ComfortMyPeople

I'm sure there are two or more sides to every story. We met Percy probably about 80 times. I was very interested in his reasons and his reasoning. He had no senility of any kind, and I like that he focused on the positive. He would show me how fast he could get up from his chair. He could walk, and even get up the stairs, but it was painfully slow. Still, he didn't want the wheelchair. It was really for people like me who were impatient to get him from point A to point B and back as quickly as possible. His complaints were usually about food, and he was very particular about how his food was cooked, but he was very appreciative. He discussed recipes with my wife, and told us both a lot of wonderful stories and experiences, some of which have probably appeared in past yearbooks and from assembly platforms.
I tried to imagine what would have happened between Percy and the elders that made him seem like such a danger. He had been in the same congregation for 50 years, and hadn't got in trouble before. Of course, I finally asked him and he was very clear about it. The elders asked him to reveal private conversations with his friends that he had discussed Bible topics with where those topics were out of harmony with current Watchtower teachings. He had made it clear to the elders that he wouldn't discuss private conversations with his friends. This is obviously an affront to the entire process because it does not show deference to the authority of the elders. He had three judicial hearings, and even went to 124 Columbia Heights for the last one.
You probably know that there was a set of questions in those days that Bethel elders were asking of persons suspected of disloyalty. One of them was the question about whether the "suspect" believed that the Watchtower Society and its Discreet Slave was the only organization Jehovah was using to feed spiritual truth on the earth today. (Don't know if Percy told this to the elders, but to me he said answered that same question with another question about how the scripture says, 'For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.) He thought the question itself was not fully scriptural, which ultimately leads to the fact that he is questioning the faithful and discreet slave. As I'm sure you know, that was the true and only definition of apostasy at that time: "Do you question the faithful and discreet slave?" If the judicial committee can get you to either directly or indirectly answer that question in the affirmative, then you are an apostate.
I would never claim that Percy was exactly right in his opinion. And I would never suggest that anyone be so blunt with elders on a judicial committee, especially one with Bethel elders. At Bethel, many of the long-term elders are completely divorced from the reality of living in the real world. There was often little room for justice to be tempered with mercy inside Bethel. Every week, we had to listen to Brother Knorr and and others make loud and angry tirades about who was being kicked out of Bethel for this or that. We sometimes had to sit through the shame and embarrassing details of their sins. I heard it was much, much worse under Rutherford where he was able to dress down someone until he got them to cry in front of hundreds of people. I don't think some of these brothers were trained to think of real-world consequences to the person being judged, or the subsequent consequences to their own reputation for acting harshly.

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.

True Tom, I would agree for the most part, but I also think it is human nature (imperfect human nature) to problem solve. Things that work well are usually left alone and are taken more or less as matter of fact and for granted (unfortunately) But if something doesn't work right....well we either ignore it or try and fix it. How many times has it happened when the positive gets overlooked but whoa, if there is something negative people get together, criticize, gossip...get their panties in a twist. We humans tend to gravitate towards "problems". I think, and this is just my opinion, most of us on here realize that we can't really do anything about what we are discussing. But it feels good to be able to air concerns and read other peoples stories and viewpoints. You have probably heard about a particular therapeutic method whereby a person is told to write their concerns down on paper, but never really give or send it to the other person. It really works. I have written about 3 letters to the GB in the past couple of years, and of course never sent them, but it helped me to organize my thoughts and filter out what is really important and what I will just wait with and see what happens.
Yes, as you say, there are apostates who comment on here, and as you say they are pretty easy to spot. The good thing is it is our choice whether we get into a debate with them or not. 

As long as imperfect people are given authority over others, there will be misuse of that power. We can sympathize with some of the victims; for example, an old sister personally told me she was disfellowshipped in the olden days for passing a loaf of bread through the Kingdom Hall window. Of course, my mum had already told me about it. Sounds unbelievable?
At the time the sister told me, she had sat me down to tell me about the foibles of many of the leading brothers at the time, especially what they did in their youth. They were all behaving in a fleshly manner, although they had authority in the congregation.
The old sister in question left the congregation in her area and traveled to a farther congregation and was faithful until her death.
Once an overseer became despotic in those days, there was not much recourse - you either stayed or you left. People were not confident or very well educated, so they saw no recourse. The ones who were so wounded tended to talk about it over and over. As you can see the sister was still relating her experience - now to my generation. She was passing on the history of injustice.That is probably the only outlet she and others saw at the time.
Injustice might be less blatant now, but things will still happen (e.g. child abuse not dealt with adequately).
The only solution I see is the comfort mentioned in Isaiah 65:17: "17 For look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be called to mind, Nor will they come up into the heart."
But Jehovah will act: (Ezekiel 34:1-10) 34 The word of Jehovah again came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy, and say to the shepherds, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who have been feeding themselves! Is it not the flock that the shepherds should feed? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, and you slaughter the fattest animal, but you do not feed the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bandaged the injured or brought back the strays or looked for the lost; rather, you have ruled them with harshness and tyranny. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd; they were scattered and became food for every wild beast of the field. 6 My sheep were straying on all the mountains and on every high hill; my sheep were scattered over all the surface of the earth, with no one searching for them or seeking to find them. 7 “‘“Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of Jehovah: 8 ‘“As surely as I am alive,” declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, “because my sheep have become prey, food for every wild beast of the field, for there was no shepherd, and my shepherds did not search for my sheep; rather, they kept feeding themselves and did not feed my sheep,”’ 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of Jehovah. 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah says: ‘I am against the shepherds, and I will demand an accounting of them for my sheep, and I will dismiss them from feeding my sheep, and the shepherds will no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouth, and they will no longer be food for them.’”

Hello TrueTom!

How many good points you’ve mentioned. Let me remark some of them I completely agree.

Apostates, people who hate us (some of my relatives) share this kind of thinking. One uncle of me is saying form more than 40 years that our “bosses” are getting rich at our expense. I’ve tried any kind of argument with no success. Sincerely people, on the other hand, when get knowledge of this kind of facts, the translation to hundreds of languages, spoken many of them in impoverished regions, can clearly see the sincerity of our religion in our efforts to help others spiritually.


