Who’s who?

That's very funny. If only there were one Allen Smith who could communicate with one BillyTheKid. It's a long shot, but perhaps one of the following might have his number:

Wyatt Earp:

 

Billy the Kid:

Reading recently about the history of the LXX (Septuagint), I was curious at the fact that some early Christians (especially 2nd through 4th century) were angry at scholarly Jews and even some knowledgeable Christians for re-translating Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" instead of "virgin."  Correcting the LXX was seen as an attack on Christianity.

Laughing at the idea that we are 'helping Jehovah' by setting aside a specific, pre-planned amount of money in advance every month so that we don't forget to donate -- and automatically get a receipt. "Because this way, I can help Jehovah every month" a sister says at 2min20sec into the tutorial video.

We can help Jehovah's people, help Jehovah's organization, even help Jehovah's "cause" in a sense. But only persons who have an extreme ego, or who confuse Jehovah with the organization believe they are "helping Jehovah." 

*** w91 12/1 p. 31 How Can We Repay Jehovah? ***

• Such giving is not restricted to a tithe, or tenth, and there may be circumstances in which an individual is moved to give more to advance Kingdom interests.—Matthew 6:33.
• The apostle Paul said: “Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7) If you give cheerfully and generously in support of true worship, you will fare well, for a wise proverb says: “Honor Jehovah with your valuable things and with the firstfruits of all your produce. Then your stores of supply will be filled with plenty; and with new wine your own press vats will overflow.”—Proverbs 3:9, 10.
• We cannot enrich the Most High. To him belong all the gold and silver, the beasts on a thousand mountains, and valuable things without number. (Psalm 50:10-12) Never can we repay God for all his benefits to us. But we can show our deep appreciation for him and for the privilege of rendering sacred service to his praise. And we can be sure that rich blessings flow to those who give liberally to promote pure worship and honor the loving and generous God, Jehovah.—2 Corinthians 9:11.

That's some LAX security!

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

a modern-day survival of the fittest.

Like they say, if the shoe fittest. I'm sure he had a "lot" to be desired.

Anyway, if this had been my own thread I wouldn't feel bad about sullying it with bad puns. But now I feel bad for @indagator who surely hoped this would remain a serious topic.

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

However, he is related to a real estate magnate who truly did have square feet.

LOL! Never heard of a real estate person yet who didn't have a 'square foot' fetish.

On 9/27/2018 at 5:03 AM, indagator said:

There are many other valuable things in the book, but now that JWI has had the opportunity to digest it, I thought the time was ripe to post some of my observations. Others are welcome to respond or post their own thoughts if they have read it, or are considering doing so.

I agree. It was well worth the read. Even though I had not read the book until now, the premise had been explained in material we had already been discussing here.  I should not have ignored that premise during earlier discussions of the Divine Name on this very forum where IAO [Yaho] came up. In one of those previous discussions, I rather quickly began discussing how that name had been used in the magical papyri and on charms and amulets. Somehow I had also assumed that these evolved from sources in and around Elephantine from where they began to make a quick and direct link to the "mystical" audience. I now agree with Shaw's logic that the actual earliest confirmed uses of a IAO in "magical" circles were timed mostly to the second and third centuries CE. Of course, these same circles were just as interested in using the name Jesus for "magical" purposes, a fact that already shows up in the NT/CGS. 

It would not be surprising, then, that Christianity in several of its early languages, used the divine name based on IAO "Yaho." The evidence for continuous use of a vocalized divine name by various groups and individuals is solid. We can see this from LXX evidence and several other sources from the centuries before and after the start of Christianity. The evidence is solid enough to build upon, including this idea about who could have spread the divine name widely enough so that mystic usage also began to quickly parallel the widespread growth of early Christianity.

While reading, I couldn't wait to get to points about whether the author thought the divine name was in the NT. I actually thought that I came up with some ideas about Revelation 1:8 and iota-alpha-omega myself, and wondered whether anyone else had done so, too. Turns out there was plenty of information on this very verse.

In light of the new October JW Broadcast, and the unusually lengthy amount of time spent on the topic of the restoration of the divine name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, I think that this book is ideal as a way to clear up several understandings and misunderstandings. I thought that the "clue" about the definite article in front of KYRIOS was interesting. It's in the NWT Study Bible, Appendix C3, as Bro Geoffrey Jackson explains. He explains it as if it were more like a hurried, accident or error when the NT includes Kyrios without the definite article. That's not the explanation that scholars would give for how it is used in the LXX (and, by extension, the NT).

In fact, it might be difficult to comprehend given our experience and explanation of the use of the definite article before theos in John 1:1. There we have:

• No definite article in front of theos is translated "a god" (therefore the "Word" or "Christ") and with the article, "God."

