Patiently waiting for Truth

Anna, YOU are missing the point.  
 In addition, anointed Christians do not view themselves as being part of an elite club. They do not seek out others who claim to have the same calling, hoping to bond with them or endeavoring to form private groups for Bible study. (Gal. 1:15-17) Such efforts would cause divisions within the congregation and work against the holy spirit, which promotes peace and unity.   wt 1/2016, "We Want to Go With You"
No bonding, no studying with other anointed ones.  This is oppression of a people.  This is men telling other people how to worship God, and these people are God's "special possession".  1 Pet 2:5,9  This is men acting as false "christs".  Matt 24:24  It is more important to uphold the unity of an earthly organization than to allow unity among spiritual "Israel".  
The Body of Christ:
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.  1 Cor 12:12-31
Can an anointed one in the organization "suffer" , "rejoice", with another anointed if they can't seek them out?  The sad thing about this, is the majority of the anointed allow it to happen.  
 
 

You don't even know your current Watchtowers! LOL!

Anna said:
That's true of a surprising large fraction of seemingly righteous JWs.
     
You just proved 4Jah2me's point. A long time ago a prominent elder explained to me that negative suggestions from the Society are not merely suggestions, but commands from God not to do something. That's what language like "they would be working against the holy spirit" means. Where have you been?

I always wondered where that stupid charge came from. I knew it had to be based on something. Thank you for providing the source:
 

No, he is just an example of how a large % of those who leave (still believing in God) turn out.The leftover % might still believe in God, but have no regard for him in their day to day life. I don't think you or anyone would expect me to write an extensive list of individuals, and what they did and believe since they left the JWS. There are plenty of real life examples on the internet and in real life. I was illustrating this because Srecko said that disfellowshipping does not automatically disqualify a person as individual to continue to be a Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible verses describing a person living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings. I said it wasn't automatic, but reality shows that it is a general rule: most do not live according to JHVH's will, nor Jesus' teachings.
What nonsense. We are all brothers and sisters and anyone can contact anyone else. Are you purposefully missing the point?
Jan 2020 study edition WT p. 28
"Anointed Christians do not feel that they should spend time only with other anointed ones, as if they were members of an exclusive club. They do not search out other anointed ones, hoping to discuss their anointing with them or to form private groups for Bible study. (Gal. 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did those things. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Rom. 16:17, 18".
I suppose those are just rhetorical questions you don't really expect me to answer.

the Librarian has assured me that bytes are cheap and there no added cost to using up a lot of them
Besides, Alan has already set the standard for abusing space, with comments just as long that are unreadable for their nastiness, and also because they contain as much as a dozen dialogue boxes that must each be opened so as to see the few paragraphs that he wants to argue with.
Look, not all that you say is unworthy of discussion. But most of those items you bring up have been discussed at length on other threads. Some of those I have taken part in. You must forgive me if I do not weigh in to a full extent every time. 

You're asking questions impossible for JWs to answer without exposing the contradictions inherent in their worship of the Governing Body, i.e., their equating its words with God's words. They get to the heart of whether JW elders are actually appointed by holy spirit, or merely in the self-deceiving sense that the Pope is appointed by holy spirit.

So wow, you found one person to fit your purpose, congratulations. 
If ex JW's can prove how wrong the GB and JW Org are, then they are serving God's purpose to either clean up that Org or to get rid of it, so that God through Christ can use it or replace it with true worshippers. 
If your GB tell Anointed brothers and sisters not to contact each other, then that is obviously wrong, as those brothers and sisters are of the same BODY OF CHRIST. 
Did God use the Romans to destroy Jerusalem ? Or did God just remove His protection from Jerusalem ? 
Is God using ex JW's or just allowing them to do HIS work ? 