As regarding the painfully experiences JWI (and others) are told, if these are anecdotic or generalized, my opinion is that, to the degree an old generation of overseers have been replaced by a new one, things are improved. Also, many schools of elders and other training have contributed. What, perhaps, could have contributed to a deeper change? Related to other post, if the GB would have shown more humility.


Regarding JTR, I share your opinion. I suppose that a trip with this man would be anything but boring! I think his spiritual life (petulant assumption by myself to know so much of this man) is like when you hit so hard you cannot stop screaming. At that moment, no explanation is useful, all you want is to scream. And the reason is that you rage of pain. And JTR is screaming because he has spiritual pain.


Until now, I’ve restrained myself to expose my points of view regarding ourselves, JW. I’ve thought: “if newcomers see this mistakes about which I speak, sure they will stumble”. Do you share my fear, TrueTom? But I’ve changed my mind because similar information is spread over the net in places infected of hate, lies, half-lies, imputation of false motives and so on. Sooner or later my students, humble brothers and people in general will be in contact with this kind of misinformation. I prefer they get the same information but from one source (myself, for example) that is loyal to Jehovah’s people. I’m JW, I’ serving as elder, in fact, I’m the secretary in my congregation. I’m pioneer... but when I criticize some matters, I never say: “these are false apostles, or thieves, or they wash the brain” as apostates do. I criticize, yes, but I say (as you, TrueTom does): “Always God’s people have made mistakes. Always the leaders in Jehovah’s people have made mistakes. Many times God’s people have needed correction from God. For these reasons I believe we’re God’s people in spite of the errors”



In less words. They are going to learn the mistakes anyway from a thousand places, let them to learn from persons (as many in this forum) trusting in that Jehovah, at His proper time, will correct whatever consider necessary.

Hello TrueTom!

How many good points you’ve mentioned. Let me remark some of them I completely agree.

Apostates, people who hate us (some of my relatives) share this kind of thinking. One uncle of me is saying form more than 40 years that our “bosses” are getting rich at our expense. I’ve tried any kind of argument with no success. Sincerely people, on the other hand, when get knowledge of this kind of facts, the translation to hundreds of languages, spoken many of them in impoverished regions, can clearly see the sincerity of our religion in our efforts to help others spiritually.


As regarding the painfully experiences JWI (and others) are told, if these are anecdotic or generalized, my opinion is that, to the degree an old generation of overseers have been replaced by a new one, things are improved. Also, many schools of elders and other training have contributed. What, perhaps, could have contributed to a deeper change? Related to other post, if the GB would have shown more humility.


Regarding JTR, I share your opinion. I suppose that a trip with this man would be anything but boring! I think his spiritual life (petulant assumption by myself to know so much of this man) is like when you hit so hard you cannot stop screaming. At that moment, no explanation is useful, all you want is to scream. And the reason is that you rage of pain. And JTR is screaming because he has spiritual pain.


Until now, I’ve restrained myself to expose my points of view regarding ourselves, JW. I’ve thought: “if newcomers see this mistakes about which I speak, sure they will stumble”. Do you share my fear, TrueTom? But I’ve changed my mind because similar information is spread over the net in places infected of hate, lies, half-lies, imputation of false motives and so on. Sooner or later my students, humble brothers and people in general will be in contact with this kind of misinformation. I prefer they get the same information but from one source (myself, for example) that is loyal to Jehovah’s people. I’m JW, I’ serving as elder, in fact, I’m the secretary in my congregation. I’m pioneer... but when I criticize some matters, I never say: “these are false apostles, or thieves, or they wash the brain” as apostates do. I criticize, yes, but I say (as you, TrueTom does): “Always God’s people have made mistakes. Always the leaders in Jehovah’s people have made mistakes. Many times God’s people have needed correction from God. For these reasons I believe we’re God’s people in spite of the errors”



In less words. They are going to learn the mistakes anyway from a thousand places, let them to learn from persons (as many in this forum) trusting in that Jehovah, at His proper time, will correct whatever consider necessary.

I think your thoughts are very valid. I share your opinion. The main strong of 1Co 5:11 is to avoid persons with double life. But at some point, the “double” life disappears. Let’s considerer the following (common) situation.

A young baptized girl lies to her parents and the congregation (and Jehovah) and have sex with other young people.  She has the view of “enjoy life”, and she’s expelled. Now, she’s thirty years old, has her own children and become very conservative and protective with her own family. But, as you’ve mention, she doesn’t want to be JW again.

Why, when she was a recent disfellowshipped person, should we avoid having deals with her? Because she completely enters in the meaning of “anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral” and then, the Bible command me “stop keeping company”.

So far so good. But sometime after (we’re not ruling about the numbers), she becomes simply a neighbor in my vicinity. Is she a bad company? Perhaps. As you’ve pointed out, it is up to me to decide who are good or bad companies. What would be the outcome if my wife have some coffee with her in our home, or in a snack bar? Perhaps my wife says to her “I still remember your fine answers in the meetings…” you know, this kind of comments. Perhaps the ex-sister would react to this love as the prodigal son, remembering the warm in his parent’s house.

Changing a little bit the situation. My wife has a coffee with this ex-sister. Now this woman starts to openly defend ideas about “free love”, to the extent to say “and when I would see your daughters I’ll try to persuade them about my view”. At this moment, this woman has become not a normal neighbor. Perhaps we’ll give to our daughters the counsel: “(2Jo 10) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”

And what is the reason the GB allows this situation for so long time? Perhaps some answers are in my other post about the (lack of ) humility. But, also, there is another reason, in my opinion: Pharisaic attitude. But this is, perhaps, theme for other post.

Your final quote from our Awake magazine should make us think

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.

Given the choice, I prefer our little brother than the Indonesian child.

I see from your comments you’ve had really bad experiences as JW, mainly with elders. I confess you one personal secret: I’ve also had some bad experiences, mainly with other elders and C.O. I’m not a psychologist, but a computer developer, but I dare to say that these painful experiences, added to a very strong personality and a deep sense of justice have made you explode. I apologize if something I’ve said is offensive. Believe this wasn’t my intention.

