ComfortMyPeople

True, some people have integrity and good parental training and example but the Bible still warns us about trusting in our own heart. Good parents teach their children etiquette.  This helps them to avoid what the scripture below is speaking about:
 I did not find the wording that I used to hear as a youth.  “Shun the very appearance of evil”. But this scripture appears to be saying the same thing.
 
1 Thessalonians 5:22-24 King James Version (KJV)
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
 
(Proverbs 4:14, 15) Do not enter the path of the wicked, And do not walk in the way of evil men. 15 Shun it, do not take it; Turn away from it, and pass it by.
 
 Every law has principles to help you to apply the law.  That is where etiquette comes in.  From what I see being done today I wonder whether people still instill these principles in their children, so they can avoid poor decisions that will lead into sinful conduct.
 
 
 
 
 

Many, many people ... totally innocent people ... have been shot to death, or spent years in prison, because they APPEARED to be guilty of some societal or cultural infraction.
I used to tell my children when they were small, and would go through a store, picking up things to look at them ... it is not only important to BE innocent ... it is important to APPEAR to be innocent.
STUFF HAPPENS.
 

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal.
If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct.
If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house,  then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. 
Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in.
It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

Yes, I believe so too. I believe the PARENT should go to the police first thing, and then to the elders second. However, if the parent goes to the elders first, the elders are not always mandated reporters. Regardless, some parents do not wish to involve the police at all! (that goes for non JW parents too). It very much depends on who the perpetrator is and what the circumstances are. Not every parent wants to rush to the police or if their 9 year old daughter tells them senile grandpa was a little too touchy feely the other day. Some parents opt for keeping granddaughter out of reach of grandpa. I feel a parent who is well connected to their child, knows their child, communicates with their child and watches their child will instinctively know when to report someone. Unfortunately, not all parents are like that.
 

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin
 
The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.
1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?
2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.
3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .
And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .
If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.
You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.
You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'
If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.
Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

This is a good concept to remember, but it produces some questions. If the blood referred to was the LIFEBLOOD then one could discontinue draining as soon as the animal was lifeless. If a live animal, heart beating, was hung upside-down, and then its throat slit, its "LIFEBLOOD" would already be gone even when only half the blood is drained. If the animal was already killed by lethal weapon, blunt force, or from another animal, or even had just died on its own, the amount of blood that could be drained by hanging it upside-down and slitting its throat would be much less than if it died during the draining process. In any case, the Jewish law required that the draining take place, and blood be poured onto the ground, as a kind of ritual of respect. We assume then that the animal was drained at least until the pouring stopped and the pouring turned into a drip. Since it was a ritual of respect before Jehovah, I would assume that it might be kept in position until the dripping had also stopped.
Of course, Christians of most stripes, should be informed by Acts 15 and 21 on this matter, more so than Genesis through Leviticus. Otherwise we would have to treat the fat with the same amount of respect, and the fat has exactly the same problem, not draining out completely when cooking.
(Leviticus 3:17) 17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” Why was fat put on the same level as blood here? Perhaps we get a hint from the very first use of the word "smell" in the Bible:
(Genesis 8:20, 21) . . .Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma.. . . When meat-eaters enjoy a juicy steak, much of the intrinsic flavor is from left-over blood and fat. The "pleasing aroma" of cooked meat comes more from the fat. The blood is poured downward to the ground, and the fat smokes upward "toward heaven."
To me, this says that this Mosaic law was based on a ritual of respect, the same as we see in many cultures who understood the grave seriousness of taking another life, killing a soul. Some Native American cultures were well-known for this, whenever an animal was killed for its meat. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice .  Part of the idea is that man shouldn't take another life for pleasure. And enjoying the savory meat as food is taking pleasure from killing another life.
Should note that some cultures preferred to sacrifice by strangling their meat, boiling it whole, etc. (See Scythians in the Wikipedia article above.) Homer and Hesiod wrote of sacrificing/cooking meat on their altars and how their god ("God the Father," Zeus) loved the savory aroma from the fat that rose high into the heavens. (Interesting discussion here: http://www.moyak.com/papers/hesiod-theogony.html )
Of course, turning to the Greek Scriptures, again, we know that Jehovah no longer accepts any animal or human sacrifices after Jesus himself. And, as Jesus' body was never burned, the aroma is obviously figurative, not literal, of course:
(Ephesians 5:2) . . ., just as the Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet fragrance to God. Extrapolating from the concept of comparing LIFEBLOOD with "fractionated blood" is a bit too dependent on one particular facet of Hebrew Scripture definitions, without considering other aspects of sacrificial ritual. (It might even imply that less care be taken with blood drainage, when measuring the threshold of blood necessary for life-sustenance compared to the original amount of blood.) And of course, the continuation of the idea in Acts 15, might also be primarily about abstaining from idolatry-related rituals, especially now that Christians realized that sacrificial rituals had no more place in the true worship of God.

