SuzA

The story brings back a haunting memory.
Back in the late 1960's a 17 or 18 year-old disfellowshipped girl from our mid-Missouri congregation died in a car accident. She had only been disfellowshipped for a couple of months, and of course she could not have a funeral at the Kingdom Hall. No Witness would even give a talk at the funeral home or the grave site. The mother was terribly distraught. (I'm sure the father was, too, but he was not a Witness and I don't remember whether I ever met him.) At the Hall, one of the elders immediately started repeating the fact that a Truth book had been found in her car. After the meeting I heard him repeat it to at least 3 different small groups. It became common knowledge throughout the congregation quickly. (The brother wasn't really an "elder," per se, since we didn't have the elder's arrangement back then. He was probably the "accounts servant," if memory serves.)
My older brother was a friend of the girl's younger brother, and we still went bowling or to other outings. I once heard the younger brother talking about his sister, and I heard my brother saying, "But, you know, they did find a Truth book in the car." I heard the younger brother say, "Yeah, but that...." and then he just dropped his voice and changed the subject.
 

A childhood friend of my son died the other day and he is not the first one. This system has not been easy on the younger generation, though it is easier on them than it is on the younger generation still, some of whom have hung themselves and streamed it live on Facebook. It’s a little hard for adults to reassure their children that all is right with the world when they see their classmate on the internet doing that, even though some apostates who have gone atheist try to let on that the world is just getting better and better.

Anyhow, he had strayed far from his Bible roots, though I did remark that I hope when I die I have as many people saying what a good guy I was as he did, and I worried somewhat how the speaker would handle it since it is a bit dicey and I found myself wishing I could give the talk myself, for I am good at that sort of thing, if not much else. What you must do is carry on not too much about his ‘bad decisions,’ (which the speaker did not, though it depends upon whose eyes you view it through) but you must keep an eye upon his non-Witness buddies and his daughter particularly and say: ‘this talk is for them.’ Of course, you cannot be untrue to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are like a multi-faceted gem – you must search for the proper facet with which to let the light shine through. And you don’t have to avoid ‘bad decisions’ entirely – after all, no one can say that crashing your snowmobile through the ice when it had been warm lately was a good decision.

When you break into the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 4:13 is a fine place to start. ‘For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are sleeping in death, that you may not sorrow just as those do who have no hope.’ Who can argue with that - Witness or non-Witness?

Everyone hung about at the lodge afterwards, and I approached members of the lad’s biker gang, who were visibly taking his death hard. “My son played with him as a kid,” I said, ‘but you would know him better than me – what was he like?’ ‘Better grab yourself some pizza,’ I said later on. Commish said no, for they had to ride and if they ate they might fall asleep. I said don’t take it the wrong way, but that strikes me as humorous and it reminds me of how my ancient Dad now has a lot of Westerns playing in the background, some featuring Ronald Reagan! in which the good guys are always ready to ride at the end of the show.

I also told him about the days long ago when I was in the doghouse with my wife and I looked for some grandiose gesture to try to rectify matters so I visited the Dinosaur Restaurant where Hell’s Angels were reputed to hang out to see if I could recruit them to visit her on twenty choppers and the head guy get out and hand her a dozen long stem roses. The waitress thought it was a really cool idea, and she would tell the guys, but I never heard back. “You should have called us,” the biker at the funeral said, “we would have done it.” I walked away to chat with others and he approaches me to hand me his well-worn biker card – I mean, think of the places it must have been! Believe me when I tell you, I am sorely tempted to pick a fight with my wife deliberately so as to land in the doghouse again so as to hire these guys. Though it will probably happen anyway for I am not the easiest guy to be around long-term and my wife occasionally gets fed up. Others in the congregation say: “that Tom Harley is a great guy, but imagine if you had to be around him 24/7!”