I OFFER YOU A DEAL

You and me serving in the same congregation of Jehovah worshipers… but a little time ago, approximately 1500 before Christ. As you and I share some critical view about the “Organization” it’s easy our conversation resting any given day:

CMP. Have you noticed, JTR, our comrades are always making our live impossible. One day they mutter, the other they worship idols. What kind of people did Jehovah choose? Some Egyptians were much more cultivated and god-fearing!
JTR. Don’t forget the poor food we must to swallow, after 40 years!
CMP. And what’s your opinion about priesthood? They are a clan, a caste.
JTR. And why had Jehovah that forgive the High Priest? He was the direct responsible of a sin causing the dead of thousands of our brother! What lack of judgment! And now his sons are the new priesthood! Really, after so many errors I can’t understand God continues using this regrettable family.
CMP. Hey! Here he comes a messenger with news from the results from Balaam affair. Perhaps Jehovah is expressing via this foreign prophet a message revealing his opinion about this people. 
 
…and do you want to know, JTR, the opinion of Jehovah about that persons causing so much problems, erring so much, after almost 40 years?

·        (Nu 24:5, 6, 9) “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, Your tabernacles, O Israel!  Like the valleys they have extended a long way, Like gardens by the river, Like aloes that Jehovah has planted, Like cedars by the waters …. Those blessing you are blessed, And those cursing you are cursed     Dear JTR, I try to share the same opinion that Jehovah about His people. Yes, full of imperfections, sometimes needing correction and discipline. But, after all, God loves His people. I want to belong this people. In spite the errors I’m the first to point out, I love this people, they are my brothers.
 
Quoting Jehovah’s words, as for me, in spite a lot of errors I can see in these persons, I will never curse this people, my people!

Yes, precisely. But we know it shouldn't be like this. There was a talk a few years ago at our assembly, you may have heard it too, which kind of addressed this problem.  The talk was "Is your conscience truly guided by Bible principles" The brother used a few nice illustrations, one of them was about a coffee machine. You can program it to have coffee ready at a certain time in the morning and so when you come down you can smell the aroma and go "Oooh, that smell of coffee!"  But will you think or say "what a good little coffee machine for making that coffee!" ? Probably not. However, if you come down and see your wife/husband lovingly made you a fresh cup themselves (which ever way they did it is irrelevant to the point) you will most likely appreciate the gesture. This is the difference between a programmed situation and one which was done voluntarily, out of love and the goodness of the heart. Similarly, because we are not programmed, the way we act reveals to Jehovah our true feelings.  The other illustration was about a car and a bus. He said that to get to a certain destination, we can either be passengers on a bus or the drivers of a car. The bus is on fixed time and is driven by someone else. How the bus driver drives is up to him, he could be speeding, running over old ladies etc. However if you are the driver of a car, you control the situation.
So he kind of compared Law/rules to the rider on a bus, and principles to the driver of a car. And this is the point I really liked: If we live by law, Jehovah knows you are obedient, and that is good. However, if we live by principles, Jehovah knows a lot more about our person, it reveals our heart; our love for him and the intensity of our desire to please him. Romans 12:2,
We are no longer under many laws/rules and that is good. Laws are time specific and situation specific, however principles are good anywhere, anytime. We should not be looking for a rule or law on a matter, but seek Jehovah's view and standards.
Jehovah treats us like adults, he lets us drive the car, he does not have us drive the bus like children. However, some evidently prefer to ride the bus! Hebrews 5:11-14

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. 

I was trying to comment under JTR Jr comments
Hello JTR Jr

Yes, “devil is in the details”.

As always, your comments are full of vivid feelings reflecting your worry about injustice. I personally ignore if our position regarding disfellowshipping has to do with the hate Russian authorities have against us. Certainly, the world under the wicked one hates us, this is true, but you’re right in mentioning that, sometimes, we add to this hate.

For example, when I was a child I learnt the truth without my parents. I grow up alone as JW. As soon I learnt about idols I took some family photos, scissors and I just left the heads, removing medals, crosses and other religious symbols. Well, obviously, I “won persecution” for myself. But this persecution wasn’t for defending the truth, but for my fanatical behavior.

In the same way, perhaps some sufferings we’re experiencing could have its roots in some dogmatic position. I repeat, JTR Jr, I have no reason to think this is the case in Russia.

Regarding we’re reflecting some pharisaic attitude… well, this deserves a complete new topic.

DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES AND SPACE TRAVELS
Grant me some moments with this regression: our former point of view about visiting, traveling or living in another planet. To show that the Bible disapproves this idea, we found good few of declarations quoting Ps. 115 in this way:
CHARGING Ps 115
·        *** g73 5/22 p. 13 Is There Life Beyond the Earth? *** Of our planet alone the Holy Bible declares that God “formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isa. 45:18) And long ago God’s Word declared that the heavens belong to the Creator, “but the earth he has given to the sons of men.” (Ps. 115:15, 16) So the Bible shows that the earth is unique among planets. This was an example of a verse “charged, loaded” with a greater meaning than the writer intended. The Psalm only says that Jehovah has given the earth to mankind. There is nothing discouraging space travels.
DISCHARGING Ps 115
I was very excited in the 1986 district convention when the book “Worldwide Security” was released. I browsed the book still sitting in the stadium and found this paragraph:
·        *** ws chap. 22 p. 184 par. 10 *** To all eternity our earth will bear a distinction that no other planet throughout endless space will enjoy, though the earth may not be the only planet that will ever be inhabited. In this way, the Psalm was discharged of an added meaning.
In other thread was showed proof as we’ve done the same with other passages:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/29940-our-problem-with-the-humility/?page=3
CHARGING Ge 9
Regarding the inappropriate of transplants of organs:
·        *** w67 11/15 p. 702 *** […]  Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you[…] Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. DISCHARGING Ge 9
·        *** w80 3/15 p. 31 *** Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. […] They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals  […]  While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. CHARGING Ro 1:24-32
Considering the appropriate intimacy inside the matrimony:
*** tp chap. 13 p. 150 par. 20 *** The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “obscene” practices. (Romans 1:24-32) DISCHARGING Ro 1
*** w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 [Footnotes] *** Reference has been made to the apostle’s statements at Romans 1:24-27 regarding “the natural use” of male and female bodies. As is evident and has been consistently acknowledged, these statements are made in the context of homosexuality. They do not make any direct reference to sexual practices by husband and wife. The previous three examples are provided to show that we (the GB) many times, inadvertently, have loaded some verses to defend a particular, favorite, entrenched stand. Could this also be happened with our position regarding disfellowshipped relatives?
COMING BACK TO EXPULSION
First things first. Disfellowshipping has scriptural base. Some examples
·        (Mat 18:17) “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”. ·        (1 Co 5:11-13) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is […] not even eating with such a man. “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves”. ·        (Titus 3:10)  “As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition” ·        (1 Ti 1:20) “Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught ·        (2 Jo 10, 11) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.  For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. t by discipline not to blaspheme”. So, without enter into the details about our dealings with these persons, the Bible clearly states we should cut off our relationship with expulsed people.
OUR POSITION WITH EXPULSED RELATIVES
Our present view is reflected in the next quotes:
*** w88 4/15 p. 28 par. 13,14*** Thus, a man who is disfellowshipped […] does not end their blood ties or marriage relationship, normal family affections and dealings can continue. […] The situation is different if […] is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother […] not even eating with such a man. Some exceptions and considerations that could arise:
·        *** w81 9/15 pp. 28-29 pars. 14-17 *** But what if a close relative, such as a son or a parent who does not live in the home, is disfellowshiped and subsequently wants to move back there? The family could decide what to do depending on the situation. For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) Perhaps it seems necessary to bring the parent into the home […] Sometimes Christian parents have accepted back into the home for a time a disfellowshiped child who has become physically or emotionally ill. And there are similar statements on other literature. So, there are two kind of possible deals with expulsed relatives:
·        Indoors. Normal dealings, without spiritual contact ·        Outdoors. As little as possible First consideration. This difference, indoor/outdoor is arbitrary. I mean, there is no scriptural base to make this difference. When the GB stablishes that we can at home to have a normal life with our son or husband, but when they leave home this contact should completely stop (with some exceptions), the GB could well have chosen a more drastic approach. Or the opposite, less hard. Sure?
CHARGING “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother” (1Co 5)
Apparently, this verse stablishes beyond doubt, that as my son (for example) enter into the expression “anyone called a brother”, I must stop relating to him, at least as soon as he leaves home.
But let me put one example. Have you ever preached to any person that firmly believes God is going to burn the earth? Perhaps this person quotes (2 Pe 3:7) “But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire”. What do you usually answer? Perhaps something like: “well, you’ve taken out of context… we should consider the rest of the Bible… and so”.
Accordingly, What other verses would prove that our present understanding of 1Co 5, when is applied to relatives, even those who live outside the home, is excessively charged?
·        (Ex 10:2) “...and in order that you may declare to your sons and your grandsons how severely I have dealt with Egypt”. o   How could I show interest in my grandson if I never visit my son? Or I never allow him to visit me? Does my grandson cease to be my grandson because my son is expulsed? So, this verse should qualify our position about 1Co 5.
 
 
 
·        (Eph 6:2) “Honor your father and your mother” is the first command with a promise”. o   How can accomplish with this basic command if I never visit or phone to my expulsed parents? Does this verse only apply when my disfellowshipped parents are sick? If so, what’s the scriptural base?
 
 
 
·        (1 Ti 5:4) “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to repay their parents and grandparents what is due them, for this is acceptable in God’s sight”. o   According this words, I have a debt with my parents and grandparents. Also, taking care of my children and grandchildren is godly devotion. All of this is qualified as acceptable in God’s sight. Does 1 Co 5 override, cancel this fundamental truth regarding the familiar relationship?
 
 
 
·        (Proverbs 23:22) “Listen to your father who caused your birth, and do not despise your mother just because she has grown old.” o   Now my mother and father are expulsed. They leave in their own home. Should I, according our present view of 1 Co 5 stop to ask them for counsel? Stop visiting them? Is it not a form of despise? Are 1co 5 and Pro 23:22 at odds, in contradiction?
 
 
 
·        (2 Timothy 3:3) “having no natural affection”. o    If I stop to visit or phone my relatives, how can I show natural affection? Does it invalidate our view of 1 Co 5 a feeling the Bible says it is natural?
What I’ve tried to proof with the previous passages is that, for correctly understand 1 Cor 5, we should take into consideration the entire Bible. And God’s Word is very clear indicating that my deals with my close family doesn’t perish if they, sadly, are disfellowshipped. And the difference concerning if these relatives live with me or not, does not appear anywhere.
THE “BENEFITS” OF OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING
Here and there, we can find or listen experiences indicating that former expulsed persons received encouragement to come back to the congregation because the family firmly avoid any deal with them. Obviously, this is true.
But, my own experience is that when the Christian family cuts the relationship, it generates feelings of resentment and bitterness. What I’ve seen is that these persons develop hate against the JW, because the congregation imposes this drastic behavior. Recently I’ve tried to approach to one ex-brother, expulsed. His parents are JW in my congregation. His fleshly sisters never visited or talked him in the last 20 years. He, bitterly, refused any contact with me.
Next are real situations I’ve personally seen in several congregations.
·        Three fleshly brothers and their mother are JW. One of the brothers was expulsed and the family cut off all the contact. Over time, the mother developed a severe disease and now, the Christians brothers phoned the disfellowshipped to get his help taking care of the mother. Fortunately, he agreed. But who could reproach him if, in turn, he would have said to the other brothers: “it is your business.” ·        One young witness is expulsed and leave his parent’s home. Over time, get married and has children. The father is JW but the mother is not. Fifteen years later, when visiting the parents, the father (the JW) stays in the kitchen while the rest of the family have the mail together. The wife (no JW) is a wonderful woman but doesn’t accept a religion with this extreme position. ·        A young sister is expulsed. During 40 years! her parents have no contact with her. Only she sporadically phone home, but the father refuses to answer, only the mother. Who could reproach her if now, when the parents are getting older she in turn refuses to take care of them? ·        A brother is an elder in the congregation. His son has been recently expulsed. For economic reasons the father has allowed his son and grandson to live with them. When our brother walk with his grandchildren sometimes his son (expulsed) walk with them and is seen by the congregation. The body of elders removed him because he has relationship with expulsed relatives. What should he do? When walk with his grandchildren and the father of them approaches, should he escape with the grandchildren? ·        An expulsed son get married and has children. His mother is JW. When her son was a JW she used to phone him when he was on a work trip. As she continues showing this concern the elders refused to approve her as auxiliary pioneer. Sometimes our sister visit her son to see her grandchildren. The elders have informed her about the convenience to stay in the street when visiting the grandchildren. The wife of our ex-brother believes we all are fanatics. And a lot more!
I repeat. I’m sure the experiences about expulsed people getting motivation to come back for our lack of contact are true. What It happens is that I’ve not seen any of these kind of situations, but the opposite.
Summarizing.
Why 1 Co 5 don’t say “stop keeping company with anyone called a brother, except when they are relatives”? Because it wasn’t necessary. Because there are plenty of verses teaching us the appropriate behavior with our families.
And the opposite is true. Why don’t mention, for example (Eph 6:2) “Honor your father and your mother, except if they are disfellowshipped”? Because God wait from us the use of “soundness of mind.” (Ti 2:12)
The verses, mainly 1Co 5, talking about our treatment with expulsed persons, should be understood at the light of many other verses, in this way indicating we should show natural affection to our relatives.
Well. I think so, but if any of you have any advice to focus this matter better, please, it’ll be welcome!
 