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct.
Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society.
But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions.
On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.

I am sad. This is not just for the loss of this particular book, but also because it reminds me of the saddest episode in the history of Bethel (in my opinion, of course).
There are two books in my opinion that best managed to encapsulate the entire meaning of Christianity and our entire purpose as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Admittedly, I am somewhat of a critical reader and often find things that are easy to disagree with, at least slightly. Usually, it's when our publications make a statement that is not necessarily wrong, but could easily need to be updated in a future publication. This might be for any of the following reasons:
Some explanation was worded as if the meaning of a thing can only be understood in one specific way when in fact the Biblical evidence makes it clear that there are other possible meanings and our conclusion is really speculation. Or when a quote is used but it was misunderstood or misused by the writer. Or when a historical event is referred to as evidence of something when the event didn't really occur exactly as was stated. Or when a concept isn't actually explained or defined correctly. Or when examples are used that can easily become obsolete, out of date, and might later require a new explanation if trends change. Or when a specific date or chronological system is used without Biblical or secular support. (Our date might be correct in those cases, but since we sometimes make use of an alternate dating system without Biblical or secular support, I always feel that at least an explanation of our assumptions should be included, so people know why we give a different date from 99.9 percent of encyclopedias, for example.) But these two particular favorite books, I have always been able to read and re-read without ever noticing anything of the type that might have to be changed in the future. There are no explanations that state that something MUST mean this or that. They are simply full of general explanations of the words of James and Peter in the context of the original meaning to the first centuries C.E., and how these Biblical concepts might be applied to Christians in our era, too. They don't try to brag about our modern-day history. They don't try to prove things about topics that tend to need constant clarification. They are merely about ideas that strengthen our faith and love for Jehovah and Jesus. They always make me appreciate the true value of the Bible itself, and the way that our publications can emphasize the Bible instead of our organizational accomplishments. (There are several wonderful articles in the Watchtower that I love for the same reasons that I love these two books, but these books stand out from most of our other books in this regard.)
So, of course, the books are "Commentary on the Letter of James" and the "Commentary on the Letters of Peter" (which was finally named "Choosing the Best Way of Life"). The first was the only book study book that we didn't study at the Congregation Bible Study (the "Book Study"), although most of the book was reviewed in a series of 15-minute "Instruction Talks." It was supposed to be a "Book Study" book, but a decision was made to replace this 1979 book for the "Book Study" with "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached" (which reviewed the Society's modern-day history under Russell and Rutherford). That was a 1973 book which we were to study for a second time.
This book "Commentary on the Letter of James" was not dropped because it's old. The Watchtower Library includes the books going back to 1971, and still includes 14 books that came out prior to this one. Even the obsolete "Word Government" book (1977), covering parts of Daniel, is still included. The 1973 "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" book had many errors already known about even in 1979, prior to the decision to study it again, and it's still available now. In fact, the "James Commentary" is the only one that has been dropped. I just checked the 2006 WT CD, the 2012, 2014 and 2015. They all still have it along with all the others from the 1970's that are still available now. It was even dropped from the online library at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/56220.  All the other books from the 1970's are still at wol.jw.org.
I didn't check exactly when it disappeared. You might still have had it on the 2016/17 WT Library "CD" download, but it could have been removed if you accepted the regular online update.

Curiously, the spanish version says: "because this is how I collaborate with the work of Jehovah every month"
It may be the translator felt hesitant to pour out such a shocking phrase

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.  
 

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.  

I'm afraid not according to the "life and ministry meeting work book" 2017-06-08
 

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.
 