But in the LXX the lack of a definite article can be seen (by some scholars) as a superlative, and some would want to see the usage in early Christian writing to therefore have it mean something like this: (although the data is inconsistent)

• No definite article in front of kyrios is translated "The Lord" (therefore "God") and with the article, "Lord" can therefore refer to "Jesus" or "Christ."

A curious case of kyrios.

51 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Just wondering if this is the right slant here. It would seem your suggestion is that there is a majority, not unanimous. view in the congregation that this man was deserving of exclusion.

Paul's letters to the Corinthians provide many real-congregation examples of ideas that did not have full agreement behind them. The factions for Cephas, Paul, Apollos, superfine apostles, and concern for who baptized whom, for example. The disorder amongst congregants regarding taking turns when speaking, teaching, interpreting etc. The talk of Paul's advice sometimes being rejected. Paul's words about sects coming in so that the approved will be more easily made known. etc.

Even here in the context, Paul had just compared ALL [in the congregation] in a way that showed a sensitivity to the potential for exaggeration. As Holman translates the previous verse:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If anyone has caused pain, he has caused pain not so much to me but to some degree  — not to exaggerate  — to all of you.

And in the next verse, the wording is just as careful with a word telling us that it was "many, but not all"--more specfically, a majority.

The possibility for your suggestion is there, but it's not the most straightforward or most likely reading. It requires the creation of an ambiguity which is not necessary as there are clearer ways of stating what you suggest. These kinds of ambiguities are always possible --and I don't think anything in the original Greek would forbid that understanding-- but when we rely on the least likely meaning too often, it smacks of "special pleading."

There are some online commentaries available for this verse, and I've never seen one that that attaches the meaning you suggest. Although I don't doubt that one might exist. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/2-6.htm

Another way to look at it is that even if this particular verse means "all the rest of the congregation who were not involved in the immorality," or something like that, the basic point about individual shunning (as opposed to full congregational shunning) is still very likely even without the support of this verse. The quotes from Matthew 18 (and in some cases, even 2 Thess 3) can show that even just one individual may be involved in the shunning of one other individual. No reason to try to get others to join as it could be a matter between the two of them.

18 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you saying that a disfellowshipped child SHOULD be shunned ? If so, what gives you the right to make that decision ? Has God through Jesus Christ given you authority ?  Show me three scriptures that you base your decision on. Not one but three. Jesus said to love our enemies and to even pray for them. Would Jesus tell us to disown our families ? I think not. 

When I first wrote that the point of this OP is not new and that a DF'd child should be shunned, I meant that this has been part of standard "policy" and therefore it is not an entirely "new point" that any Witness should be surprised at. I was also saying it's a rule that was evidently influenced by a different type of economic situation where children immediately moved away from the "roof" of their parents as soon as they could get steady employment. You have probably read some of the early discussions about disfellowshipping of family members in the Watch Tower publications and realize that the "rules" tend to map to the typical middle-class Anglo-American style of homelife that Bethel writers often imagined as an ideal target audience. What Brother Herd was saying was nothing totally new; we've said for years that children should be shunned.

So that was the context of my post that you questioned. But I thought you were putting it in a different context, where you were asking me personally if I thought that shunning a child could ever be "authorized" or scripturally defended. And to those questions I answered that there could be circumstances where shunning a child could be the right thing to do, personally, although I do not think that most shunning that goes on among us is thought through. For most of us, it's a congregational decision following a set of rules reinforced bureaucratically from a central legalistic authority: the WTS. But in reality each of us stands on our own. In this regard none of us should be under any central authority except God and Christ. We should not shun because we are told to shun. Even in the Corinthian congregation, Paul expected that a majority would rebuke this particular man, given the circumstances. He did not expect 100 percent agreement about the way a "disfellowshipped" person was treated. Note the words I highlighted when I quoted this verse above:

• (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 . . . not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him. 9 For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of YOU, whether YOU are obedient in all things. 10 Anything YOU kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for YOUR sakes in Christ’s sight; 11 that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Note also that Paul didn't expect to be the central authority for the Corinthian congregation, but that he would follow their lead in this matter. As they saw fit to forgive, Paul would obey their lead.

I think a lot of Witnesses would see another phrase in that passage as the one to highlight where Paul says "also I write to ascertain the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things." A lot of Witnesses would see this as a congregational directive from a central authority like Paul or the apostles or a "governing body." But looking at it in the context of what Paul is saying here and several times elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, he is really saying that we should NOT get caught up in any hard fast rules that are inflexible and unbending. The overriding rule to be obedient to "in all things" is the fact that Jesus is the true Head watching over the congregation, and Jesus taught us to be forgiving. Satan wants us to forget that and lose our "fellow feeling" lose our "humanity" lose our "natural affection." And trying to legislate love and forgiveness is a sure way to lose touch with the entire idea of Christ's love and Jehovah's undeserved kindness. If we are only following rules instead of a desire to imitate Christ, then we are being overreached by Satan.