Mr Harley it  looks like you are laying a road not writing a comment and IMO it is to hide half of what you have actually written, because you know yourself it is complete tosh.  So you have made it difficult for anyone to comment on it by writing for five miles long. 
However, quote . 
' It used to be announced from time to time that “so and so has been disfellowshipped.” For several years now—what is it? maybe 10? it is “so and so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
It gets the job done, and it avoids the problem of being attacked over the fact that “disfellowship” is not a word that appears in the Bible.. '
Oh dear, how sad you are. Was it ever announced that 'so and so has left the JW's ?  Because the obvious reason for this 'newish' way of telling it, is purely to hide the FACT that many JW's are actually LEAVING the JW Org. The GB wishes to hide the numbers of those disassociating themselves from JW Org. 
Add to this that may Victims of CSA  have said they were d'fed for either complaining to the Elders or to outside authorities. So now the GB can, through it's 'police dept' (elders), d'fed someone who has suffered CSA but does not have enough proof, but that still complains to the elders. The elders can still threaten d'fed action with or without  the new 'rule book'. 
Quote " They think of “treat him as a tax collector and man of the nations,” that Jews had “no dealings” with. "
Are but we are not Jews, we are NOT under Mosaic Law. JESUS would eat meals in the homes of Tax Collectors. Wasn't Matthew a Tax Collector ?  And the disciples / apostles went out to the people of the nations to gather them to God. 
Quote " They think of “not even eating with such a man, "  BUT you have forgotten the whole scripture here. 
New International Version
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
So tell me o worshipper of the GB, what is the case if a person leaves the JW Org, and no longer calls himself / herself a brother or sister ? That scripture cannot applyote "
Quote " it is indisputably the Bible that directs congregation members. It is the Bible that tells them what to do, "
You are having a laugh Mr Harley. Congregants know who are pulling the strings, but congregants love being puppets. It means they do not have to think or have a conscience. If they go wrong they can blame the Org for it's misdirection. They, like you, worship the GB.
Quote "The only “sin” that the “corporation” has committed is educating members as to what the Bible says on all aspects of life. "
Oh if only it was the only sin. You are so blinkered. GB / Org sins include, CSA, disfellowshipping for false reasons,  Telling the Anointed not to contact each other,  pretending to be the F&DS, telling lies to congregants and to the world by false teachings, Telling lies in Courts and probably many more. 
But i won't be so selfish as to take up as much space as you did My Harley............. 
 
 

So wow, you found one person to fit your purpose, congratulations. 
If ex JW's can prove how wrong the GB and JW Org are, then they are serving God's purpose to either clean up that Org or to get rid of it, so that God through Christ can use it or replace it with true worshippers. 
If your GB tell Anointed brothers and sisters not to contact each other, then that is obviously wrong, as those brothers and sisters are of the same BODY OF CHRIST. 
Did God use the Romans to destroy Jerusalem ? Or did God just remove His protection from Jerusalem ? 
Is God using ex JW's or just allowing them to do HIS work ? 

Mr Harley it  looks like you are laying a road not writing a comment and IMO it is to hide half of what you have actually written, because you know yourself it is complete tosh.  So you have made it difficult for anyone to comment on it by writing for five miles long. 
However, quote . 
' It used to be announced from time to time that “so and so has been disfellowshipped.” For several years now—what is it? maybe 10? it is “so and so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
It gets the job done, and it avoids the problem of being attacked over the fact that “disfellowship” is not a word that appears in the Bible.. '
Oh dear, how sad you are. Was it ever announced that 'so and so has left the JW's ?  Because the obvious reason for this 'newish' way of telling it, is purely to hide the FACT that many JW's are actually LEAVING the JW Org. The GB wishes to hide the numbers of those disassociating themselves from JW Org. 
Add to this that may Victims of CSA  have said they were d'fed for either complaining to the Elders or to outside authorities. So now the GB can, through it's 'police dept' (elders), d'fed someone who has suffered CSA but does not have enough proof, but that still complains to the elders. The elders can still threaten d'fed action with or without  the new 'rule book'. 
Quote " They think of “treat him as a tax collector and man of the nations,” that Jews had “no dealings” with. "
Are but we are not Jews, we are NOT under Mosaic Law. JESUS would eat meals in the homes of Tax Collectors. Wasn't Matthew a Tax Collector ?  And the disciples / apostles went out to the people of the nations to gather them to God. 
Quote " They think of “not even eating with such a man, "  BUT you have forgotten the whole scripture here. 
New International Version
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
So tell me o worshipper of the GB, what is the case if a person leaves the JW Org, and no longer calls himself / herself a brother or sister ? That scripture cannot applyote "
Quote " it is indisputably the Bible that directs congregation members. It is the Bible that tells them what to do, "
You are having a laugh Mr Harley. Congregants know who are pulling the strings, but congregants love being puppets. It means they do not have to think or have a conscience. If they go wrong they can blame the Org for it's misdirection. They, like you, worship the GB.
Quote "The only “sin” that the “corporation” has committed is educating members as to what the Bible says on all aspects of life. "
Oh if only it was the only sin. You are so blinkered. GB / Org sins include, CSA, disfellowshipping for false reasons,  Telling the Anointed not to contact each other,  pretending to be the F&DS, telling lies to congregants and to the world by false teachings, Telling lies in Courts and probably many more. 
But i won't be so selfish as to take up as much space as you did My Harley............. 
 
