Patiently waiting for Truth

What?!!! Never do that again!!

The old method of handling this was to use the expression "present truth." Many adventists including Seventh Day still use the expression. It's based on a mistranslation of 2 Peter 1:12 where the KJV said:
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
The tendency among 19th century Adventists was to see a "chronology" element or "time" element in the English expression that did not exist in the original Greek. Therefore, the idea was that: even when in the midst of learning or teaching falsehood, it was still "present truth" at the time, and what is now "present truth" could turn out to be false in the future, but it will always have been "present truth" because it's always the best we had at the time.
From the Greek, this is better translated as "the truth that is present in you" (American Standard and NWT). 
A similar rush to see a time element in the English translation was done by Barbour and Russell and others who had been associated with Adventists. Here's an example from Leviticus:
(Leviticus 26:28) 28 I will intensify my opposition to you, and I myself will have to chastise you seven times for your sins.
This was originally the primary source for Russell's 7 times = 2,520 years, and the 7 times of Nebuchadnezzar's dream about his own insanity was only a secondary source. But we have since learned that Leviticus here didn't refer to chronological "times" but the sense was "7 times as much" as in "I will hit you twice as hard, or three times as hard, or seven times as hard." This was already in the context, but chronologists and numerologists rarely notice the context until they have already formed a time related doctrine.
(Leviticus 26:18-21) . . .“‘If even this does not make you listen to me, I will have to chastise you seven times as much for your sins. . . . 21 “‘But if you keep walking in opposition to me and refuse to listen to me, I will then have to strike you seven times as much, according to your sins.
Now that we have noticed this, we have been stuck with using Nebuchadnezzar as if his wicked Gentile kingdom somehow represented Christ's Messianic non-Gentile kingdom. (Another contradiction between 1914 and the Bible.)
We still tend to make a "chronology word" out of things having to do with time when we translate the Greek word for time as "appointed time" instead of what might better be translated as "opportune time."
Note that it's the exact same word "time" in these two verses:
(Ephesians 5:16) 16 buying out the opportune time for yourselves, because the days are wicked.
(Luke 21:24) . . .and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
Neither the word opportune nor appointed is found in the Greek, only the word time. But the more typical meaning is "opportunity" as in:
Will you find the opportunity to do this? Will you find the time to do this? Not:
Will you find the appointed day and hour to do this? We have added a more specific chronological sense that usually isn't necessary in the Greek.
 

I would like to expand on the above quote.
New truth/old truth......in the same WT in the preceding par (15) it says; "We discovered some priceless truths when we first began to associate with God’s people. These could well be described as “old,” in that we have known and appreciated them from the beginning of our Christian course. What do such precious truths include? We learned that Jehovah is our Creator and Life-Giver and that he has a purpose for mankind. We also learned that God lovingly provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son so that we might be freed from sin and death. We further learned that his Kingdom will end all suffering and that we have the prospect of living forever  in peace and happiness under Kingdom rule".
So the "old" truths here are defined as old from the point of view of age. These are the backbone, basics, elementary, fundamental or key doctrines as JWI describes at the outset of this thread. These have not changed. Then there is the "old" as defined in par 16; "old understanding". So we are not talking about any new truth as in newly discovered truth, but an adjustment or new understanding of what has already been taught previously. In this case it really doesn't make sense to call something old truth and new truth because truth can only be one. If it's not truth, its falsehood.

So in my opinion, unless something is "old" established truth, the backbone of our Biblical doctrine, then anything else that falls into the "viewpoint" category of "truth" (or the shadow that is thrown) should not have to be accepted as the "absolute Truth", and should it really become "a part of our collection of Bible truths"?
(Of course with any kind of truth, whether relativism, universalism (absolute truth) etc. one can go into great depths of the philosophy behind these concepts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)
(Interestingly, JWI WT quote is from the simplified version. The normal study version does not say "a part of our collection of Bible truths" , but "our own treasure store".)
 