At any rate, this was my point, that we should not be expected to shun just to follow the rules imposed upon a congregation. We shun when it is appropriate, and the Bible tells us that there are times when this is appropriate. But it is our personal conscience telling us what we should do. Just because Lloyd Barry shunned Theodore Jaracz doesn't mean the rest of us should have, as it was probably based on the idea of Matthew 18 or 2 Thessalonians 3. When something is well known in a congregational setting then it is probable that many individuals will decide what to do, and most will do the right thing. If 5 people out of 100 are shunning a man for some reason, this does not necessarily the rest should. Even if a majority of a congregation has shunned someone this does not necessarily mean that the rest should either. (And I suppose this could occur in cases where family bonds should override the majority for certain individuals, too.) Shunning is a "rebuke" meant to say that Christians in the congregation do not approve of the way the conduct might reflect on the teachings of Christ. The reputation of the Christian congregation is the same thing, or should be. The congregation should reflect the teachings of Christ the Head. I know you thought I was overly concerned with the reputation of the congregation, but this is a scriptural concern, too. Note that in the same or adjacent context of how the Corinthians were handling an infamous case of incest, it appears that by not "shunning" the wicked one, it was giving the impression that the Corinthians were proud of putting up with such a thing. But just following this is another verse that appears to also speak to reputation:

• (1 Corinthians 6:3-6) . . .Then why not matters of this life? 4 If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down on in the congregation whom you assign as judges? 5 I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers? 6 Instead, brother goes to court against brother, and before unbelievers at that!

Yes, this idea gets abused, so that in some churches, even murderers and extortioners and other criminals find sanctuary, and child sexual abusers have been hidden and shuffled around in these same churches. Unfortunately even in our own congregations certain such crimes have been hidden. I don't condone this. Crimes are for the government to punish, those who hold the sword. But the civil matters can surely be adjudicated by wise trusted brothers who could at least do as well as the TV-star "Judge Judy" and her ilk. (You might actually be surprised at how many such "cases" are worked out through congregational elders.) Of course, what's a "civil" matter in some countries might be a "criminal" matter in another country: adultery, for example. The "superior authorities" of Romans 13 have that say, unless they are overstepping God's rulership.

By the way, I don't mean to imply that shunning is only for the reputation of the congregation, looking at it from the outside. There are insiders looking at the reputation of the congregation, too. And another reason has nothing to do with reputation, directly, and that is the need to keep the congregation clean. The "spirit" or attitude of an entire congregation can be influenced, and specific individuals in the congregation could be improperly influenced. "A little leaven spoils the whole lump of dough." "One bad apple..." "Bad associations spoil useful habits." etc.

Note that in Revelation 2 and 3, that the congregations reported directly to Jesus as Head as to whether they properly shunned the teachings or prophecies of certain ones affecting those congregations.

Again, I'll repeat that our method of shunning can be based on our own personal conscience as individuals. But there is nothing unscriptural about it. There may be something unscriptural about the way many of us go about it, however.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

(I recalled when you gave the experience of Bethel not wining the first place in cleanliness award (or something like that) and how one of the brothers was extremely upset about it).

This was a Bethel "Family Night" (kind of a variety show with talented brothers showing their skills and with a couple of experiences). An older longtime Bethelite had been in charge of a clean-up before a city inspection of factories in this area of Brooklyn. The Squibb Pharmaceutical factory got a first place award and Bethel's printing factory came in second place. (Which is actually really amazing considering the cleanliness required of a pharmaceutical company compared to the much lower bar required of a printing factory.) When Brother Schroeder and Brother Gehring heard this in rehearsal, they whispered to each other and Brother Schroeder talked to the brother. I couldn't really tell if the brother was extremely upset, but he looked concerned as if getting some negative counsel.  I was a few seats away and couldn't hear them. At the actual Family Night presentation, the brother who gave the experience changed it to "Both Squibb and the Watchtower each received a rating of 100 percent!!" The difference would have been striking to anyone who attended rehearsal which included about 50 people.

44 minutes ago, Anna said:

But what I found curious was that the CO quickly made sure all our literature was out of that brothers car before the police arrived.

I've heard of this type of thinking. My father was the presiding overseer when a wayward Witness was running around with a group that that got arrested for committing an armed robbery. My father called the Society's Service Department in Brooklyn for advice, and our Circuit Overseer called him back shortly and asked, in effect: "How quickly can you get him disfellowshipped?" To my father, this meant, how soon could you make contact with the arrested man, and ask the kind of questions that would allow this "fallen" brother to admit that he had recently been repeatedly committing sins without a proper level of remorse. Also, I think even in those days, my father would have to arrange for another "servant" in the congregation to be secretly listening in on the line.