 
 

I spoke with a Swedish sister yesterday while on field service.  She said that the Swedes NEVER talk about religion - it is a taboo in their culture.  Many Swedes are secularist.   The sister took quite long to become active because she could not tell her parents that she wanted to be a witness and she still cannot speak to them about Jehovah because it is taboo in their family to speak about any aspect of any religion.  So I find these brothers advertising their faith so loud very encouraging and brave!

Yes, many friends have the view that if they raise an issue, they may seem ungrateful. But really, the GB relies on feedback from the friends. How else are they to know where to make an reasonable adjustment if everyone is quiet, as if everything is fine? There is a difference between being overly critical and voicing genuine concern. The key is, once the concern is voiced, leaving it. It's been brought out into the open, and what happens next should be left with Jehovah.
Interesting. There must have been many more "sisters" with the same question. There is strength in numbers! Although it took decades of perhaps just a few sisters each year bringing up the same question until it finally reached the right ears....

My dear friend - to me all these things are not really important.  What is important is that Jehovah is going to remove all false religions and governments (including all the secret organizations and secret religious orders which has its hold on society) from the earth.
A lot of Arabs ask me about the illuminati... and now we see this article today about the 'deep state'.    It is good to know that it  exists (but one does not have to study it in detail to be sure of the details of its existence - because it is just another manifestation of Satans deceiving power. )  i.e. The dark net - there is proof that it exists, but not even the CIA knows the full extent of it and may never know it  ; but they say that only the top of the iceberg is visible.  ISIS and powerful criminals use encrypted messages on the dark net - it is larger than the regular internet .  They do all their criminal business/recruiting there and the CIA etc. cannot penetrate it.   Most decent people are not even aware of this!
When I encounter these questions in field service, awareness of it, has helped me  to answer,  I say :  Yes I know there are many secret organizations which are wielding great power on earth and many powerful governments are ordering assassinations and manipulate weaker governments and even arrange coo-de-tats, there are global (evil) corporations controlling large parts of the world through their money and lobbying - and then I briefly say what I know. But then the punchline comes:- Mankind does not have the power to stop it!  It is so integrated in society like a scrambled egg.  It cannot be undone! by mankind. Then I give the scriptures:  This is all proof that Jehovah will have to step in and destroy wickedness because these wicked practices are hurting good people and Jehovah will not allow this to go on forever! 
Regarding Islam - Satan inspired a man to take the Kingdom of Jehovah and make a false replica of it.  The eschatological beliefs of islam believe that Islam must rule all over the earth and Sharia law must prevail everywhere for there to be peace on earth for a period of time.  They believe that Jesus will come back to earth in flesh and fight the Dajjal (anti-Christ with the sword - weapon.... ) and submit to Islam. 
Of course the Muslims are killing each other (Shiia and Sunni) because their "theocracy" (such as in Shiia Iran) is actually human rule by Imams with their fatwas and "spiritual police" who check women's dress etc.   They follow the example of Mohammad as a perfect man just as we follow the example of Jesus.   If we became fundamentalist (go back to what Jesus taught) everyone would sell their possessions and no-one will lift a weapon and preach about the Kingdom all day....
If you read the life history of Mohammad you will be shocked at all the bad things he did and allowed in Sharia Law.   Because most Muslims learn these things from a young age they are not shocked at some of the things allowed in Islam.  When I read the Qur'an a red flag went up very quickly when I saw the attitude of superiority that is taught towards Christians and Jews... and I can give you the list of scriptures to read in an English Qur'an which creates enmity with all "unbelievers" and allows for killing.
Just as in Christianity - they attend mosque and do not read the Qur'an themselves - only those who understand arabic.  They trust their Imams to teach them.  Saudi Arabia has used their oil wealth in the last 40 years to send Imams into the world teaching the fundamental "Salafist" Islam and they also used front organizations to build mosques all over Europe and America... other countries too!  Some Mosques teach radicalized teachings and some do not.  Most Muslims believe in this future government of islam. Unfortunately they also believe that deceit about islam is permitted to "win" people to the faith...... so very nice people will not expose the "questionable" beliefs of the religion - and believe me -  there are many!.
Extreme muslims do not vote - they believe in loyalty only to Allah and his future government.  ISIS was killing young kids that were playing music or football because fun is not allowed on earth and one must be prepared to give your life for the future 'government"...when you kill unbelievers in the act of giving your life you receive life in heaven immediately without suffering in hell.  You can then intercede for your family.  What this heaven entails - according to the Hadith - they will not tell you- because it is  shocking!
So Islam is a false replica of God's heavenly kingdom here on earth for a short period.... and then the final reward is heaven with many carnal pleasures!  The Imams have tremendous power.  One is not allowed to question the Quran, or a teacher of islam, because then you are a heretic or apostate - punishable by death in an Islamic country.  Read up, how many Christians are killed in Pakistan yearly because if some person does not like them - they can accuse them of saying something against the Qur'an or say they have burnt a page of the Qur'an -  and then the "perpetrator" faces execution - sometimes the  crowds take matters into their own hands... The father posesses his children and wife: so "honor killings " receive mild sentence.   I can go on and on.
It is not important to know these things unless you work amongst them and this knowledge is also not the most important - because it is Jehovah's spirit which draws the right ones to him.... however, some knowledge helps one to catch their attention by what you say when one first has the opportunity to talk to them.
I immediately show them that Jesus is already ruling ' Invisibly' in heaven (he is not coming back in flesh) and a sign of this is that Satan has been thrown out of heaven:  I read Rev 12 - 7-12.  Jesus is ruling in heaven already and there is a short period of time left for satan on earth... the sign of satan on earth is the escalation of wickedness (violence, war and killing on earth) which is part of false religion mixing in politics.  (ISIS is a political entity - caliphate - and according to prophecy they will have black flags.)
It has helped me to know what they believe so I can preach and show the differences of this future government and the differences between sharia and what Jesus taught.  I usually immediately tell them that we are different to all other Christian religions.  They are taught in the mosques that Christians are all idolaters because they believe in a trinity and kiss statues of Mary etc.  So I immediate tell them that we believe, like them, that God is one and Jesus is not god.  I also tell them that we do not have any pagan traditions, statues, or any form of idolatry.... they usually listen....
 