 

Not long ago we had a situation in our congregation with a brother who was addicted to prescription drugs to the point where he got in serious trouble with the law. The nail in his coffin came though when he decided to come to the meeting for FS when the CO was here, inebriated. Yes, you read correctly. Anyway, the brothers wanted to take him home, short of manhandling him to stop him from driving off,  but they didn't succeed, so the CO and another brother followed him in their car to make sure he got home safely.  On the way, the inebriated brother managed to mount the sidewalk and crash into a traffic light post. Thankfully no one was hurt. 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.
My husband and I later discussed this and realised that this was a good example of the mentality we have, to always give the appearance that we are morally on a higher ground, have the cleanest buildings, best equipment, perfect little families etc. (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).  It is no wonder then that we get dishonest when things are not quite so. But on a much more serious note, as you mentioned, it also causes us to cover over things that should NOT be covered over, such as child abuse. 

It is a heavy burden "carrying the utensils of Jehovah" and yet being riddled with the imperfections that plagues every single human being on earth.
It would be nice if one day we can be candid, open and honest about our failings. I think we are trying, in an indirect way. The last WT lessons pointing to the failings of Moses and Aaron and others shows that no one is exempt, not even those in leadership roles. And of course we know the "Slave" has put in print that they make mistakes (no kidding ). But this mentality, that we have a reputation to uphold, regardless whether actual reality is different, is deeply ingrained.

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.

Yes, this is a little misleading, because it only applies to members living in the same household.

WT magazine quote:
"The religious ties he had with his family change, but blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue." source: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/shunning/
WT and JW members having real problem that coming to be bigger and bigger with every day.
Training Video on JWorg Convention very clear highlighted important point/lesson for JW members, when mum not want to respond on dfd daughter phone call (this act has been presented (showed) as role model that is need to be imitate). Also, there is/are more examples in publications and in public talks in congregations to support what is going on.
So, it is question; What GB means when say -  "blood ties remain and normal family affections and dealings continue."???  
What is "normal family affection" in this ???? when mum not want pick up phone to her flesh and blood?????!!!!!
I am so hurt when see this hypocrisy (not because my family not want speak with me), but because i feel the pain that is inside those (ex) JW people rejected by their families and friends!! because of WT policy.  

Unfortunately, this stance is often a feature of hypocrisy. [cite any number of religio/political examples here].
However, I agree with the concept that humans, whoever they are, do not have the moral high ground ultimately. This belongs to Jehovah alone and I think this particular matter is an example of this.
We must not overlook the sobering fact that, at the present time, the words of Romans 13:3-4 still hold true regarding the secular authorities:
"For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."

This is an excellent point. I often wonder about the same. I even wonder, for example, what goes through a Catholic priest's mind when he has an affair with a parishioner or what goes through the mind of the parishioner when (she or he) has an affair with a priest. So you can imagine my wonderment at the state of affairs in the congregation.
It's a bit of comfort to know that our faith itself and our dependence on Bible training will sharpen our conscience and sense of morality. Undoubtedly these factors help bring the majority of such issues to light.
(Hebrews 4:12, 13) 12 For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is not a creation that is hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of the one to whom we must give an account. (1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. 25 In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid. (Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and quit sharing with [them] in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness, but, rather, even be reproving [them], 12 for the things that take place in secret by them it is shameful even to relate. 13 Now all the things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything that is being made manifest is light. But why not all things in this life? Why 10 years? The following verse in 1 Cor 4:5 says that some "secret things of darkness" won't become revealed until "the Lord comes."
(1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Hence do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the hearts manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God. (1 Corinthians 3:13) 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire; and the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one’s is. (Hebrews 4:12, 13) [especially v. 13 already quoted above.] I have struggled with whether Ephesians 5:11 quoted above is saying that we each have a personal responsibility to reveal. I think it creates a divisive spirit in the congregations when everyone is ready to turn others in, yet it seems that sometimes it is up to us to "be reproving them" because the "things that are being reproved are made manifest by the light."
When the ARC was active, I discussed the potential fallout with a friend of mine still at Bethel and he told me that one of the dangers or fears was going to be whether or not the name or position of one of the perpetrators was going to be revealed. In one of the very cases used as an example this brother in New York said that the perpetrator was a well-known brother who had also been the Australian Branch Overseer for decades. The brother seemed to have no doubt of his guilt, although I personally would not know, but I still think that using this particular case in the process was purposefully intended to put a kind of fear and humility into the WTS there, because it showed who had the upper hand and who held the "moral high ground." But hearing this, and knowing how the brother who told me was deeply concerned that the truth not come out, I wondered the same thing. I thought maybe it should come out. (Per Ephesians 5:10-13)