I am not writing this to cause a debate - I'm actually tired of people who have the education to gather a lot of  'information' but have not learnt to think about all sides of an issue and put it in perspective.  They become stuck on the information and then they judge everything on this one-sided information and become belligerent.
1.  Sexual abuse of children is in every organization on earth - wherever there are children. This is why we see government institutions intermittently in the media where children were found to have been abused - the tip of the iceberg - even though the perpetrators know the penalty if caught .  This practice is insidious and 'hidden' and it is hard to pinpoint and it is prevalent amongst  ALL levels of society - judges, doctors, policemen, gardeners. People can also be falsely accused - but one should always act to protect the child.
2. People who react so nasty to religious child abuse (whatever the church or organization) - look back at time with "modern" views. They know that it is not accepted by law -  now - but what about 50 years ago?  Most people do not look at the history of the 'laws' against child abuse.  
3.  Governments are now launching inquiries so they can be seen to be 'doing something about the issue" and trying to understand the issue.  Why only now?  Because decent laws to protect children have only been in place for a relative short period of time - in most first world countries. Children have been suffering for a very long time, long before this overwhelming outcry, cases coming forward, and media attention been given to it in the past 30 years.  Why were governments negligent to bring laws against child sexual abuse for such a long time and why was the media complicit in its silence?
Only 50 years ago - only the first world countries - started to look at this problem.  Before this - society was closed and it was a taboo subject to talk about.  The sixties brought a sexual revolution when people started to talk openly about sex but it took another 15 years before people started to mention this taboo subject in public. I also know that reporters did not write much about the issues regarding this.  Some countries had insufficient laws and procedures which made it impossible to prosecute a child molester.
I was working for a newspaper myself (not an English one) and a case came up where the entire nation was shocked because a child molester had stolen kids and murdered them.  I told my friend, who was a reputable reporter, to use this time of media attention - to bring to the attention of society - that most people could not take a child molester to court because a child could be cross-examined in court.  This meant that even a small child had to become a "victim" a second time by having to face the perpetrator in court and then be cross-examined. Most often a conviction could not be had. The way evidence was collected also did not favor the child.
I know that a law (to protect the child during court proceedings in America) was only ratified as late as 2003.  Consequently - if I were a lawyer in a court case where millions was to be paid out - I will point to finger to the lawmakers (congress) - who were supposed to be the protectors of its people.   If there were not proper laws in place to get a proper conviction - why would an organization put themselves out there and fight the legal system - whatever the organization? 
After all these inquiries (Australia, England) into child abuse and the procedures followed by religious organizations - hopefully these governments will bring in laws to cover the holes still left in the legal system and provide clarity to (religious and other) organizations on proper government procedures to follow when someone is accused of child abuse.
 4.  There are many countries with laws against child abuse - but the age of consent is between 12 - 14 years. Belgium comes to mind (13).  Most pedophiles travel to Thailand and other countries to indulge in pedophilia.  There are many countries across the world with strong laws against child abuse but it is never enforced because child abuse is not viewed as an important issue - they have more pressing problems such as hunger or socio-economic problems.  It is part of daily life in some third world countries.  What this indicates to me is that world-wide organizations, who have children in their midst at any time, have to try to adapt to the many different laws (in many countries - child marriage is still allowed) and cultures regarding this issue.
5.  We expect religious organizations to have 'higher' standards - but in the past no-one spoke of these things and people did not know how to deal with it....with lawmakers and media complicit.  The Watchtower organization has not been perfect but it has adjusted and put the best possible procedures in place for every country (but it will never be fool-proof, perfect or sufficient).  Child molestation is not an easy crime to determine.  One needs experts to examine each case - and even experts can be fooled. 
6. Religious organizations cannot ban people - so child molesters can attend meetings if they wished.  This is why it is important for brothers and sisters to obey instructions to take their own children to the toilet, to let their children only visit with supervision etc. An unbelieving relative like a grand-father can perpetrate this crime (happened to a friend of mine).   So to sum up - parents are responsible for the safety of those in its family unit - and it has never been easy to intervene in family affairs if the father is the perpetrator. This is why it is better that it becomes the government's responsibility!  It seems that governments are now doing enquiries into the procedures of organizations - so they can put proper laws and procedures in place to take up this responsibility in a proper way -  at last!
In the end - it is only Jehovah who will do the final judging of all people who have lived on earth. He is justice personified and he is the one who sees the things that go on in secret. He promises that all suffering will be done away with under his future government and it will not even come to mind of the victim!
I live in Sweden now (who is in denial of all the rapes going on) and I read recently that a case was thrown out of court - a young woman who was raped by six refugees. The reason: she must have consented. My husband made the comment that even a woman who makes her money by this way of life will not consent to violent sexual actions by 6 different men.... but this is where our world is heading now.  No More justice....
 