This opens the door to further discussions.
About the possibility of islam playing a large part in the time of the end..... we just need to build our spiritual strength because - if they do take over power - it will be something like Syria ..... and we will most probably have to be prepared to die for our faith - for our integrity.  Hopefully things go another way and Jehovah spares us this.... it is just speculation.... who of us can know what Jehovah will allow and what direction world affairs will take?  All I know is that the end will be the greatest tribulation ever -and people are now building violent attitudes (by means of Satans propaganda)  which will lead them to kill each other " brother killing brother." 
 
 

Summarizing this topic.
What are the reasons, in my opinion, provoking this situation, that make the GB appear as not humble?
TO CONVEY CONFIDANCE
Anna quote is, in my opinion, unsurpassable:
·        “I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence”. TO PROVE THIS ORGANIZATION IS GUIDED BY GOD’S SPIRIT
I’ve mention in this post that God’s people, and therefore the GB, are guided by God’s spirit. But in this epoch not miraculously. The lack of miraculous wisdom or knowledge (1Co 13:8) would make necessary display of characteristics such as “power of reason” (Ro 12:1)); “accurate knowledge and full discernment” (Ph 1:9); “sound in mind” (1 Pe 4:7); “insight” (Da 11:32) and so on. And these qualities don’t would come through “flashes” of God’s spirit, but by means of study, pray, effort, mistakes and rectifications (Da 11:35).
But, our GB, I think, is afraid at some degree of showing themselves error prone because this could show we aren’t under Jehovah’s hand in the eyes of others. I remember when I was serving as special pioneer in 1981 I was assigned to a small congregation with only one elder and me as his helper. All the brothers were newly baptized. I had to direct one Watchtower study regarding some change regarding the meaning of “sacred service”. The elder gave me the advice: “don’t focus excessively in the idea that a change was necessary, this could disturb the congregation.” The idea these new brothers shared, to a greater or lesser extent, is that we’re the organization God is directing by His spirit, and consequently the necessity of changes only should be seen as improvements, not corrections.
In spite of this, many brothers opine the “slave class” is humble because they recognize their errors. But in this forum has been shown evidence, for example, that the “error” of 1975 was distributed, spread between all brotherhood. Even worse, the decrease in the number of publishers was attributed to the influence of “some apostates” rather than the disillusion caused for the excessive emphasis on dates (w86 12/15 p. 20 pars. 20-21). Even Allen Smith (thanks for this) quoted this:
·        *** yb12 pp. 142-143 Norway *** There was a steady increase in publishers from the mid-1960’s till the mid-1970’s. But expectations regarding the year 1975 proved to be a test of faith for some brothers. When the great tribulation did not come in 1975, a few left the organization; and between 1976 and 1980, there was a slight decrease in publishers. Others who felt disappointed slowed down in their Christian activity for a while. What statement about the main reason of decrease is more accurate? “apostate influence”, “self-generated expectations” or some statements in our literature.
·        (1 Sa 15:20,21) “However, Saul said to Samuel: […] But the people took sheep and cattle from the spoil, the best of what was devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God at Gilgal” Saul, in other words, said “the mistake wasn’t mine, but people’s”. In modern times, “we have not guilty to promote false expectations, some individuals here and there have misunderstood us.” Was Saul humble?
Also, recently we have read in the W that in 1918 the ZWT followed the petition for “pray for peace”. but the original sources show, instead, that ZWT asked the congregations to pray for United States victory (w67 2/15 pp. 111-112 pars. 27-28), “for the promised glorious outcome of the war.” In this way presenting a more favorable view of the error.
TO PROTECT THE BROTHERHOOD
·        (2 Co 11:2) “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.” ·        (2 Co 11:18) “Since many are boasting according to the flesh, I too will boast.” ·        (2 Co 12:11) “I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you” As Paul with the Corinthians, the GB ‘is jealous over us’ because they want that the entire brotherhood be acceptable at God’s eyes. I think this is one of the reasons they are acting in a way with apparently lack of humility. Paul himself had to boast, be unreasonable, with lack of humility to reaffirm his authority. He made a display of credentials hoping the Corinthians would respect more and, consequently will follow his advice more confidently, for their own protection and spiritual well-being.
GOD CAN WRITE STRAIGH EVEN WITH CROOKED LINES
I’ve been personal witness of this situation: A body of elders had an obvious lack of judgment decision about a brother. This, humbly, didn’t protest. But his wife couldn’t endure the situation and talked with the elders. They recognized the error but replied to her: “in this way he’s receiving training from God” and the mistake was not corrected.
The attitude of the elders was: “well, God can act so that our errors turn out not to be such mistakes”.
Every one of us have read such things as “the brothers [some apparent mistake] but finally Jehovah [solved the situation].” And I believe this has been the case a lot of times, but this idea has led to us to think that the Organization, the GB, is in someway infallible. “What mistakes, if finally Jehovah turn out them in successes.”
ADULATION
I’ve attended three pioneer schools. The first one perhaps in 1979. In the first two of them the text book was given to the students at Sunday, the day before the beginning of the course. In such schools the normal situation for a lot of us is to remain awaken until well late at night to prepare all the information. During the classes many were sleepy, some of them anxious. This situation prevented us to fully enjoy.
Nevertheless, in my last school the book was provided a couple of months before! We all could prepare with sufficient time, only reviewing the lessons the day before each class. What a difference!
The intriguing is, how could happen that something so easy to perceive was not corrected until decades later? Did the instructors inform about what was evident? Did the branches inform to GB about the instructors complaints, if any? This real conversation perhaps gives some light.
A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed.
And what was the reason for this kind of favorable report? Adulation. And I have more evidences. In my branch and in our headquarters. Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative. Only escalate favorable reactions. Yes, I’m sure not always is the situation. But I have evidence of too many.
Certainly all of us have seen good changes in the brothers leading the worldwide congregation. Let God bless the GB that this brothers with such enormous responsibility each day. Keep it that way!
You're right.
To avoid this post woud be marked as R-Rated, perhaps we should move to another more "spiritual" matter!