Recently (like this last week), I was attending to our JW publication cart at our local library.  We (the sister with me) were approached by a guy dressed like a country music wannabe with cowboy hat and a plaid shirt with the arms torn off.  His arms were flaying around as he talked about a Youtube vid about our "black dude" leader saying we need to cast our children out of our homes if they aren't following JW rules.  The sister and I were perplexed since we didn't know what he was talking about and tried to reason with him.  Now I know what got him fired up.   The recording of Bro Herd is very hard to decipher what he is saying but I know from previous broadcasts he and Bro Morris can express their personal opinion like its scripture.  They mean well but I feel they go too far sometimes.  
Casting out demons is totally different than dealing with a disfellowshipped child.  The demons had been in Jehovah's presence as fully functioning perfect beings.   They chose a course of rebellion with full knowledge and understanding not subjected to the influence of Adamic sin.    A imperfect child does make their own choices but who knows what influences those choices.   Being an imperfect human gets complicated.    Every country on earth that I can think of has a prison system to protect their good citizens from the bad.  As with Russia we can see that system has a hidden agenda to do just the opposite.   As humans in or out of the Truth, we can have a hidden agenda and I suspect the BoE is not exempt if they are not careful.   I pray for Jehovah to repair any damage done and to cause corrections to be made.  

Your answer:
I certainly don't claim to understand everything about Russell's ideology. I'm actually not even insisting that he erred in judgment. He may very well be right when he claimed that the great crowd of Revelation 7:14 will be in heaven. Our own current teaching on that particular verse could change. Of course, this would not change the Scriptural fact that a great crowd of people would survive the great tribulation and live on earth. And it would not change the fact that Russell also knew --from places outside this particular verse-- that there would be a great crowd of people on earth, which you and I already accept.
But it makes no sense for you to complain about a claim that Russell might have erred if you also admit that there was a time when he didn't have all the facts and would only eventually receive God's guidance in certain matters. I'm sure that you yourself would also admit that he might have erred in judgment before having all the facts. But you haven't been clear if this means that his "initial" judgment was wrong and he eventually came around to seeing that the "great crowd" would NOT be in heaven, or if he never believed what he said, and/or meant something different all along.
Neither choice would explain why Rutherford also believed the "great crowd" would be in heaven . This was something Rutherford believed up until at least 1933, and probably up until closer to 1935.
I'd be happy to change my opinion about what Russell said, if you could show the evidence that he meant something else, or didn't mean what he said, or changed his opinion on this matter over time. That's not just for you, but for anyone who can show any evidence.
Based on years of interaction, I have a feeling that you dig in your heels and insist on making claims without evidence because you seem anxious to prove your own superior knowledge about Russell and the Bible Students. On certain points, I think you have provided valuable references and resources. On this point however, it's not just Russell's own words you are up against, but you are also opposing the more current understanding of the Watchtower when the beliefs of Russell and the Bible Students are reviewed:
*** w64 12/1 p. 724 Out of the Tombs to a “Resurrection of Life” ***
For many years Christian Bible students understood the “resurrection of life” to include (1) the church or congregation of the 144,000 joint heirs of Christ, and (2) an unnumbered “great company” of spiritual Christians not included in the 144,000 but serving under them in heaven I think you've seen evidence that the Watchtower is correct here, and that your claim is incorrect. Bible Students held this belief from as far back as the 1880 Watchtower, and put it in print as recently as 1933. I didn't double-check the Watchtowers of this period, but I see it in Vindication (1932) and Preparation (1933). (When the Jonadab class was still considered separate from the "great multitude.") It's possible that it was even repeated up until the doctrine was changed in 1935.
Here's a mention of that in 2003 and elsewhere:
*** w03 2/15 p. 19 par. 9 What Does the Lord’s Evening Meal Mean to You? ***
But on May 31, 1935, in a discourse given at a convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., it was Scripturally explained that the “great crowd” (“great multitude,” King James Version) refers to the “other sheep” who live during the time of the end. (John 10:16) After that convention, some who had previously partaken of the Memorial emblems stopped partaking because they realized that their hope was earthly, not heavenly. *** w98 2/15 p. 20 par. 8 Glorious Freedom Soon for the Children of God ***
In 1935 the “great multitude,” or “great crowd”—formerly thought to be a secondary spiritual class that would be “companions” of the bride of Christ in heaven *** w95 2/1 p. 13 par. 16 A Great Crowd of True Worshipers—From Where Have They Come? ***