 

You read too much into this. You are a windbag, that’s all, and an unbelievably nasty one at that. 
I can deal with one malady or the other, but not both of them in tandem.

Yes or No?! How NO changing the fact that WT had been established according to secular laws and that JW is under same set or laws, established as working cells around the world? First in form of Name for purpose to be somehow different from other Christians and as separation from Russell influence. Later as legal entities that continue working under WT Society direction.   
What 1 century Romans have with JW's known under that name today ? Jews and later Romans persecuted Jesus's Witnesses not Jehovah's Witnesses.  

Srecko Sostar said:
That's right, and is according to standard English word usage. "Jehovah's Witnesses" is a proper noun, a name. "Jehovah's witnesses" is a generic group claiming to be witnesses for Jehovah, which of course, any group can do.
Exactly!
This is completely lost on braindead JWs who think they're serving Jehovah rather than the Watchtower Society.

Even the Sermon on the Mount would be discarded if it ran 1000 pages. I can’t read that crap. Learn to write concisely like everyone else and I might answer.

Wow! TrueTomHarley, aka Vic Vomidog, here quotes himself several times, after mistakenly taking me to task for quoting myself. Of course, he had simply misread my post.
A process like that has been going on a lot longer. Until some time in the 1960s DF'ings were announced with something like "so and so has been disfellowshipped for fornication". At some point, I don't remember exactly when, that was changed to "for conduct unbecoming a Christian". At least one lawsuit was brought for libel or whatever, resulting in simply "has been disfellowshipped", to avoid liability for defamation.
But that's exactly what it is. Such conduct is precisely what pegs the JWs as a "high control group". I.e., a cult.
It is rarely necessary. It is also more than a bit arbitrary. I've seen cases where one judicial committee decided to disfellowship, and upon appeal another reversed it. Occasionally the Society itself is called in to resolve the matter.
In theory, yes. In practice, it's often simply a punishment visited upon someone by corrupt elders, or even corrupt Watchtower officials.
The "well-being of the congregation" is entirely subjective. Many JWs have quit and disappeared into the woodwork, only to find years later that some corrupt elder from his old congregation--even a decade later--has tracked him down and initiated DF'ing action. Something like this happened with my wife, so don't tell it doesn't happen.
It can't. But the Society is completely hypocritical about this. It has a specific policy that if someone quietly becomes inactive, elders should leave him alone. This is usually the case, but not always. There is always the chance that corrupt elders will actively pursue the person and try to DF him. Such a person has no chance that an appeal will reverse the DF'ing. And often his relationship with still-JW relatives is permanently ruined.
To be consistent, the Society would have to have a policy where someone simply leaving the cult would be officially designated as "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses" and shunned accordingly. But that is even more cultish than the present policy is, and the Society knows it. A policy of "you cannot leave without dire consequences" would result in massive lawsuits, being a Mafiaesque policy.
Those scriptures are grossly misapplied. 1 Corinthians 5:11 has Paul telling people to avoid mixing in company with "anyone called a brother" who violates certain moral standards. But if someone leaves the cult and fails to do the various normal JW activities, JWs no longer view him as a brother, and so, following the Bible's words, such a person should logically no longer be subject to congregational ostracism.
Nonsense. It is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, through its various subsidiary corporations, that directs congregation members. If this Society changed its corporate policies on DF'ing and all manner of other things, all congregations would follow--on pain of DF'ing for "ignoring Lordship" or something like that.
Ah, a better statement of "the Watchtower Society's words are the same as God's words" can hardly be found. As the May 1, 1957 Watchtower said (p.274):
<< If we are to walk in the light of truth we must recognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother. >>
That's all pretense. Every JW knows, on some level, that even if he can demonstrate from the Bible that some Watchtower teaching or policy is unscriptural, he must follow the Watchtower Society, on pain of disfellowshipping. The Society's direct violation of Jesus' commands in Luke 21:7-8 proves it.
As I told a Watchtower official 20 years ago, if the Society cleaned up its act with regard to three things--blood, child abuse and disfellowshippiing--almost all opposition would dry up. There's virtually no chance of that, and opposition will continue.
That would be a good thing, especially in view of the Society's policy of encouraging very young people to join the JW cult. A young person baptized at 10 years of age should not be held to adult standards of conduct, nor be disfellowshipped--not for any reason. Such a young person had no real understanding, on an adult level, of what baptism means--an explicit and apparently legally binding joining of the JW cult.
Totally and self-servingly wrong. The gross brainwashing characteristic of JWs means that they only think they're obeying God rather than men. But the fact that when the Watchtower Society tells them to believe something the opposite of what they had believed, or to act in an opposite manner, proves that it is the Society, not the Bible, that controls their minds.
Yes, we're having coffee together.
Some do, some do. So what?
[ Irrelevant ramblings deleted ]
My experience was quite the opposite. By age 24, in 1975, I was not the least interested in being a "servant" of any kind. Nevertheless, I was appointed as a Ministerial Servant. How? One Thursday evening, during the Service Meeting, and without ever having told me, the Presiding Overseer announced, "Alan has been appointed ..." I was quite angry but held my peace, and began duties as the Accounts Servant. I swallowed my resentment.
But I was painfully aware that, contrary to Watchtower teaching, I had NOT been appointed by holy spirit. In fact, it was that breach of my free will that helped me understand the Society's deception on "appointment by holy spirit". I saw plenty of exceptions to that rule.
So as usual, TTH/Vic, you don't know what you're talking about. You're much like what God did in the Bible story of "Balaam's Ass".