 

@TrueTom   You make some very valid points in your post. I wouldn't argue against any of it.
There is also considerable overlap between bullying and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often becomes just another type of bullying, and those in the "herd" who have been weakened emotionally by either/or will often find themselves targeted (picked off) by abusers (predators) for the rest of their lives. After looking at 4,500 cases of reported sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015, (and looking at more statistically significant reporting especially since 1985) The Australian Royal Commission (ARC) reported that about 7% of Catholic priests have been accused. But it was lower in the Catholic schools run by nuns dealing with children, and much higher in the places where males in authority dealt with children (average age was 10 and 11). 30% of the crimes were committed by Catholic "brothers," (those usually assigned to various "orders") another 30% of the crimes were by priests themselves, and 5% by Catholic "sisters" (generally, nuns). It was highest in the "Order of St. John of God" where a full 40% of those in authority there were accused of child abuse. The reason, it shouldn't surprise us, is that these men worked specifically with emotionally disturbed children. Easy picking! One person I listened to on the BBC made it clear that any organization anywhere in the world that had such a high rate of accused and convicted child abusers would be considered a "criminal organization."
I agree that all of us want to do all we can. But our own track record was awful, especially in those early years when expensive lawsuits were being covered up long before the very first article about protecting children came out. And members of our own Governing Body fought against printing articles and information on the subject. Just as in other organizations, we didn't want to admit that it was even possible in our own organization, because this would bring such reproach on Jehovah's name and organization. It would give opposers something to point to. My own father in his capacity as a congregation elder, counseled my sister to avoid going to the hospital after abuse by her husband to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation. "What if they asked you what happened, what are you going to tell them?" "What kind of witness would it give to the community if it got out that a minister in the congregation had to go to jail?" "Don't you think it would be more appropriate to try again, but be more humble and conforming and win him with a mild manner?" "Spending more time in prayer and study and service is surely the best counsel." 
My sister came back to the congregation, but she was disfellowshipped for defying this counsel. (She said she would separate and NOT try to get back in her husband's good graces.) I agree that we can always say that it was her unrepentant attitude and anger at the counsel that got her disfellowshipped. I also agree that she was never told NOT to go to the authorities or to specifically LIE to the authorities who might ask her questions at the hospital. But she was definitely pressured for years not to go to authorities and professionals, and even to "lie" through omission of facts if she did go. And she was definitely punished for reacting negatively to the counsel and authority of the elders.
I know about similar cases, and even of a case of child abuse that was covered up in the same way through not-so-subtle pressures to "do the right thing" when it comes to the issue of reproach and even "mandatory reporting." But the case of my sister, I know first-hand. I even offered to give my brother-in-law a taste of his own medicine, which was not the Christian thing to do, but I thought it was a pretty fair interpretation of Matthew 18:15 at the time.
Another point to remember before we start putting our own organization on too high a pedestal here is that if you count the Catholic population and the reported cases in those districts in Australia and compare them to the population of Jehovah's Witnesses and the reported cases in the same districts, then you see that our problem might even be many times worse than the Catholics. I can't say that it really is worse, because this is also a factor of how accurately such accusations are reported. 
Also, if you watched the videos from the previous ARC hearings, you might also be surprised to learn who the abusers were in several of the 1,000+ cases reported among Witnesses. I had heard that at least one of these abusers would be revealed in a separate case by November 2016, but that case is evidently under some kind of gag order, or otherwise delayed under some slow-moving wheels. So please strike what I said and forget I said anything about it. But I am almost certain that the plan is to engage some of these cases in public courts. (Partly because some lawyers involuntarily salivate when money is involved.) I don't think too many Australian Witnesses are holding their heads very high when the topic is brought up during witnessing activities.

I have a friend in Australia, a very spiritual, zealous, sweet and humble sister, her husband is an elder and coordinator, and when I asked her about the general consensus of the friends there, she quoted a scripture "But there is nothing carefully concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not become known" Luke 12:2 .
 

I don't mean to be negative, although it is a good video, in my opinion though I've always thought that depicting the "bad guy" as a monster type looking thing is a little misleading (for the children at least) because it makes it look like the "bad guy" is going to be easily identifiable, because.....well he LOOKS bad, and acts CREEPY, whereas in reality a sexual predator grooms his victims and appears very nice to the children, and others. Many times the child molester is a member of the family. The children might be looking for someone sleazy, and might be thrown off guard if the person is a "nice" brother in the congregation, a friend of the family, or even sadly a parent. I might be wrong, just my thought...

Our morons went on to build a massive infrastructure, even including an 880 language website, in order to declare the Bible's Kingdom hope to populations worldwide at minimal cost - a hope that transforms even their present life for the better. When your morons have done the same, then we can talk. So far they seem only interested in destroying, not building 

Hello TrueTom.

I’ve see your points. This is exactly what I’ve being doing all my life, and I hope to continue doing. Just one thought about this idea you’ve mention:

·       


 
This should be the way, correct, but what really happens has to do with you other idea:

·       


Many people, JW also, love rules, they don’t know live without them. Specially rules from sources highly respected, as the GB. You should have seen many body of elders arguing, fighting about one particular sentence in one article, one concrete word in a letter from the branch. A pity.