For a time Jehovah’s servants believed that the great multitude (or, great crowd) of Revelation 7:9, 10 . . . Because the Bible says that they are “standing before the throne,” it was thought that they would be in heaven, not on thrones, ruling as joint heirs with Christ, but in a secondary place in front of the throne. They were viewed as less faithful Christians, ones who did not show a spirit of true self-sacrifice. In 1935 that view was corrected. You said that following a quote from Volume 2 of "SiS" The Time is at Hand. Unfortunately, that quote and that book also does not support your opposition to Russell's clear statements, and your opposition to the Watchtower's more recent statements quoted above. That book was written when Watch Tower publications were still consistent that both the 144,000 and the "great multitude" would go to heaven. 
After this you quoted quite a few things from Volume 3 of "SiS" Thy Kingdom Come, especially the portions about the wheat and tares. If you read more of Russell's words on the subject you will see that the portion you quoted was not relevant to his understanding of Revelation 7:9-17. Russell did have a confused belief about the tares, but this was necessary because if you read the contemporary Watch Tower articles on the subject you will see that he actually did tie the tares to other Christian groups and religions of Christendom, and he therefore had to try to remove the idea that being "burnt in the fire" referred to their destruction. After all these "burnt" ones were still going to heaven in Russell's view. Watch carefully how Russell managed this amazing feat, in the same book you quoted, Thy Kingdom Come:
Is not this a most remarkable agreement between this stone "Witness" and the Bible? The dates, October, 1874, and October, 1881, are exact, while the date 1910, though not furnished in the Scriptures, seems more than a reasonable one for some important event in the Church's experience and final testing, while A.D. 1914 is apparently well-defined as its close, after which the world's greatest trouble is due, in which some of the "great multitude" may have a share. And in this connection let us remember that this date limit--A.D. 1914--may not only witness the completion of the selection and trial and glorification of the entire body of Christ, but it may also witness the purifying of some of that larger company of consecrated believers who, through fear and faint-heartedness, failed to render acceptable sacrifices to God, and who therefore became more or less contaminated with the world's ideas and ways. Some of these, before the end of this period, may come up out of the great tribulation. Many such are now being closely bound in with the various bundles of tares for the burning; and not until the fiery trouble of the latter end of the harvest period shall burn the binding cords of Babylon's bondage shall these be able to make their escape--"saved so as by fire." They must see the utter wreck of Great Babylon and receive some measure of her plagues. The four years from 1910 to the end of 1914, indicated thus in the Great Pyramid, will doubtless be a time of "fiery trial" upon the Church  . . . What Russell did here, of course, was to replace the fiery destruction of the tares (weeds) with the idea that these actually represented the place from which the "great multitude" would be saved from. The "fire" became a time of "fiery trial" with a purifying effect. It becomes 4 years of a great tribulation (from about 1910 to 1914) that would come on the Church. The "great multitude" would be saved out of this "great tribulation." This fire would evidently also burn some of the tares, but notice how he turns the focus of that fire to purification and salvation: "burn the binding cords of Babylon's bondage" and being "saved so as by fire" and "the purifying of some of that larger company." This particular sleight-of-hand interpretation was soon dropped from Russell's teachings, and the tares began to refer only to those fit for destruction, while the less worthy "great multitude" continued to be seen as having a heavenly destination. (See the full article from the February 1916 Watch Tower, for example, quoted in a previous post.) 
Understanding who Russell referred to doesn't have to fail modern readers. There are people who can even read Shakespeare, or the KJV of the 17th century and understand it. Reading Russell's English is relatively straightforward compared to older English.
I hate to have to point it out again, but I get the feeling you are doing something that you have become infamous for doing in the past. Your name has become almost synonymous with opposing some small bit of truth that shouldn't even matter that much in the long run. And then when you are shown that you are opposing the evidence, and even opposing the Watchtower in this case, you dig in your heels and start going on about things that were not really related to the question. And another favorite tactic, apparently, is to copy quotes from somewhere that might seem relevant and might make some people believe that you found "evidence" you were right. Perhaps it even convinces some people. But it's very difficult for me to see how you can look at evidence of something and just oppose it or deny it without responding to the evidence and without giving any counter-evidence.