He’s making a big deal over nothing. They had a sticky W key on the main typewriter back then, and the brother who should have fixed it had gone apostate.
The other version I hear is that Vic Vomidog, who was in charge of writing back then, became ambitious.
He no longer wanted to be known as a witness.
He wanted to be known as a Witness.
After his can was kicked to the curb, brothers took a look at what was in the hopper. Next up it was going to be Jehovah’s WITNESSES.

Recently, @JW Insider drew my attention to different meaning about wording: Jehovah's Witnesses and Jehovah's  witnesses.  First one is using only for religious movement, religion, specific group of people or legal entity (started in 1931). The second description is about every individual who accept JHVH, worship and obey him or have some role in JHVH plan, purpose.
In that way, i would say how some person, member of JW organization, can be dfd from Organization and as such is not considered anymore as one of Jehovah's Witnesses (the legal entity under WT Society supervision). BUT that not automatically disqualified him as individual who can continue to be Jehovah's witness according to Isaiah or any other Bible verses where is described how acting person who living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings. (specifically here is about doctrinal differences)
To living according to JHVH will and Jesus' teachings, NOT NECESSARY  mean how person HAVE to be inside particular Legal Entity, in this case, WT Society, CCJW or any other of Watchtower sister' companies !! 

I like the My dog eats Jehovah's Witnesses sign more.