For example, there is another funny post about a wedding ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/30808-wedding-of-a-couple-of-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses/) You see the groom is wearing a beard. About the recent Watchtower article about beards, in my country, the only culture where to wear a beard is perceived negatively, do you know who are they? Yes, we, JW. No other people in the country feel this way. Well, I’m not talking about beards like Charles Darwin or Karl Marx, you understand me.

And, after considering the article in the congregations, do you know what was the reaction in some congregations? To write to our branch, asking for a “clear rule” as if our country fits between the culture where beards are good or bad. Yes, no discernment, not sound judgment, simply, rules to save us the necessity to thinking about.

And this is what really happen in so many congregations. Rules, rules and more rules. We’re specialist in turning advises into rules, suggestion into laws. Is it happening in your area, or only in mine? And, when this apply to this serious matter we’re considering, the disfellowshipping and posterior shunning this attitude had made an enormous damage.

On the other hand, you also mention these other commentaries.

·       


I agree. I can’t openly express that my views are different to the slave direction. In fact, I’m obliged to require its compliance, and I do this. But I can also add some comfort to these brothers and avoid they leave the truth. A real case:

An aged brother resigned as elder years ago, when the congregation was aware he allowed his expelled son came sometimes to his home for meals. He wrote to the branch with this simple question:

·        “Why disfellowshipping don’t broke my matrimonial bones, but have to broke the bones with my son?”
The answer (based in 1Co 5:9-11) didn’t convince him at all. Now, imagine I give him the advice: “obey the slave directions because these are right”. As this brother, in his heart he knows they aren’t, his possible next mental attitude is to start thinking “may be this is not God’s people”, and begins to listen our enemies… and you know how this could finish.

When I’ve spoken with him about his painful situation, I simply emphasize the necessity to wait in Jehovah, until He considers the proper time to correct this problem. In this way, I try to transmit he comfort.

Finally, TrueTom, I apologize because perhaps some ideas or feelings you’ve transmitted in your kind post I couldn’t grasp, because my difficulties with English. Anyway, your post has very valuable thoughts.

The first man seems to have got some kind of terrible news; his blood pressure shoots up and he has a stroke - now in hospital. Helps us to remember Jesus's words about not being anxious.
 
The second part of the picture seems to me to be some kind of emergency. The man seems to be warning the community to flee from the area. Hence the lady with the injured or sick child, trying to flee. Could be a warning of unsafe shelter/building after a bombing or earthquake event.
Many scenarios are possible - and all bring anxiety of the worst possible kind. Critical times hard on everyone.
 

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this.
My issues are these:
Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant?
Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement)  has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide  how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved.
Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. 
It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point.
Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy. 

A couple of Jehovah's Witnesses were in the vicinity last week and I used the opportunity to get the latest magazine, as I hadn't seen you for a little while.
I am studying with a Jehovah's Witness couple.
Check the difference in these two sentences.
 
 

This is a very prudent approach advised by Ann O'Maly, and I would hasten to add that even relatively modern, purely secular scholarship should be treated with caution also. After all, the term "modern" (as opposed to "antiquarian") is just a relative concept. Everything modern becomes antiquarian eventually.  But as for researching and verifying historical information on Babylonish religion to the level similar to that in the document linked below?
Well, this is not for the regular amateur, and whilst I have no criticism taking an interest in such matters (as I do myself), I suggest that most true Christians, with other priorities, might find an alternative approach more effective, one based on 2Tim 3:16. Why not save the embarrassment of arguing ineffectively on secular terms?
I like Queen Esther's approach:
Daniel chapter 1 provides an interesting snapshot of life in ancient Babylon for worshippers of Jehovah. I am sure Daniel and his friends were exposed to all manner of festivities, holidays etc., both secular and religious, during their 3-year training course in Babylonian culture. Dan 1:5. (We could all do with something similar really if we want to argue origins with secular authorities). 
But we have no reason to believe Daniel and co treated these Babylonian customs any differently than they did the dietary practices common to the level of society to which they were exposed. Comp Dan.1:8. In fact, in view of the words at De 8:3 (quoted later by Jesus), I suspect their attention to the avoidence of spritual defilement would have been even more diligent. And as they were living in the actual Babylonian environment that we seek to associate with more recent customs, there was surely no need for them to grapple with the arguments of academics to define what was or was not acceptable to Jehovah. And in view of the inherehent dangers to their spirituality in that environment, they would surely have just avoided whatever Jehovah had not commanded, would they not?.