 
 
 

I think how another fact is also clear to God. Noah and their family didn't produced better humankind after Flood. According to JW preaching, today's humankind is on top of list in badness. 
According to idea you explained, best solution would be, what god once expressed in his thinking - 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground,- to destroy all people and to release himself from this agony :)))

(Genesis 6:5-7) 5 Consequently, Jehovah saw that man’s wickedness was great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. 6 Jehovah regretted that he had made men on the earth, and his heart was saddened. 7 So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, man together with domestic animals, creeping animals, and flying creatures of the heavens, for I regret that I have made them.. . .
If we have faith like that of Abraham, then we will ask questions about this. Just as we have asked questions about what Jesus meant when he spoke of a resurrection on Judgment Day for those who were destroyed in Sodom. Abraham asked:
(Genesis 18:22-33) . . .Then the men left from there and went toward Sodʹom, but Jehovah remained with Abraham. 23 Then Abraham approached and said: “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are 50 righteous men within the city. Will you, then, sweep them away and not pardon the place for the sake of the 50 righteous who are inside it? 25 It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same! It is unthinkable of you. Will the Judge of all the earth not do what is right?” 26 Then Jehovah said: “If I find in Sodʹom 50 righteous men in the city, I will pardon the whole place for their sake.” 27 But Abraham again responded: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. 28 Suppose the 50 righteous should lack five. Because of the five will you destroy the whole city?” To this he said: “I will not destroy it if I find there 45.” 29 But yet again he spoke to him and said: “Suppose 40 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it for the sake of the 40.” 30 But he continued: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me go on speaking: Suppose only 30 are found there.” He answered: “I will not do it if I find 30 there.” 31 But he continued: “Please, here I have presumed to speak to Jehovah: Suppose only 20 are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the 20.” 32 Finally he said: “Jehovah, please, do not become hot with anger, but let me speak just once more: Suppose only ten are found there.” He answered: “I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.” 33 When Jehovah finished speaking to Abraham, he went his way and Abraham returned to his place.
In Christian parlance, even Abraham and Noah were NOT intrinsically righteous, but they were counted as if righteous due to their faith. Jehovah as the Giver of LIfe has a right to destroy everyone. He may also save persons, or bring them back from the dead. And we were made to ask questions in order to understand Jehovah better.
It is clear to me that you have never had a five-month old son or daughter, or grand-son or grand-daughter. We can accept that Jehovah knew what would become of those babies in their circumstances of the time. But Jehovah also knows that only those with haughtiness and no natural affection will stop questioning and stop investigating.
(Psalm 10:4) . . .In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;. . .
Just an aside, but that reminds me of how the psalmist almost turns the judgment imagery of the Flood "on its head" in these poetic lines:
(Psalm 36:5-8) . . .O Jehovah, your loyal love reaches to the heavens, Your faithfulness up to the clouds.  6 Your righteousness is like majestic mountains; Your judgments are like vast, deep waters. Man and beast you preserve, O Jehovah.  7 How precious your loyal love is, O God! In the shadow of your wings, the sons of men take refuge.  8 They drink their fill of the rich bounty of your house, And you cause them to drink of the torrent of your delights.
Like Noah, we are in effect "deluged" with the watery depths of Jehovah's bounteous delights and judgments.
But by blaming the young babies, don't you end up losing the natural meaning of Jesus' words about the innocence and humility of children, or what Paul meant when he said:
(1 Corinthians 14:20) . . .but be young children as to badness; . . .

Yes, that is core thing in a individual faith vs collective faith. Collective faith power is visible from some WT magazine paragraph as in one who speaking about teachings that are unique to JW organization. WT Society said how Salvation is only possible inside Organization and inside respecting whole spectar of Teachings presented by GB.
Here i see contradiction that exists when JW facing with difficult situations. You made good point how issue of Salvation is on other side of spectar, and not in respecting teachings that is questionable or periodicaly changed.
But as it was already said, core faith (not core doctrine/doctrines) is Jesus. Faith in Jesus.