Sorry about the long post. I didn't even get to some of the things I wanted to say. But what I had hoped to do is show that we can't avoid interpreting, and it's always our "foundational" views that color just how we interpret them.
I didn't want to make too much of the distinction between relatives in the flesh and relatives in the faith, because we are all brothers, and that expression should truly mean what it sounds like: that all of us are relatives, now. 
I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side. I'm sure you already know it but our foundation for interpretation is easily seen by one of the first discussions of disfellowshipped relatives in the Watchtower. It first reminds us that we are not allowed to kill our disfellowshipped children because the law of the land forbids it:
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . ”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.
 
The rest of the article showed some additional cases where the law of the land and/or God's law requires certain types of contact with relatives. For example: not being able to throw minors out of the house, not being able to divorce due to disfellowshipping/apostasy, marriage partners living and eating under the same roof, etc. 
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.
 
Because of cases mentioned such as these certain verses are said not to apply, which appears to be the correct interpretation: 
*** w52 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.
 
When the Watchtower said: "we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws" it gives away the foundation. We are looking for the extent of "sacrifice" that is possible, not the necessary minimum. We are not looking for loopholes to show how much mercy is possible.
I suspect that Percy Chapman (the branch servant in Ontario) wrote this question so that Fred Franz could submit the answer with an already written article. I have no evidence in this case, but I saw evidence in the 1970's that something like this was done for other other QFR's. So it's a bit difficult for me not to read between the lines and see the attitude of Fred Franz coming through. I could just see him giving a talk on he subject and adding "perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia" to that first paragraph. 

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?.

I would just like to add:  If one studies the bible and interesting idea comes to the fore.  God did NOT want them to build cities so early after the flood - he told them to spread out!
Nimrod was in opposition to Jehovah because he not only lead them to built 'many cities' in Babylon and Assyria (as indicated in genesis)  but started an empire.  Originally he hunted lions to keep people safe but became a leader and then became very powerful. In ancient Babylonian culture as well as the Assyrian culture, kings regularly hunted lions to prove their power as king.  Look at some of the Assyrian reliefs in the London Museum of antiquities.....(they are online). Later on ... they used to breed lions for the king to hunt. The word " Nimr " also has connections to the tiger. 
Why was it wrong to build cities which we today call "civilization?"     It immediately divides peoples into a class system.  A ruler with his religious leaders to back him up (as in ancient Babylon) with the  religious order controlling many sectors of the economy such as grain storage etc. These religious leaders then built an entire system of worship around a person or persons.... and they controlled the wealth.  In my studies of ancient Babylon I soon realized that the zodiac was paramount in their religious system and superstition and spells were the order of the day.  They studied every movement of the stars and planets and their mathematical calculations were extremely advanced so that they could use it for predictions - for the king.  When to go to war -when to make alliances etc.   
Within cities one also immediately gets diversification of permanent jobs...   The potter makes pottery (mass production); the cotton producer dies his material in massive urine dams.....   This not only leads to rich and poor but also brings dirt and disease in cities.  Hogs used to roam in Babylon's streets to clean up rubbish.   Massive food cultivation leads to depletion of the ground. 
Today Babylon is arid because of the salt in the ground due to over irrigation by the irrigation channels.  They built a network of irrigation channels to cultivate crops.   Yes - and you get slaves - because the king needs people to do the hard labor of building water channels  and palaces etc.  And what about the building of walls for protection because more wealth brings greater chance of being attacked!   It seems to be a vicious circle!
 Jehovah called Abraham out of a 'city' where the moon god was prevalent as the chief deity.  City-states became the norm everywhere and many of these made war against each other.  Soon after Abraham left Ur - Ur was attacked and had major destruction! 
Abraham trusted in Jehovah and had protection from him.  He also came out from the pantheon of Gods that were everywhere!  Babylon was famous for its shrines just like Rome had shrines everywhere to its gods.  Abraham looked forward to the 'city' of Jehovah (many city states had a king-priest because religion and the king were closely bound together.)
I love reading about agriculture and have read that small, diversified farms are the best way to farm.  Diversity of animals and diversity of crops....  I think we will do this in the new system.   Hi rise cities may become something of the past!
Yes, Babylon was responsible for many of the false teachings and most civilizations still adhere to many of its teachings in our modern era.  Fortunately - we only have to adhere to the bible to serve Jehovah well.  And while it is interesting to know where these things come from (1 Co 8:1 "now concerning food offered to idols....... knowledge puffs up.")  Knowledge of false religion is not the most important aspect of our worship to Jehovah. 
Like good English - one does not learn bad English to know what is good - one learns good English and then one can discard bad English when it is spoken. 