Hypocritical how this world under the control of Stan works.  Nigeria is famous for having little respect for life when the elite is living off all the riches of oil and many of their  poor dying when they try to pilfer oil.  Extreme corruption in Nigeria - read up about it.
When the Chibok girls were abducted by Boko Haram the government did nothing to fetch them back .... because they did not care!
Boko Haram is threatening to take over the country and is responsible for so many terrorist deaths. Attacks which are not reported on in the West.  Under extreme Islam some women are not even allowed to get medical treatment without the permission of a male.... but this is never disclosed or written about......
However,  it is advertised  far and wide when it is 'alleged' that someone died because they themselves refused blood against the advice of a doctor and in obedience to a law they believe to be coming from the true god. All loss of life is sad yet there are still many reasons one can lose your life in childbirth today.  In the end it is always the refusing of blood that is given as the reason.
Africa has so much aids and other virusses (Nigeria has the 2nd largest number of newly infected people with aids) that I would not trust any pint of blood in this most notorious country in Africa - notorious for its financial and all other kinds of corruption.
What were her chances for living if she had taken the blood?  Life expectancy is not very high for babies  in Nigeria and very few people get very old...  Better to trust in Jehovah and not in these corrupt systems of the world  - which do not care about their own people!  She has become a propaganda pawn in someone's agenda!
At least Jehovah will reward all those who remain faithful.  He will compensate us for what we have lost in this corrupt world for the sake of obedience to his standards!
 
.  
 

Certainly true, but don't forget that Jehovah can make an opportunity for any person seeking sincerely to learn the truth. And that is regardless of any wrong ideas or practices they may have or engage in through their ignorance.
Acts 17:22-31

Arrogance, self-righteousness also has adverse effects on others and sometimes more devastating. IT leaves othes with feeling worthlessness and pain for being rejected. 
  YEsterday we learnt that we should rather let ourselves be wronged- this is not just regarding money - it is about the way we live.   WE need to cultivate a self-sacrificing spirit like Jesus - who gave everything he had for us.  
When we comfort others we are comforted by the Holy Spirit... when we give we receive so much more back from others together with Jehovah's blessing.  I speak of experience.  I have given attention to those whom others avoid and have found that these people need kind attention to be healed - not avoidance.
Self-righteousness is at war not with the person within themselves but is at war with Jehovah's Spirit.  Job fell into the sin of self-righteousness. SAtan displayed  pride - that was his sin.  
YEs we can fight the war in ourselves- to keep ourselves pure from this world and resist eveything it offers- even resist negative attitudes displYed by others  in a kind way- not by being superior but by being humble and comforting to all... not judgmental but give  acceptance And love.
how can we say we love God if we cannot overcome the evil by means of the love for our neighbour?

I do not agree with this statement offered above - it is words of a man.  I have not seen a statement in the bible which sAys that we should avoid those at war with themselves.  HOw does one define the outward symptoms of being at war with yourself? WE are all at war with the fleshly part of our existence as apposed to being perfectly in line with JehovAh and his spirit - as duly noted by one of the replies.  WE must be cAreful not to judge those who have emotional issues because the bible says we must deal tenderly with those who are experiencing distress.  I can imagine the stress a person must feel when they are at war with themselves - whatever the personAl baggage that has brought this about.  
Being deceitful,  indecisive about serving Jehovah whole-souled, being stupid (according to the bible this means that one acts outside the "knowledge of Jehovah"  and NOT the definition of being at war with yourself) now this is a different matter.  I do however  agree that we must be cAreful that  associations  do not influence us negatively. 
Be careful of self-righteousness - this  can cause even greater dAmage in a congregation. I knew a sister who was always avoiding people becAuse they were doing things that she deemed unworthy of association.  It caused tremendous uneasiness when people were Around her and she hurt many feelings- tHis is the otherr side of the coin.  
I did not write this to start a debate but merely do make my fellow worshipers think about their words And actions - imperfection and injustice can make us condemn where condemnation is not needed.  AN anointed sister once gave me the best advice EVER!  SHe said: when in doubt About what to do - show love.  WE can assist the weak and help strenghen those around us who are suffering and having issues.  WIth patience And love we can win And support them And help them adjust their attitude. LOve nevr fails! IT hopes all things. 
USually the elders will guide us to mark those who need adjustment. WE should not be going around indiscriminately marking people inside the congregation.   THose outside the congregation is of course are not our associates.
 