*** it-1 pp. 616-617 Destruction ***
Will all persons who were destroyed by God in times past be dead forever?
The Bible indicates that not all destruction is eternal. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Hebrew word ʼavad·dohnʹ (destruction) is used twice to parallel “Sheol.” (Job 26:6; Pr 15:11) The prophet Zephaniah spoke of the destruction of Assyria, whereas Ezekiel said that the Assyrians would go down to Sheol. (Zep 2:13; Eze 32:21, 22) When speaking of the destruction of the rebels Dathan and Abiram, Moses wrote that they went down “alive into Sheol.” (Nu 16:31, 33) Since Sheol in the Bible denotes the common grave of mankind from which there will be a resurrection, it is evident that not all destruction—not even all destruction at the hand of God—is necessarily eternal.
Everlasting Destruction. The Bible does not indicate that all the dead will be resurrected. Jesus implied this when he spoke of “those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead.” (Lu 20:35) The possibility of eternal destruction for some is also indicated by Jesus’ words at Matthew 10:28: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” Regarding this text, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (edited by C. Brown, 1978, Vol. 3, p. 304) states: “Matt. 10:28 teaches not the potential immortality of the soul but the irreversibility of divine judgment on the unrepentant.” Also, Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (revised by F. W. Gingrich and F. Danker, 1979, p. 95) gives the meaning “eternal death” with reference to the Greek phrase in Matthew 10:28 translated “destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” Thus, being consigned to Gehenna refers to utter destruction from which no resurrection is possible.—See GEHENNA.
“Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them . . . are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire.” (Jude 7) That punishment evidently applies not merely to the physical cities but to their inhabitants as well, because it was the people themselves who committed the gross sins that led to their annihilation.
The possibility of eternal destruction is particularly an issue during the conclusion of the system of things. When Jesus was asked by his disciples what would be ‘the sign of his presence and of the conclusion of the system of things,’ he included as part of his answer the parable of the sheep and the goats. (Mt 24:3; 25:31-46) Concerning “the goats” it was foretold that the heavenly King would say: “Be on your way from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels,” and Jesus added, “These will depart into everlasting cutting-off.” Clearly the attitude and actions of some individuals will result in their permanent destruction.  END QUOTE
The Bible  at Jude 7 did say Sodom and Gomorrah have undergone "everlasting fire".  Certainly Satan and his demons, Judas, Ananias and Sapphira, those destroyed at Noah's Day and at Armageddon, are in that lot.  (Matthew 24: 37-39; Matt 25:41,46))
I think the point was raised by JWI about Jesus reading hearts and saying the people of Sodom would have repented after seeing certain signs. 
(Matthew 11:20-24) 20 Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his powerful works had taken place, for they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Cho·raʹzin! Woe to you, Beth·saʹi·da! because if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Tyre and Siʹdon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for Tyre and Siʹdon on Judgment Day than for you. 23 And you, Ca·perʹna·um, will you perhaps be exalted to heaven? Down to the Grave you will come; because if the powerful works that took place in you had taken place in Sodʹom, it would have remained until this very day. 24 But I say to you, it will be more endurable for the land of Sodʹom on Judgment Day than for you.”
Checking here is says Sodom would have remained until this day, and that the people of Tyre and Sidon would have repented and it brings the people of Sodom and Gomorrah into the conversation about Judgement Day.  So that is where the speculation begins.
Thanks for the impetus to do more research. Look forward to your comments and those of others. 
 
 
 

 