I have carefully considered all of the above points, and concerning the willingness to die for one's beliefs, I have this to say about that:
Actor, comedian, and film producer, etc., Woody Allen said it best when asked about one of his latest movies, and the body of movies he had made in the past, either as star, producer, director, or all three ...
"Would you, through your movies, like to live forever in the hearts of your many fans?"
He replied "I would like to live forever, in my apartment in Manhattan."

I was referring to natural babies. The Bible says that in the days before the Flood, men were marrying, and women were being given in marriage. A natural outcome of such natural marriages includes natural children.
Every Christian should let their reasonableness be known:
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
If a doctrine produces a contradiction then it is reasonable to question that doctrine. It is unreasonable not to question it.
There is no need to claim uniqueness, or to make an unreasonable claim that prophecy was relayed directly from God to any individual who notices the contradictions. And there is no need to pretend that noticing the 1914 problems is something unusual. I'm sure that THOUSANDS of Witnesses have seen these contradictions. I'm hoping that more of those thousands will be able to freely question because it is our Christian duty as Witnesses, to show our reasonableness, be noble-minded, keep testing, keep proving, and to make sure of the more important things, and hold fast to what is fine.
Exactly! And when we understand it, we can see where he made such far-reaching mistakes when it comes to his published chronology, almost ALL of which we have now abandoned. This is why the Watchtower has abandoned the very groundwork for the faulty system that Barbour laid out for Russell to accept. The basic groundwork was the "double" (Hebrew, "mishneh") found in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc. It was understood that this referred to a duplication of time:
Thus understood, the Prophet's declaration is, that from the time of their being cast off from all favor until the time of their return to favor would be a repetition, or duplication in time, of their previous history, during which time they had enjoyed divine favor. (Studies in the Scriptures, V.2, p.218)
In this now-abandoned scheme, natural Israel had received favor for 1,845 years, from 1813 BC to AD 33. Events in this period would exactly parallel events from the new dispensation for another 1,845 years from AD 33 to AD 1878. Adding the 37 years from Jesus death to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, meant that Russell could add 37 years from 1878 and reach 1914/1915, as the farthest extent of man-made rule by the nations.
As shown in the accompanying diagram, the period of their favor, from the commencement of their national existence at the death of Jacob, down to the end of that favor at the death of Christ, A.D. 33, was eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years; and there their "double" (mishneh) —the repetition or duplication of the same length of time, eighteen hundred and forty-five (1845) years, without favor —began. Eighteen hundred and forty-five years since A.D. 33 shows A.D. 1878 to be the end of their period of disfavor. A.D. 33 plus 1845 = A.D. 1878. (p.218)
.  . until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," and hence, though favor was due and began in A.D. 1878, the Jew will not be received back into full favor until after 1915. Thus their rise again to favor will be gradual, as was their fall from it. It is remarkable, too, that these two periods of their falling and rising are of exactly the same length—the falling was gradual, with increasing momentum, for thirty-seven years, from A.D. 33, where their national favor ceased, to A.D. 70, where their national existence ended, the land was desolated and Jerusalem totally destroyed. History thus marks the beginning and ending of their fall, while prophecy marks both ends of their rising—1878 and 1915 —showing an exact parallel of thirty-seven years. (p.221)
So, yes, it was "meticulous" but it was meticulously false, which is why we now consider it to be just a lot of numerology for the trash heap.
I agree. No Watchtower writers nor Governing Body members, nor any other Witnesses, should have ever projected their independent understanding of prophecy when they are not given that power of prophecy by God. Well-phrased. That would have saved much embarrassment over all the failed dates, failed explanations and failed predictions for 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, etc. 
If Jesus being enthroned was so different than when he took (or takes) control, then when does Jesus take control? If you are saying it wasn't in 1914, then when do you say it was? Or will be?

Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine.
I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )

I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary.
Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again. 
Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though. 
There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support. 
On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is:
Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE.
That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture.
From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death. 
The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand.
I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching.
True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here:
(1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet.

Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around.
By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet.
(1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer.
If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here. 
I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.”
Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.”
Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.

Are you ready to die for faith?

You made good points. I would like to reformulate idea in question you put in focus: 
Are you ready to die for beliefs ?
Nothing about to die for core doctrines or less important doctrines. Because they can be changed. They can be truth, of course, but they can be useless fantasy, too.

Yes but everything was kept 'in house' back then. And still is probably. 
The American courts / authorities can't even get their hands on the 20 + year Child Sexual Abuse database which should have been handed over years ago. So who knows what's hidden in there. 
There are probably documents hidden away that go back 70 + years. Didn't Australia have info from 50 years ago that the ARC used ? I would think USA info would go back further. 
It would be wonderful to see the whole Watchtower / JW Org / GB opened up wide to the public, in the public interest. Then, and only then, could people make a sensible judgement as to if they want to be part of that Org. 
You may think I want the JW Org / Watchtower Soc' to crash, but in truth I don't. I just want it made clean. As @TrueTomHarley says (100 times a day) that some folks are only looking at the downside of the GB and it's Org. BUT Genuine people will be trying to find TRUTH within the muck, that's all. 
And @TrueTomHarley also said "She knows there is a downside. She knows it is a price well worth paying in view of the upside... "
To quote John Butler, (as Mr Harley is convinced that is who I am), Collateral Damage then.
The victims of Child Sexual Abuse, the victims of wrongful disfellowshipping, the victims of wrongful shunning. 
The Lies told by the Writing dept and the GB. The false teachings. The false predictions. 
One could also include the unnecessary deaths of people dying through lack of blood, but that one is still debatable as the true meaning of the scriptures on that are not exactly known. Hence the GB keep moving the goal posts. And i will believe Matthew 12 v 9 -12. where Jesus talks about saving lives. 
@Arauna only' knows it is a price well worth paying' because she isn't actually paying that price. 

After reading this verse (and not for the first time) you used, some sort of new light come on me :)))
In it i see basic for concept how you not need one particular organized religion that will collect people who are acceptable to him. 
Verse said: but in every nation. 
Various people living in various nations. And as individuals they accepting or rejecting social normative of people around them (nation aka religion aka political ideology etc). That is not easy, as we all know. But verse say, who fears him and does what is right. This is very simplified explanation on theme: who is acceptable to god. But it is in level of what Jesus explained too: Love god, love neighbor. Nothing about complicated theology, interpretations, doctrines, instructions, clarifications ......
I like it how this two declarations, from Peter and Jesus, are in harmony :))..... it must be, looks like - "Simplified Edition" for beginners :)))

Are you any relation to the James Rookus of history who wrote to the older men in late first-century Jerusalem demanding, as they were MEN of HONOR, that they answer:
1 WHY they did not address the INJUSTICES highlighted by the WHISTLEBLOWERS that Jude wrote about?
2 HOW did they account for their NEGLIGENT track record so that John could “rejoice” that SOME of the children are walking in the truth. Why did they not shepherd better so that ALL of them would do so?
3. WHY did The PROMOTE the guy who KNUCKLED UNDER when Jews showed up and disapproved of him hanging out with Gentile Christians and who had a TRACK RECORD of knuckling under—even THREE TIMES on a certain evening?
And that’s just for starters.
Nah. If it is not the answer their enemies expect, they will just assume that they are lying.
 