“People at war with themselves will always cause collateral damage in the lives of those around them.” ― John Mark Green
My favorite "poetic quote" from John Mark Green is this:
“One by one she slew her fears, and then planted a flower garden over their graves.”
― John Mark Green
But I can't find a good scripture text to go with it. There's always that passage about Jezebel and Naboth's vineyard....nah!

This has to be one of the most opinionated responses I have ever experienced on this forum although you likely don't mean to give that impression. You have absolutely no idea of what my experience of congregations has been or, for that matter, where I have had those experiences.
Yes I have seen this chart. It is open to a considerable amount of skepticism. The sample was only 208 people. Most Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) I know do not participate in surveys. What is the criteria for one's claim to affiliation? An alternative factor could be the emphasis JWs place on spiritual over secular activities. I.E. many witnesses actually choose part-time or lower paid employment to free them for spiritual activity.
On the results alone I am pleased to see that JWs are separated which is always a good thing. As for them being bottom of the table this goes to show how much we accomplish from such an apparently low income base.  For example, The Journal of Contemporary Religion (Vol. 12, No2, 1997) noted that in the year 1993, the combined efforts of the Protestant Churches of US and Canada spent in excess of $2 Billion to support the work of 41,142 overseas missionaries. JWs spent $45 Million on supporting the work of 3,279,270 in the same period. A similar story would be told every year. As for results, which religious group would first come to mind as associated with God's name "Jehovah" or the biblical term "the kingdom of God"?
And on a strategy level alone, after leaving school at 16, I have spent my life in the bottom 2 sectors of the income table, yet was never without work or income, raised 5 children, own my own home (above average standard and mortgage-free), serve in full time ministry, organised finances to not now require an earned income whilst pioneering. I consider myself to be a fairly "typical"JW. Oh, of course I don't smoke, gamble, abuse alcohol or other substances and am not locked into a trend-pursuing lifestyle or other resource-draining indulgence. So, I wonder if these factors are a consideration in drawing conclusions based on comparisons related to this table?

As far as I am concerned we are responsible to make such things known in the congregation, just as much as we are responsible for preaching the good news. As far as I am concerned, this is the real way in which we preach the good news: not by teaching doctrines, but by supporting one another in a way that is as loving as possible. The real way that the true religion is known is not by doctrine but by how we show love to one another.
(John 13:34, 35) 34 I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” Various situations of the type you area speaking of will happen almost continuously in most congregations, but, in my experience, they are usually taken care of. Whose responsibility is it to make something as important as this known in the congregation? You admit that surely her family would have received what was needed if the word had been made known. That's the point, isn't it? We have the desire to do the right thing, and when we pitch in together, the right thing gets done. But each person plays a part in such service. Many will be willing to give, but not everyone has the skills to lead and organize and prioritize such giving. Some persons are better at "seeing" the needs, some are better at providing helpful services, some are better with the ability to direct.
Note what Paul says of the ideal congregation:
(1 Corinthians 12:14-13:1) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal.

The ideal congregation has thus been defined. Yet, we no longer see apostles and prophets, and powerful works, and gifts of healing, and tongues in the way that the first century congregation saw them. Even the "teaching" is essentially complete with the completion of the spirit-directed Christian Greek Scriptures. This means that the most necessary part of the current ideal congregation is that "its members should have mutual concern for one another." (v.25) The ideal congregation is foremost, therefore, an outlet for giving us opportunities to show our love through "helpful services" (v.28) and "abilities to direct" those helpful, loving services.
Jesus also seems to have anticipated that the primary concern of those of faith as judgment day approached would no longer be a big concern with prophesying and powerful works, but with practical love through helpful services.
(Matthew 7:20-23) 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men. 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
(Matthew 25:34-40) 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ . . . . 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
This was always the primary focus of real Christianity. If we see that our congregation is not living up to the ideals of the kingdom in this way, then we should do what we can to make sure that these opportunities are taken advantage of. This is whether we are in a leadership position or not.
I may not have the same outlook as you, because my family has been the recipient of such kindness back in 1964 and 1965 when my father gave up a lot to move us from a comfortable place in California to a poor area of the Ozarks where there were very few in the congregation who cared that much to learn about the details of the new "Babylon" book at that time. But they could show love to strangers. They helped us find a place to stay, a small farm on 7 acres to rent, a place to work on the broken-down car, and to nearly live off the land where we raised a small number of cows and calves, a lot of chickens, and hand-tilled nearly an acre for corn, beans, peas, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, etc. We canned food, traded for other food. Traded eggs and milk for other necessities. Even though my father was an electrical engineer his first full-time job at the university paid only a four hundred a month [edited: $388/mo] for a family of 5.
My father's job grew 'slowly but surely' so that he could soon hire brothers to work for him at the university, which helped support others in turn. But we knew each other well in the congregation, and we knew the new ones coming in. (In just over a decade the one small congregation became 4 and by the 1990's was about 8 congregations.)
Today, I'll agree that many in the congregation don't know all the others as well. Some who have financial hardships don't want the embarrassment of admitting their troubles. They might pray and cry over the situation, but the solution is already built into the congregational arrangement.
What happens at Warwick, Patterson, Wallkill, Brooklyn, London, etc, is a different story, and I'll admit that it can sometimes seem to become too much of a priority. And yes, it can even become an idol. Humans have a tendency to idolize those who take the lead at the highest leadership positions, too. To avoid such mistakes, this is why we also have a teaching ministry, to keep ourselves aligned with the scriptural principles that should guide us. Correct teaching also helps us continue to give credit, not to ourselves, or to an organization, or its human leaders, but only to Jehovah and Jesus and the right spirit that should motivate us all. 
 