I discovered something today that surprised me greatly, even though it should not have surprised me at all.
This post could have gone in the Jewish section or a Controversial Post section, but I chose to put it here because, for me, it concerns my beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and our recent reading of Isaiah. I base this discussion on a principle found in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians, although Paul at the time was specifically concerned with a different subject:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we ask you not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us. . .
When I left Bethel, I had an opportunity to go to college. My work at Bethel had included picking up some valuable skills for study and research at libraries at Bethel and around NYC. Also, I was starting to pick up some Hebrew and wanted to learn more. I took a part-time job as an assistant editor and illustrator for a University publisher. This was the perfect job that became a kind of continuation of Bethel, and also allowed me to pioneer and to be on campus so that there would not be any push-back if I decided to attend college full-time. I took Computer Science as a major, but also took 8 semesters of Hebrew for 4 years. One of my reasons was because I had a strong interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I thoroughly enjoyed learning Hebrew, because much of the text used as a basis for learning was the Hebrew Bible itself. But after graduation in 1985 I got more heavily involved in congregation responsibilities, my first son was about to be born (1986) and the only jobs I could get in computer science were full time jobs. (Bureau of Labor Statistics,  then A D Little, Cambridge [NYC account for NYC property owners]). 
However, during the time I was studying the "Dead Sea Scrolls" I became suspicious that so many of them matched the LXX (Septuagint), but that some (Isaiah scrolls in particular) were touted to be so much closer to the MT (Masoretic Text). I was suspicious of quite a few more things, too. This made me wonder if some of these scrolls had not been all buried prior to 70 C.E. What if some of them were written or "edited" from, say 400 or 500 C.E, a time closer to when the MT became finalized [900 C.E.].? 
But no one else seemed to talk about these issues and anomalies. Every time I saw one mentioned, no one ever dealt with more than one single issue, with a potential explanation for it, and this gives the impression that the overall set of anomalies is not so serious. 
However, this morning I got up at 3am and decided to start taking these questions seriously, after dropping them for 30 years. I'm talking about dozens of research resources. I'm not done yet, of course, but I did find one simple overview that only touches on some of the issues lightly. This will give about the quickest idea of what most of those issues and anomalies are.
It's here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/03/31/dead-sea-scroll-mystery/121c7d28-aff8-47a4-893a-b94820204136/?utm_term=.3b7aaa886bcc
The issues mentioned here are quoted from the article linked above, written by Neil Altman.
a series of marginal scroll markings that have now been identified as being Chinese symbols, probably from a period corresponding to the West's Middle Ages. About 800 A.D., writes Charles Pfeifer in his book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible," "the Nestorian Patriarch Timotheus I wrote a letter to Sergius, the Metropolitan of Elam, in which he described the discovery of a large number of Hebrew manuscripts in a cave near Jericho," a discovery also cited by John Allegro in his account of the scrolls. The eventual disposition of these manuscripts is not known. Many scrolls were discovered not by archeologists, but by Bedouins, and passed through the hands of numerous people -- shady antiquities dealers and local priests as well the Bedouins -- before scholars were able to purchase them. This is the case with both the Order of the Community and the Isaiah scrolls. The discovery of codices in one of the caves; codices are manuscripts with pages written on both sides, and came into use in the 2nd Century A.D. The presence in the caves of lamps from the 3rd Century A.D.; while this does not directly affect the scrolls, it opens the caves to later entry. The use in the scrolls of consonants to replace vowels to assist pronunciation, as Solomon Zeitlin pointed out years ago, along with the use of final forms of Hebrew letters, suggests a late date. The discovery at Qumran of Arabic and Byzantine coins, which raises questions about the use of the site after its apparent abandonment in 68 A.D. A reference in one of the scrolls to the koshering of fish; though Jews supposedly wrote this document, Jews have never ritually prepared fish. The apparent use on the so-called "Copper Scroll" of both upper- and lower-case Greek letters suggests a late date for this curious finding, as does what I believe to be the presence of anachronistic script. The possible presence of Arabic and Roman numerals raises further doubts about the history of this very unusual metal document.

I have heard of situations like this. Very sad.
With the kind of ambiguous information regarding what's "natural" and what's "un-natural" it can get confusing. Both you and Melinda have brought out good points. I remember the  ** tp chap. 13 pp. 149-151 Your View of Sex—What Difference Does It Make? that Melinda mentioned, and I recall not really being comfortable with some of the things it brought out. We studied the book shortly after I was married. Words like "sexual greed" "Sexual appetite" "uncleanness" in the context of marriage was confusing, at least to me. Including this sentence "It is true that husband and wife have a Scriptural right to engage in sexual relations with each other. "But does this mean that they can throw off all restraint? The fact that God’s Word urges all Christians to cultivate self-control argues against such a view." I had no idea what to make of that. It conjured up images of frigidness and constraint, instead of warmth as spontaneity. I am not saying that the writer was trying to convey such a negative image, but it left things too much to interpretation. What I mean by this is that the husband and wife could each interpret this differently, and then this could be a valid reason for driving a wedge between them especially if they were not very sexually compatible in the first place (it is fact that some people like sex more than others). And then if the married couple did engage in some acts which they believed were "un-natural", or if they thought they had "thrown off all restraint",  according to how they interpreted the admonition, then this could lead to a bad conscience, which is not a good situation to be in. It seems to me that too much emphasis was unnecessarily put on what happens in the bedroom in the aforementioned chapter of that book.
In contrast, this admonition is so much better:
How I interpreted that was that natural sexual intimacy is that which is between a husband and wife, and that kind of intimacy has no rules about kinds and limits a long as both partners treat each other with tenderness.....
But like I said, I have not noticed any more said about marital intimacies to the extent that it was in the past (60's 70s' 80's) and the above WT was the first after a long time and the style is completely different.  I am thinking that obviously you were not the only elder who encountered problems to do with marital intimacies among the congregation and that perhaps it was realized that these articles caused unnecessary and embarrassing situations, both for the married couple, and for the elders who were shepherding them. Why should elders be privy to what happens in a bedroom? Surely there are more important things to be concerned about...?
Just out of interest, how did you counsel the couple on the shepherding visit?
 

Hi JTRJr (by the way, I've decreased your font size, your comments fill all my screen!)
Direct answer 1: 0
Direct answer 2: 0
Perhaps, If we had been more humble... according the post's theme. 
I preffer expressions like "we arent' sure... several explanations are possible.. we need wait and see." These sound more humble. God bless the GB so they have the courage to move heaven and earth about our "time of the end" teachings.