As far as I am concerned, this sign represents a win-win. It does not make me mad. It is doing me a favor. If anyone doesn’t want to talk to me, then I don’t want to talk to them.
There is a squirrelly assumption that underpins this meme: that Jehovah’s Witnesses are determined to talk to each householder no matter what, and are incredibly frustrated if stymied. It plays into the infantile view that they are “recruiting,” a view popularly spread by “anti-cultists” who obsess over all the ways that people can “manipulate” others. They abhor all forms of “brainwashing” except for the brainwashing that is theirs, as they safeguard mainstream values—values that have not worked out very well insofar as promoting overall peace and well-being. If the mainstream thinking contained answers to the vexing questions of life, people would’t have to worry for one second about “sects” and even “cults”—they would be rejected out of hand.
So are Jehovah’s Witnesses “recruiting?” 
“I am going to ask you to convert,” I told a certain householder, “but it is not going to happen until the 100th call—and what are the chances It will go on for so long? In the meantime, it is just conversation.” To householders who state they have their own religion or spirituality and who decline conversation on that basis I say, “Well, I’m not going to ask you to change, and if I do, you can say No.” I mean, it is fine to decline conversation—more people do than do not—but just not on that basis. You might say it to an evangelical Christian—the sort that actually do feature instant conversion of the “Come down and be saved!” variety. You might say it to a Moonie, because their people are known to disappear off the surface of the globe, only to reappear selling flowers in robes. But you ought not say it to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose members live and work in the general community.
No, the sign does me a favor. I have no problem with it. It might be different if they proliferated so that they became a commonplace gag sign, just a fad witticism inspired by late-night TV that didn’t necessarily mean anything. In that case, I might just walk away or I might playfully attempt to negotiate terms before deciding if I wanted to enter into such a “contract.” “Well, a guy has to serve the Lord,” I will say non-aggresively to some while trying to size them up. You’ve got to have a sense of humor.
Like a No Soliciting sign, there are no legal consequences to blowing past it, and like a No Soliciting sign, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It might be put up by a previous owner, and the current one sees no reason to remove it. It might be put up by a family member that died. It might have been put up after those pushy people selling vacuum cleaners left. It might be put up in the heat of election campaign season. It might be put up to dissuade Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I do not assume that is the case.
”I saw your sign and was a little concerned that you might think it applies to me,” I sometimes say when one of them is staring me in the face. “It doesn’t—but you might think it does.” You can assess by the response if the householder had that intention or not, and if he did, I have no problem moving on from what would cause both of us stress. Don’t argue, “We’re not soliciting,” because it really doesn’t matter whether you are or not. What matters is what the householder thinks you are doing. Of course, you can tell him that what he thinks is wrong, but that is never a fine foundation for a visit, is it?
I have said at times, when my attention is directed to such a sign, “Oh. Well....I’ll make sure not to do that, then,” either by soliciting money (which Witnesses never do) or soliciting opinions—drawing people out—which we do. Simply tell them stuff, don’t ask them a thing—that is enough to technically comply with such a sign. But the trick is not to be like Alan and argue over technicalities. The trick is to see if such and such a vague sign actually means anything to the householder and respect his wishes if it does. 
No, a No Soliciting sign means nothing legally, same as this new $50 per hour JW sign that Jack is giggling about means nothing. The only sign with legal consequences (in the US) is a No Trespassing sign, and even that only has legal consequences for individual dwellings—you can’t wall off an entire community with a No Trespassing sign. To be sure, some are trying to change that, but the idea of answering for large swaths of other people is repugnant to most and so the change may not readily happen.
Let’s face, this sign is kind of crude, and not too many people are going to put one up. It is sort of like that sign in which you find yourself as though staring down the barrel of a gun that says, “Never mind the dog! Beware of the owner!” I don’t just jauntily breeze by that sign as though is was a Welcome mat. I tread a bit cautiously. If my companion was to turn around and leave, I wouldn’t blame him a bit. Still, you never know. I was leaving one such home—no one had answered—and as I was walking away, a pickup truck drove in with a gun rack in the back window. “Great!” I muttered to myself—“probably a real sorehead here!” He turned out to be the nicest guy in the world—very respectful of our purpose and of the Bible. There was a lot of crime in the neighborhood and he had just “weaponed-up” for the protection of his family.