This is an extraordinary and tragic account despite the lack of detail. Presumably, although you don't record it, you were able to provide needed assistance to this family yourself, hopefully with the help of others whom you would have surely alerted to the situation. I would like to know what happened in connection with the woefully inadequate response of the "elders" you describe in this scenario. You must have been living in a rather deprived area, or indeed country, at that time.
I am glad to say that such a situation just would not occur in the area in which I live. And indeed, not in any congregation with which I have been involved.....................ever!
I have already directed you to information describing the higher level organised response to physical need in the congregation worldwide. And I am glad that arrangements on this scale are centrally coordinated by Jehovah's Witnesses organisationally, because neither I nor my local congregation could do this effectively. I am confident that the contributions to the Worlwide work are appropriately managed with due priority given to the various areas for which material resources are required. I am sure the $236 million (2015) spent on caring for the fulltime workers worldwide represents only a fraction of centrally contributed funds, to say nothing of the time and materials freely donated by all of Jehovah's people involved in such Christian activities.
This of course does not account for money and resources that are freely given by individuals in assisting their brothers and sisters locally, should they become aware of a need in harmony with Pro.3:27. We rarely hear detail of these actions unless we are directly involved in such kind acts either as giving or receiving. And rightly so, in harmony with Jesus words at Matt.6:1-4. I could list many examples of acts of kindness to fellow Christians that I am aware of or have been a party to over the years, but these are not matters for public broadcast. And neither are the needs of those who for one reason or another fall on hard times.
Jesus said that "you always have the poor with you". And it seems he maintained a fund which included resources to be given to the poor, of which treachorous Judas availed himself. (John 12:1-8). But nowhere in scripture do we find recorded specific examples of donations of that money to any needy individuals although examples of Jesus genorous spirit abound, such as his feeding of multitudes when necessary.
Obviously, specific needs requiring a more organised response locally are sometimes required, such as that recorded at Acts 6:1-4; 1Cor.16:1-4; or 1Tim.5:9. And if today, such arrangements are warranted due to some serious incident on a local level, this is coordinated appropriately with whatever level of needed publicity as I am sure you are aware if you followed the link I supplied earlier.
However, much Christian giving will be of the type exemplified by Dorcas whose example is recorded at Acts 9:36. I have met Christians with this spirit in my years of serving Jehovah, and they are an inspiration to all who associate with them, not least those who benefit from their kindness. These ones don't need public notification to prompt their deeds of mercy as their eyes and hearts are alert to their fellow Christians well-being. And just as their deeds do not go unnoticed by their heavenly father (compare Acts 9:39-40), the plight of those serving Jehovah who experience material difficulties do not go unnoticed either. Compare Ps.37:25.
I hope you now find yourself in less spiritually impoverished surroundings that that which you described in your scenario.
This is a strange question for one apparently aware of Scriptural principles in relation to these matters? Do you have a specific circumstance in mind? And by that I mean where?, when?, who?, etc.

Point taken, thank you very much for that info. I actually purchased "The Two Babylons" from the Society many years ago (early seventies) along with "The Works of Josephus"..........now there is some nice heavy reading!!! Again thanks for that, it will be locked away firmly in my mind now.