I think how two things must be destroyed to dust before.
1) Priest,Clergy,Lawyer,Client - penitent privilege  
2) Spiritual Warfare
.....and then, maybe, we get the answers :)

I tell you what all of us MIGHT do to get the straight scoop ... the low down .. the bird's eye view, and the real nitty- gritty on this caper.
I have done what I am recommending to you, here and now ... several times in my life, on different issues of serious and pressing concern.
EACH of us should write a letter to "The Collective Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses," in Warwick, New York, at World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses, with a print out of this entire thread, and in the cover letter ask these specific questions, in such a manner that they can be answered in a simple "YES", or "NO"., as well as in narrative form.
They should have no legal objections to telling the complete and honest, and absolute truth in any reply letter, as the principals are dead, and legally, the dead cannot be slandered, libeled,  or caused any harm.  Besides, there is a clear and present and over- riding reason to tell you the complete truth, and  that is:
1.)    As men of integrity, their oath to Jehovah God demands that they tell the truth, when asked, and
2.)    it will inspire confidence in any fact that the Governing Body DOES tell the truth, which currently, and for many years now, has been in legitimate and serious question.
And there are certainly many other reasons  that the average ten JWs could list, if they cared about the real history of how we got to be where we are today, and just basically want to know TRUTH for the sake of truth.
After the letter is composed, written, and assembled with reference material, three complete copies should be made,
1. A copy to be kept at home as a permanent record, and
2.) The original sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to the Collective Governing Body at Watchtower Headquarters, and
3.)    A copy sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Collective Body of Elders at your Kingdom Hall, if you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses, or if not, to the Religion Editor of the local newspaper, and
4.)   A copy to be kept unopened, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to yourself.
Enclose, whether you are a JW or not, a personal check for $25.00 as a donation.
Now, sit back and wait , for in about three months, you will have all your questions answered.
Over the years, I have actually done this several times for various issues that concerned me, ( before the Society relocated to Warlick, New York) .
Results may vary, but at least you will know, that the GB are honest men of integrity, and devoted to TRUTH.
..... or not.
Total cost ....  a full day of your time, and about $45 ... as they WILL cash the check.

 
 

There are few things more off-putting than condescension 
Not at all.
If you negate the upside of something, your sense of proportion goes all awry. There is nothing left to focus on but the downside, and to bang away at it until it seems far more imposing than it truly is. In fact, if you negate the upside, ANY downside becomes intolerable.
You have negated the upside. She has not.
She knows there is a downside. She knows it is a price well worth paying in view of the upside. She knows that any human being or institution crumbles under relentless accusation. Even Job fared poorly at the hands of his three interrogators.

There you go with those pesky assumptions again.  I know this is what you are fed by those in power above you. "All who disagree with what the wt says, must be full of hate and malice towards jws. " It is the classic mantra of those who want to keep you under control.
"Do not look behind the curtain!" - the great Oz. 
I'll tell you what Arauna, if I were here to spread hate, there would be plenty more of it. The fact of the matter is that you and I are very similar, we both want to open each others eyes. 
That's just not true. 
I believe that the majority of people are very much capable, but give their reasoning over to others to decide for them, its easier that way for some.  

Quote  @Arauna  " Probably the most superficial posting here on this forum because there is no concept of historical context.   Always placing old articles and using modern laws and attitudes to  defame Jws "
Historical concept :-   Acts 10 v 34 & 35. 
34  At this Peter began to speak, and he said: “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, 35  but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.   Add to this that :- Act 5 v 9 Berean Literal Bible
But Peter and the apostles answering said, "It is necessary to obey God rather than men.   Now put those two together and you will get.   If we are to serve GOD properly we must treat all people, of any colour, equally, because this is what God tells us to do. Even if it means disobeying the laws of men.    ANYONE guided by Holy Spirit would have known what was the right and wrong of it all.    Stop making excuses for the Bible Students and early Witnesses.     

@Anna  I don't think you answered the situation where by a person LEAVES the JW Org because they know about the disgusting things that go on in it, such as Child Sexual Abuse Earthwide. And they know about the false teachings which have been made so clear on this forum. And they do not want to teach lies to members of the public. 
What is your opinion then of such a person that leaves the JW Org of their own free will ? 
If they are to be treated as a 'tax collector' or a 'person of the nations' then shouldn't JWs talk to them ?
Jesus spoke to and ate meals with such ones. 
 