These signs are not a red light—No Soliciting, Beware of Whatever—but they certainly are a yellow light. They are not a yellow light legally, but they are a yellow light in that they might reveal something of the householders wishes, and I have no problem always complying with their wishes once I know what they are.
As it is, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a method to keep note of those who have emphatically said that the don’t want JW calls ever. It is an imperfect system and I usually forget to consult it, but it works better than nothing. Ironically, it may all vanish one day if the current “data-keeping” laws gathering steam in Europe, spearheaded by the same people who see “manipulation” everywhere, spreads to the US. It will be illegal to keep track of who doesn’t want a call. As it is, one US brother I know reported on a trip to Europe and how the brothers there were wrestling with these new anti data-gathering laws that had never been intended (at least, by most) for them, but were being applied to them, with: “Good! They’ve just made your job easier! Preach to one and all and don’t worry about any “records”—keeping track of them is a pain in the neck!”
What about a child answering the door? For me, that depends upon the age of the child. For a teen, sometimes I will go Bible-lite, such as commenting on what the words of the Lord’s Prayer literally mean, and I do not press any point. Or show a video geared to teens—I have never had a teen not pay rapt attention to the video, “Be Social-Network Smart.” With teens, I have sometimes told them that I really don’t know what to do with teens, because they are learning and gathering smarts, but they are also under their parent’s roof, and the latter is guiding that process, and so they may or may not want them speaking to persons of different beliefs at the door, and ‘which is it with them’? 
Even that doesn’t guarantee anything. One parent that I finally encountered said, “I don’t appreciate you speaking to my children,”—I had done so twice and had shown a couple of videos. I responded that I had never been looking for the kids—I had been looking for her—and that when the teens had answered I had asked them whether their parents would want them speaking to a visitor about religion and they had said she would not care. “Kids will say anything!” she told me. So I explained that I would not call again (she said ‘thank you’), repeated that I had never been looking for them in the first place, and even was able to give a brief synopsis for why we call at all—she became quite pleasant.
Another teen—I had just finished something brief and similar—he had been home alone. As I left, the mother drove up in the driveway. I told her who I was, that I had spent a few minutes speaking with her son, I had asked him a question and he had answered intelligently. “You should be proud of him,” I said as I took my leave.
Cultures are different. I once handed a tract to a child with directions to give it to her parents, and upon leaving, my companion said that she would have witnessed to the child. My companion was newly arrived from South America where it is nothing for parents to allow and even encourage children to talk religion to anyone calling about it. There are congregations there heavily populated by children with the full blessing of parents who do not attend themselves—respect for God runs deep in some lands and the assumption is that you cannot go wrong allowing your children to learn about the Bible.
Though the following has nothing to do with the Bible, it has everything to do with that fact that cultures are different, and so when the GB speaks in a way that is not really my cup of tea, I say, “It is probably one of those others cultures that they are taking into consideration.”
There is a large community of deaf persons in Rochester NY. Accordingly, there are a number of Witnesses who make their living as translators. One of them told me of a certain deaf family of two adults and two children—all deaf—who are known not only locally but also nationally, and the following story is told nationally as a way of highlighting the challenges of catering to different cultures: 
A neighboring “hearing” girl would come over to play at the home of the deaf family. The two children were surprised that she didn’t seem able to sign very well at all, but they all managed to sign well enough to each other to get by. Then the two children went to the little girl’s home to play, where they saw the mother not signing at all! Her mouth kept moving, and the little girl seemed satisfied with that, but there was no signing. Upon returning home, they related their bewilderment to their parents and asked, “Are there other people like that?”
 