Except for a couple of points about Easter, priestly celibacy, and a few other points which are also very likely untrue, the Watchtower stopped quoting Hislop about Christmas in 1978, and the Awake! stopped referencing these points in 1973.
It's true that Alexander Hislop's book, The Two Babylons, has been almost thoroughly debunked. You can easily find this claim in Wikipedia and other sources. I think the most credible "witness" in this regard is a man who had once believed in Hislop's book, and who wrote a book of his own that piggy-backed on the ideas from Hislop. Yet, even though this man continues to believe that much of Catholicism is based on false origins, he honestly realized that he could no longer, in good conscience, make money off the falsehoods claimed by Hislop. So he pulled his book from publication and criticized his own book.
I'll quote some relevant parts his article from here, where he explains some of his reasons:
Message from Ralph Woodrow regarding the book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION
For a number of years my book BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was very popular, enjoyed a wide circulation, and was translated into various languages. To this day, we do not cease to receive orders and inquiries about it. Despite its popularity, several years ago we pulled it out of print and now offer a replacement book . . .
Because misinformation about this decision persists on the Internet, and in other ways, the aim of this article is to set the record straight.
According to one rumor, “the Catholics” put so much pressure on me, I had a heart attack and almost died! Consequently, I “recanted” and wrote the other book. There is no truth to this!
Another rumor is that my motives were financial—my desire was to be popular and make more money. To the contrary, BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION was extremely popular and provided more income to our ministry than all other books and offerings put together! We have faced much financial loss because of the decision to pull the book out of print.
Some letters we have received have been very warm, commending me for honesty and integrity, expressing appreciation for the clarification provided by the replacement book THE BABYLON CONNECTION? But other letters have been mean-spirited—that I am “stupid,” “scum,” “scared of the truth,” a “low down coward,” a “traitor to Christ,” following “a false god,” and am an “undercover Jesuit”! One even said, “I hope you die soon, I want you dead!”
It puzzles me how some can be so fanatical against one set of errors—or what they perceive to be errors—only to develop greater errors: becoming judgmental, hateful, and dishonest.
My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons"—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.
...
So is it with the claims about pagan origins. What may seem to have a connection, upon further investigation, has no connection at all!
By this method, one could take virtually anything and do the same—even the “golden arches” at McDonald’s! The Encyclopedia Americana (article: “Arch") says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. Since Babylon was called “the golden city” (Isa. 14:4), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered over and over about pagan origins.
By this method, atheists have long sought to discredit the Bible and Christianity altogether—not just the Roman Catholic Church.
By this method, one could condemn Protestant and evangelical denominations like the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist, Nazarene, etc. Basic things like prayer, and kneeling in prayer, would have to be rejected, because pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water, etc.
By this method, the BIBLE itself would need to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible, were also known among pagans—raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, tithes, etc.
By this method, the LORD himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Psa. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshipped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Psa. 91:4).
Here is a list of the some of the unsubstantiated claims that are made about the religion of ancient Babylon:
• The Babylonians went to a confessional and confessed sins to priests who wore black clergy garments.
• Their king, Nimrod, was born on December 25. Round decorations on Christmas trees and round communion wafers honored him as the Sun-god.
• Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sunday, to worship the Sun-god.
• Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis, who claimed to be the Virgin Queen of Heaven, and was the mother of Tammuz.
• Tammuz was killed by a wild boar when he was age 40; so 40 days of Lent were set aside to honor his death.
• The Babylonians wept for him on “Good Friday.” They worshipped a cross-the initial letter of his name.
It is amazing how unsubstantiated teachings like these circulate—and are believed. One can go to any library, check any history book about ancient Babylon, none of these things will be found. They are not historically accurate, but are based on an arbitrary piecing together of bits and pieces of mythology.
Hislop, for example, taught that mythological persons like Adonis, Apollo, Bacchus, Cupid, Dagon, Hercules, Janus, Mars, Mithra, Moloch, Orion, Osiris, Pluto, Saturn, Vulcan, Zoraster, and many more, were all Nimrod! He then formed his own “history” of Nimrod! He did the same thing with Nimrod’s wife. So, according to his theory, Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis—also known as Easter, he says—was a most beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes, a backslider, inventor of soprano singing, the originator of priestly celibacy, the first to whom the unbloody mass was offered! This is not factual history—it is more in the category of tabloid sensationalism.
...
The concern about not wanting anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow “the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).
---------end of quote---------
I remember when we used to tell people at the door that the cross came from Nimrod who was also Tammuz and the the first letter of Tammuz looked like a cross. Did you ever see what a "T" or the word "Tammuz" looks like in Babylonian cuneiform?
Anyway, it looks like Hislop was just another fanatical liar who hated the Catholic religion so much that he probably thought it didn't much matter whether what he wrote was true or not, and he likely just made up a lot of it himself. Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and others seem to have come from the same ilk.
 

Acts 24:15 there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.