As I recall the idea of acting on this so quickly kind of fell through anyway. Even though this was around 1970, I was 13, and it didn't occur to me at the time that this was really not just. At that time, we were still saying that a disfellowshipped person would die at Armageddon by default. Another case like this, I recall from another congregation happened around 1978, and another one I was told about (unconfirmed, though) from just a few years ago.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you saying that a disfellowshipped child SHOULD be shunned ? If so, what gives you the right to make that decision ? Has God through Jesus Christ given you authority ?  Show me three scriptures that you base your decision on. Not one but three. Jesus said to love our enemies and to even pray for them. Would Jesus tell us to disown our families ? I think not. 

We should shun what is bad and hold on to what is good. I personally have the right to "mark" anyone I wish in the congregation to personally shun them, if I feel that I have tried to make amends with them, yet my association with them is not good for our spiritual goals. I even knew two members of the Governing Body, Brother Ted Jaracz and Brother Lloyd Barry, who had shunned each other since about 1949. They had both served at the Australian Branch where Jaracz had been sent in 1946 to be the new Branch Overseer, only to be rather quickly called back to the United States to serve as a Circuit Overseer for about 20 years starting in Missouri (where my own family had moved in '64 to 'serve where the need was greater' and an uncle of mine also served as a circuit overseer near his circuit). Brother Barry, in 1949 was sent to become the new Branch Overseer in Japan, which he did for the next 25 years, or so. They would barely speak together or be seen together even after both came to Brooklyn to serve on the Governing Body starting in 1975. Some could pick up on the "animosity" that still showed at Annual Meetings and a couple of Gilead Graduations well into the 1980's. (The 1990's too, I'm told, but I was never in a place to see it then.)

This seemed to me to be an even more definitive form of shunning than the purpose of "marking" found in 2 Thess:

• (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15) 13 For YOUR part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

Now, you might say, but these were grown men, not members of the same family, yet Jesus said, even of family members:

• (Matthew 10:34-36) . . .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.

There are good procedures to handle issues of cleanliness and morality that come up in the congregation, and they include a process found in Matthew 18 to discuss issues with a brother who may have sinned against you personally.

• (Matthew 18:15-20) 15 “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever things you may bind on earth will be things already bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loosen on earth will be things already loosened in heaven. 19 Again I tell you truly, if two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them on account of my Father in heaven. 20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”

So, we personally have a right, and in some cases an obligation to shun others if it is a part of keeping the congregation clean. But this does not mean that we shun to the extent that we are creating emotional blackmail. It means that we don't go out of our way to associate when that type of association could be interpreted as sharing with the brother (or sister) in their wicked works. We would never go out of our way to prove ourselves inhospitable. "Let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" just means that we have gone a little farther than marking them so as to admonish them as a brother. We are trying to not give the appearance that their conduct reflects on the type of conduct that the majority of the congregation condone.

If we go too far, and forget our "natural affection" we have been overreached by Satan:

• (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him. 9 For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of YOU, whether YOU are obedient in all things. 10 Anything YOU kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for YOUR sakes in Christ’s sight; 11 that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.

Assuming the person is no longer practicing a sin that brings reproach if the congregation were to condone it, then the rebuke by the majority was enough. If the person does not wish to come back to the congregation, that is their business. We are not in the business of keeping track of the injury and shunning just because they willingly went out from us. They are as a person of the nations, and we feel no animosity toward persons of the nations.

• (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

If the person no longer wishes to be a brother, we have no reason to keep shunning that person. They are just like any other person of the world, which we treat respectfully and civilly and with no hard feelings about their past. We simply don't wish to accidentally give the impression that someone who presents himself as a brother is representing the Christian congregation.

Just how formal these processes need to be, might vary from congregation to congregation. Just how quickly a person is forgiven after a rebuke might vary too. The congregation is in a good place to know how a person's reputation and actions reflect on the reputation of the congregation itself.

So, yes, I can think of reasons I might shun even a member of my own family. If he were a child abuser, for example, who drags down the reputation of the congregation I would shun my own family member. I would still deal with him as needed, and never ignore a cry for help or a phone call. I would check up on his well-being and might even make sure he continues to get the material help he needs, even spiritual admonishment. But this is after at least a short period of making my displeasure clear through [probably a short] period of shunning, and thereby making sure that our own conduct doesn't appear to condone the conduct and thereby reflect badly on Jehovah's name and the Christian congregation. That might be an extreme example to make the point, but if it's true of one form of conduct, then it is also true to some extent for other forms of conduct. The rebuke and punishment should fit the crime.