Doubtless it is the same with the announcement that replaces the one about disfellowshipping. 
It used to be announced from time to time that “so and so has been disfellowshipped.” For several years now—what is it? maybe 10? it is “so and so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
It gets the job done, and it avoids the problem of being attacked over the fact that “disfellowship” is not a word that appears in the Bible—and so villains try to spin it as an evil corporation of man-made rules “controlling” the minions. 
The revised announcement has all of the “upside” and none of the downside of the former one. “Upside” is in quotes, of course, because it is a downer when the announcement is made. It is a moment of silence, all fidgeting, daydreaming, and chattering halts. It is a very sad time, even if everyone concedes the necessity of it, and the road to recovery is not so plain at all. There may not BE a recovery. DF is a last-ditch measure of discipline, when all else has failed, to jolt the transgressor, but more importantly, to safeguard the congregation from the influence.
To be sure, it can be perceived as mean-spirited, and it certainly is here by many persons who in most cases are opposed to JWs regardless, but given the way humans are built, the case can be made that values of the congregation cannot be preserved “without spot from the world” any other way. That is the lesson drawn from the book Secular Faith, by Mark Smith—a book the WT has quoted for a separate but related reason:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/in-defense-of-shunning.html
Of course opposers will rail at it because the well-being of the congregation is of no concern to them.
If someone is doing the deeds and saying the sayings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then that person is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If someone refuses to do that, how can it be said that he or she is still one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? The “improvement” of the new announcement over the old is that congregation members recall from the Bible just how a person who has served Jehovah and then willfully rejects that life is to be viewed. They think of “treat him as a tax collector and man of the nations,” that Jews had “no dealings” with. They think of “not even eating with such a man,” “never saying a greeting.” They will recall the counsel to “reject empty speeches that violate what is holy, for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, and their word will spread like gangrene,” (2 Timothy 2:16-17) and it comes to mind just how one deals with gangrene.
Thus, it is indisputably the Bible that directs congregation members. It is the Bible that tells them what to do, and for now, it is not illegal to follow the Bible. Opposers want to spin it that they are fighting a “corporation;” they are temporarily thwarted with this announcement. They are forced to reveal that it is not the corporation they are opposing, but God, insofar as the Bible represents his thinking, which to Jehovah’s Witnesses it does.
It is a better announcement than the previous one, not just for thwarting opposers, but also for us. It clarifies even for us that the Bible directs our conduct. The only “sin” that the “corporation” has committed is educating members as to what the Bible says on all aspects of life.
It allows more internal freedom to examine just what those verses above and others like it actually mean in all areas of life, such as the ones people carry on here about—ones involving minors, ones involving words as well as deeds, and what kind of words. All of this re-examination is going on now, I am convinced, even if every minor little tweak is not heralded with the announcement that malcontents insist upon, mostly so they can get right to work at undermining it.
With young people, the obvious tweak—and I think it happens now—will be to cut them some slack when they err, as young people almost by definition are apt to do. It is not to shut them out of the adult world of acting upon something once they come to know it is right. The late John Holt, a pioneer of homeschooling, used to maintain that juvenile delinquents are made that way—when they try to enter the world of adults and are shut out.
A sign that today indicates most Witnesses are well aware that the Bible directs their conduct, and not an organization, is the frequent complaints of those who have gone POMO—physically out as well as mentally out—that they are kept at a distance by family members even though no announcement was ever made—not of “disfellowshipping” nor “no longer one of JWs.” They rail and rail about this—the ‘brainwashing goes really deep,” they say. They cannot link their “shunning” to an announcement, and thus they are forced to conclude (though they refuse to) that members are allowing themselves to be directed by the Bible and not some human organization. Close family members have discerned that someone has turned away from Jehovah, and they don’t need an announcement to apply scriptural direction to the situation.
The man who studied the Bible with me and “brought me into the truth” had problems with this and went apostate himself—he may be sitting at Alan’s right hand now. Several were baptized through his efforts, and he later went back to try to undo some of the “damage” that he had done. To my knowledge, however, he had no success in this.
Douglas was an incredibly zealous man. His enthusiasm was boundless. He was a welder for the public utility, and I was assigned to be his assistant for a summer job in between semesters.
“Now according to the church, there’s far more wicked people than good, isn’t that true? For every good person, there has to be —how many?—say...100 wicked people? Right? Isn’t that what they teach?” he would gush, and then hit his punch line: “When was the last time you went to a funeral and the priest packed someone off to hell?!!!” I can hear him now, 40 years later.
After several weeks of such, he invited me to his house, where he conducted a classroom—about a dozen chairs were laid out, most of them filled—and he conducted a Bible study out of the Truth book. Soon after, or maybe it was before, he invited me to a Sunday meeting for a really good public talk, I thought. Same was true the next Sunday, and the next one after that. But on the fourth, he whispered to me, “This one is kind of a dog, but they are not usually like that.”
We had the incredible circumstance of an engineer who was so unbelievably inept that he would twiddle his thumbs for weeks on end, and those downstream from him, such as “his” welder and that one’s assistant, had nothing to do until he got his act together, which he never did. There must have been more to it than that—maybe he was someone’s relative—because even then that is not something that would normally happen. Speaking of one klutz, who had been fired, from an entirely different time, my Dad said, “You almost think that they could find a place for a donkey like him.” He said this because he came from a time and place in which large companies would do that. If they hired a man that turned out to be a clunker, they would say, “Ah, rats! Oh well—our bad. After all, he still has a family to support,” and they would give him a broom and find a spot for him where he could do minimal damage.