I'm sure you are correct. And speaking of the time near Armageddon as a literal decision point might be very appropriate, too. But none of us knows exactly when that final decision point would be for those who do not yet know better. Jesus is given authority to judge the heart, and we might wonder why Jesus said what he did about those in Sodom. (See the comment about Abraham and Sodom from @Melinda Mills.) He said that if those persons in Sodom had seen the miraculous signs that Jesus was then giving persons the opportunity to see, that those men in Sodom would have repented. Jesus was here claiming that he could judge the heart condition of the men of Sodom. Why?
Around Armageddon, which could be a literal time for that final "decision point" we envision that there will be clear signs from heaven. Will any persons at this time, who see these signs from heaven, have a heart condition like those persons in Sodom, who would have repented? Does this have any meaning to the one who judges the hearts? The same could go for the billions of unrighteous who are expected to be resurrected. Our teaching about them says that many of these will be kept around and remain alive for 1,000 more years and then finally destroyed at the end of that 1,000 years. But won't many of these billions of unrighteous persons see the obvious signs from heaven that are transforming the earth during this time?
If a person sees this and still doesn't want it, their heart condition is clear. Many persons, we expect, will be so steeped in their wicked lifestyle at Armageddon that they will prove their inability to repent and deserve a judgment of eternal death. They receive this judgment because Jehovah and Jesus, righteous judges who can read the heart, will make that judgment -- knowing in advance how they would react even if offered an opportunity for 1,000 years of signs from heaven. But some of the billions who are resurrected will be allowed to stick around for up to 1,000 years, even though it is therefore clear that they too could have been judged again almost immediately upon resurrection, long before they get destroyed at the end of the 1,000 years. If our view of the 1,000 years is right, there is some other reason that they are treated differently or even judged by a somewhat different set of criteria. This is not something for us to worry about now. Just as it is not something for us to try to judge in place of Jehovah.
Historically, C.T.Russell envisioned all the millions or even billions of Christians going to heaven, and only 144,000 of them chosen to be Christ's bride. But he also expected about 20 billion "worldly" non-Christians to stay on earth through resurrection or survival where, over the years, they would be transformed into perfect subjects of God's kingdom. Russell, as you know, sometimes said things that made people believe he supported nearly a "universal salvation."
Rutherford, too, as part of the argument for "Millions" of "worldly" people then living being able to survive Armageddon into God's new world, also saw post-Armageddon as a time of transforming the minds of billions of persons who would see these signs from heaven and repent. Rutherford, in the "Millions" campaign, argued that a person could hardly be expected to want to go back to their "worldly" wicked ways once he has seen this transformation to paradise in the Millennium.
Even with the scriptures you quoted, we don't know the final time when you could say of these persons, "but that is what some of you were." It's also clear that many have already had opportunity to transform their lives based on knowledge of God and Christ and have already had opportunity to present themselves as either "sheep" or "goats."

Yes. Some Witnesses would take that literally. But in the last couple of decades, there has been a toning down of the talk about who will be destroyed and who will survive. JWs expect to survive as a people, but there has been a lot more talk about Jehovah's justice and how we can't predict just how many others will survive, based upon their circumstances, age, mental capacity, opportunities to know about true Christianity, or even to know about Christianity in general. Witnesses rarely say they will be the only ones to survive Armageddon. We are not the judges. We don't know if thousands of other persons will survive, or millions, or even billions. Jonah, we recall, thought he was calling down destruction on the capital of a world empire, in effect, therefore, the entire world -- and for a while he was disappointed when Jehovah saved all the people he expected would die. 
From another perspective, #3 in that list was Armageddon, which we believe will be an obvious display of Jehovah's purposeful and selective judgments through his chosen King and Commander, Christ Jesus. This will not simply be a completely chaotic time of destruction. A scenario similar to the one Witnesses envision is that Gog/Magog will attack, and Jehovah will selectively protect the persons he wishes to protect.
Many persons will no doubt witness such spectacles of Jehovah's selective judgments, and realize they are not random, but purposeful. This would have to be interpreted as a true and spectacular judgment message from heaven. That means that, in effect, EVERYBODY who witnesses Jehovah's judgments will now be one of Jehovah's witnesses at this point, even prior to the spectacular and miraculous resurrection of persons brought back from just recently and long ago, with their memories intact. The newly resurrected, too, therefore, become witnesses of Jehovah's judgments, power, purpose. 
You will have to ask other Witnesses if they anticipate God's judgments working out differently. For me, this is a personal opinion but it can still fit the range of variations possible from current Witness teachings. It might have been difficult to allow for such variation even 25 years ago.

I understand everything you say. Don't get me wrong, I was never agreeing with this video, in fact I think it's one of the worst videos WT has ever made. What I was doing was refuting what someone said, about love being switched on and off. It isn't. The love is still there, and a lot of heartache for the parents who believe this is the right thing to do for the benefit of their child. 
Like you say, no situation is the same. I have reasons to believe the scenario in the video was based on actual events. I know of a very similar one myself. However, as you say, this video does not take into account any other circumstances that could happen in real life. For that reason  I think it is a dangerous video, especially for someone who  is bound to do things unquestioningly. I am hoping most parents who know their child well, and who are in a similar circumstance, will know how to act so that a tragedy does not happen.