Quote @Anna  " The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see "
But JWs have to obey the GB's / JW Org rules, so your comment doesn't help. 
 

I did not know you have the professional qualification to determine my intelligence? ... as to your opinions..... they do tell a lot about you. 
 
Now this is also a fallacy - so I do not think I will waste my time to correct your thinking about whom I worship. Think what you will. You have a right to a silly opinion.

Yes, Anna. I found, how it is unreasonable, out of common sense, not to have normal conversation of two human, or at least, as minimum to say, Hallo. Sometimes it would depend on in what relations they were before, of course.  
When you mentioned, Christians 24/7, i suppose how that would include to "love the enemy" as Jesus said. If some JW member want to "love his enemy" in Jesus' context of teaching, i guess how dfd or dis member are not consider to be worst than "the enemy, men from nation" ?! :)) Or is he/she?
If we go so far in conclusions about some bro/sis, perhaps it will be good to remind self how sort of "final judgement" for all of us will be in some future time, i guess, and not now. And process subject in that "judgement" will not be because we belonged or not belonged to particular religion, now, but because of some other issues. 
Below is quote from WT publication what JW believes it is Judgmental Day.
(Judgment Day will be not only a time of instruction from God but also a time for those alive to apply what they learn and enjoy the blessings that result.) - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/g201001/what-is-judgment-day/.

Some good points there Srecko.
It was obviously God who decided when it was ok to kill, based on laws that superseded the command not to kill. The question then is, when it comes to shunning, who decides when it's ok to shun and when it is not ok? Or is there something that supersedes the command to shun? First I want to address this comment you made:
I understand the parallels you are trying to draw. There are many examples in history of family members disowning other family members, cutting them off as if the other person no longer exists. In these instances it is humans that make their own personal law. Sometimes it's based on understandable reasons, (extreme evilness on the part of the one who is being disowned) and sometimes on purely frivolous grounds (used as blackmail). Of course there are many many different reasons, too many to mention.
I suppose this sounds reasonable. Usually when this situation occurs, the person is not in a disfellowshipped state.
I have often thought about this problematic and I have still not found satisfactory justification for some of these actions.
I can understand that a person guilty of breaking the Bible's commands and not repenting, or changing, should not be a part of the congregation. The congregation must be kept clean, otherwise Jesus "could vomit it out of his mouth". (Rev 3:16) He says "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And  "‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first. If you do not, I will come to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent". (Rev 2:5) and “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam......  So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth" 
I think just those few scriptures in Revelation show clearly Jesus' feelings about keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. We also have Paul's counsel. However, we know that those who have not repented are not thrown out of the congregation literally, but symbolically. They can still attend the meetings if they want. But they cannot participate and speak to anyone. Why? Because they have been disfellowshipped. So in this sense they have been "removed" BUT by being able to still go to meetings they are able to receive Jehovah's instructions and come to repentance, and then be welcomed back. Now imagine if this person had literally been thrown out, and was not allowed to put foot inside the KH. How would they be able to "repent and come back"? How would that work in practice? So in this sense, disfellowshipping is a merciful and loving provision, because the person is still able to receive spiritual instruction. But if they weren't disfellowshipped, and everyone would speak with them, then there would be no difference at all would there? Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it. Then there is the family. Frequently there is a misunderstanding in what family means. The broad definition is "a group of people who share common ancestors" a more usual definition is "group of people that may be made up of partners, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents" then the classic definition, and the ones JW mean when they say family is; "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household" It's also called the nuclear family. We know that members of a household or nuclear family are not shunned. Only those living outside the household. 
I am ok with that, but I think that associating with family living outside the household should be left up to conscience, (your first conclusion). That is just my opinion.
So is there something that supersedes the command to shun? (this is for anyone to answer, not just Srecko)
 
 
 
 
The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see