So it was that Don would witness to me 8 hours per day for several weeks, and neither he nor I were goofing off—there was literally nothing for us to do but await instructions that never came. Holy spirit had arranged for this engineer to be an idiot. (I just threw that line in for Alan, but having said that, the holy spirit is like the wind that you cannot see, and if anyone says holy spirit did this or that for me, even finding a mate, I never counter them—how would I know?) The first move was not his, but mine. This engineer didn’t get along too well with Douglas (nor with anyone else, as I recall) and he rebuked him at one point with, “You think you know so much just because you are one of those ‘Bible students!’” This intrigued me. I didn’t know that there was such a thing. 
“What do you mean ‘Bible student?’” I asked him later. “What’s that all about?” I had been brought up in a liberal Presbyterian church (it comes in several varieties) where few knew much about the Bible—at least not those that I knew of—and didn’t bemoan the loss. That was not why they attended. It was more of a social thing. I did not usually want to go. I hated being herded off with my siblings by mom, with dad’s full approval because it meant peach and quiet for him with the Sunday paper—I envied him, as he said, “religion is good for kids.” He never set foot in that church himself, and indeed was not very hospitable toward the minister. “Just remember who is the source of that contribution!” he told the poor fellow when he had come to call. My mom was a housewife—which was pretty much the norm back then, and did not otherwise work.
Seeng as I could not get out of it, I angled toward attending the church service itself, and not the Sunday School that I hated. I recall that there was some resistance to this from my mom, but in time I prevailed. I would there try to understand the Bible which was not explained—at most there was a ten-minute or so “sermon” to punctuate the service. I really did try to understand it, mostly because I liked the idea of understanding anything, but I could not understand it. I always assumed that it was my fault—I was not devoted enough, or studious enough, or persistent enough. I never dreamed that it was their fault.
I made the first move with this welder, not he with me. I think for this reason I will only go so far in “chasing” people in the ministry. “Well, the angels have to do something!” I have been known to say. Some Witnesses are so persistent with chasing down “interest” that they train householders not to show any, imo.
So.....fast forward now to after my baptism, and I run into Douglas at a circuit assembly. He is glad to see me, of course, and I him—we had met only one or two times after circumstances had taken us separate ways. This time he was different, however. This time he was not so enthused. This time he asked me—baptized less than a year—whether I thought ministerial servants and elders were really appointed by holy spirit. “Well, sure...I mean, I guess so,” I responded. It struck me as an odd question, and the next thing I know, he had gone apostate, he and his wife (though his wife later returned). In hindsight, I think that he felt he deserved to be a ministerial servant and was disgruntled at being passed over. In this case, all this bellyaching over being appointed by holy spirit stemmed from that fact that he wanted an office he not given. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is so in every case.
I have seen this several times with different people. One brother—plainly immature, though he went through the motions, would actually storm out of the Kingdom Hall if new servants were announced and he was not one of them. (He never was, and subsequent events demonstrated what a wise omission that was.)
A variation of this happened within the last few months. An unbaptized woman whose family has been loosely associated but inactive as long as anyone can remember, came to the hall yesterday—she rarely does. I resolved to speak with her, and as she headed out during the song, I followed her and caught up with her in the parking lot. I asked her about her son, who had been recently baptized, had been very enthused for a time, volunteering for many things, and then had disappeared, taking a job that required about an hour commute both ways. I didn’t play spiritual concerns, but personal ones. “Doesn’t matter to me just now when he returns, or even if he does. How is he doing?” I framed it.
She told me that she had been stressed out dealing with all the rubbish, as though making amends for leaving in such a rush, and I made it clear that I didn’t care about that, but about her. Thinking I had an “in,” I repackaged a comment I made during the Watchtower study at a paragraph stating how many persons feel unfulfilled and stressed out by their careers. I had said: “Being of that age, many I know are retiring. Sometimes they are Witnesses, sometimes they are non-Witnesses, sometimes they are people I meet in the ministry. Almost always they include the observation that they just can’t take the baloney anymore—and they don’t always say ‘baloney.’”
I repeated this line to the woman in the parking lot, using the real word, and she replied that she hadn’t been speaking of the BS of the world—“you expect that,” she said, but “the BS here” is what she was talking about. I laughed. “Oh, the bullshit here,” I repeated. I really don’t think there is any—at least not enough as might be expected anywhere that people are involved, but I didn’t want to overreact. I tried to draw her out, promising that I would not put everything she said on the internet.
She was miffed that her son had not been made a ministerial servant! That was the extent of it—at least in this case. He had done everything asked of him, he had volunteered for this and that, and they had not made him a servant! “Does he think that he was used?” I ventured, and I got the impression that this is far more her complaint than his—that is not to say that he doesn’t share it. At any rate, I said that I would love to see him again, that I have tried—for I was one of those ones who he volunteered to help when I was slogging through some unexpected troubles. 
Probably there is more to the story. The son was very zealous, and likable in every way, but he was new enough that I can’t quite imagine him expecting an appointment, much less becoming embittered with it not coming his way. I’ll speak with him in time—he really was a good sort, and probably still is. He had some that were trying to discourage him when he was putting himself out there—maybe they in time prevailed. Probably it is Alan. “Had enough of that overbearing know-it-all, yet?” I will ask him. “I know @Araunawishes to God that she had never learned of his existance”
 

Yes how wonderful JW's are when a D'fed person walks into the KH. Everyone stares at the D'fed.  'Oh look a D'fed, lets not talk to them, not encourage them to be here, but just look down on them'. 
Wow, and Jesus said Love was most important.  When Jesus was on the cross/stake, he said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"... But JW's are not even allowed to talk to a D'fed person, not even in the KH. 
BUT, when it's announced from the platform that the Elders have reinstated the D'fed, then wow, magic, the barrier is lifted, JW's can go and hug the D'fed.  Hypocrisy and rules of men at it's greatest. 

It's not up to admin. It's the @The Librarian who is in charge of this club. And no, it's not me or JWI or TTH or JTR or anyone else in this club.

UP VOTE !
That is why we all need to pass self-defense course and have a lot of practice :))
 
Is this word "overjoyed" something as "inspired" ?

I am fully aware that Justice you ONLY get from God ... everything else is due process, which only approximates Justice.
..... sometimes.
I don't expect much from humans, and I am never disappointed.
... just another day in the 'hood.
------------------------------------------------
... and with that exposition, I return you to real life, already in progress.