Evacuated

The quote referenced above reads: "In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s active force.” (Genesis 1:2) This concept is well supported throughout the Bible.—Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35;Acts 10:38."
Unfortunately, the inadequate and  bludgeoning reference to this quote in the opening remarks of the argument above displays a level of competency that calls into question the entire succeeding discussion. To enter into debate on the matters raised on the basis of the level of spiritual comprehension displayed in this opening gambit would be akin to a surgeon discussing the finer points of a heart transplant procedure with a meat butcher who prefers using a meat cleaver to a scalpel.

The quote referenced above reads: "In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s active force.” (Genesis 1:2) This concept is well supported throughout the Bible.—Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35;Acts 10:38."
Unfortunately, the inadequate and  bludgeoning reference to this quote in the opening remarks of the argument above displays a level of competency that calls into question the entire succeeding discussion. To enter into debate on the matters raised on the basis of the level of spiritual comprehension displayed in this opening gambit would be akin to a surgeon discussing the finer points of a heart transplant procedure with a meat butcher who prefers using a meat cleaver to a scalpel.

The quote referenced above reads: "In the Bible, God’s holy spirit is identified as God’s power in action. Hence, an accurate translation of the Bible’s Hebrew text refers to God’s spirit as “God’s active force.” (Genesis 1:2) This concept is well supported throughout the Bible.—Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35;Acts 10:38."
Unfortunately, the inadequate and  bludgeoning reference to this quote in the opening remarks of the argument above displays a level of competency that calls into question the entire succeeding discussion. To enter into debate on the matters raised on the basis of the level of spiritual comprehension displayed in this opening gambit would be akin to a surgeon discussing the finer points of a heart transplant procedure with a meat butcher who prefers using a meat cleaver to a scalpel.

I see nothing wrong with learning about other religions. It serves a useful purpose in helping the citizens understand other people. However, I do have a problem if the way they educate is to perform a daily act of worship in that religion. After all, it is possible to learn about a religion without participating. We learn about ancient Aztec religion by reading about it, not performing a human sacrifice. 

A consideration of the context of this expression shows that the apostle Paul was discussing spirit-anointed Christians alive at that time. While still alive, they had been baptized into Christ Jesus and received the valid prospect of heavenly life. In order to be anointed with holy spirit and accepted as spiritual sons of God, they had to die to their former course in life as imperfect humans, have their sins forgiven by God and have human perfection imputed to them.
However, in view of the words at Romans 6:23 "For the wages sin pays is death", it is clear that Paul's use of a natural and actual illustration (in v7) in connection with the consequence of sin would enable it to correctly be said that "one who has died has been acquitted from his sin".
It may well be that some today still think that punishing someone twice for the same crime is an acceptable carriage of justice. They are in company with those who feel that God is justified in keeping alive and punishing forever in literal fire those who have sinned no more than a human lifetime (just a few minutes in Jehovah's timescale).
Such fleshly viewpoints confirm the apostle's words at 2 Cor.14-15.
As for extreme case scenario funerals, these would have to be subject to the consideration of those locally in consultation with the relevant Branch office. The circumstances outlined would be have to be relevant to the locality at the time they occur, in respect of the individuals involved. Hence, the only ones who could realistically respond on that would be the local Service Committee, and in view of the hypothetical nature of the question, I would highly suspect the response would be......................................................Silence!!
 
 

Romans 6:7 "For the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin."
The use of a Kingdom Hall for a funeral would depend on circumstance so there isn't a blanket rule.

The response of Jesus to the Jews in quoting from Ps 8:2 is no more an assertion that he is God than the words of the original Psalm itself are written to encourage the viewing of the moon and stars, or even mortal man, to be God. The praise of the children in both cases is a reflection of their appreciation for the wonderful works of Jehovah. Thus, the prophetically indicated presentation of Jesus as God's means of salvation and all that the arrangement encompassed on that occasion, was indeed a reason for all to give praise to God. The children on that occasion shamed the chief priests and scribes in this respect. This is the picture presented at Matt. 21:15-16.
As for "the inner thoughts of the scribes", their "heart's abundance" was reflected in their own words later on: 
"He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’”" Matt.27:43  and
"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son" John 19:7
Looking for an indication of "supreme" there but without success.
I don't see a reason for doing this yet, as the arguments I have considered appear to be rather porous so far. I will continue to keep an eye on the thread however.
 
 

Your assertions seem to lack logical and scriptural substance.
Why would the boldness of these words have significance? And what connection does this have with nature of the one uttering such words?
David, a creature, who ruled in Jehovah's name and sat on Jehovah's throne referred to that Messianic kingdom as "my kingdom". (2Sam.3:28)
The Israelites put faith in Jehovah and in Moses, a creature, (Ex14:31) and this at the encouragement of Jehovah himself! (Ex.19:9)
Jehosaphat, a creature, encouraged the inhabitants of Jerusalem to put faith Jehovah's prophets , other creatures. (2Chr.20:20).
Peter, a creature, encouraged fellow Christians to have love for the whole association of brothers (creatures) which included himself. (1Pet.2:17)
And of course, the Lord Jesus made it clear that love for fellow Christians, creatures, which he exemplified, would identify his true followers. (John 13:34-35).

Matt 28:18: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth....
John 5:22: "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son,..."
Hi Cos. See you are still battling on. These scriptures don't really need exposition do they?
By the way, I see you are referenced as female on the forum somewhere. Is that a fact or a misunderstanding? 

Matt 28:18: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth....
John 5:22: "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son,..."
Hi Cos. See you are still battling on. These scriptures don't really need exposition do they?
By the way, I see you are referenced as female on the forum somewhere. Is that a fact or a misunderstanding? 

Definition of class:
a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality.
I won't over elaborating on the historical background to this avoid repeating other posts. 
Jesus illustration at Matthew 24:45, “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?" speaks of a"faithful and discreet slave" taking care of the feeding of his masters household ("domestics").
For a considerable time this was felt to apply to all anointed Christians with the hope of going to heaven to rule with Christ. The Bible of course speaks of another group of Christians, coexisting, yet having a hope of living on a cleansed paradise earth, referred to as "other sheep" at John 10:16.
In differentiating between these two groups of humans, united in worship but differing in destiny, the term class was attached to both designations for the purpose of clarity in discussing differing aspects. It would have been just as easy to use the word "group" or "type", both synonyms for the word "class". Perhaps "class" was felt to be a more suitable word? Just a style choice that stuck?
However there was always an uncomfortable aspect to the notion of the "faithful and discreet slave" being the anointed,  and the "domestics", who they feed, being the anointed as well. An odd picture with a confusion of roles always lurking in the background, people serving and eating at the same time, a "too many cooks" scenario in a way. 
Anyway, it was all cleared up nicely in the Watchtower 15 July 2013 p26 in the article "Who really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?"
A few points that stand out:
The question only has relevance to the last days as there was no doubt who the Chiristian Congregation was in the 1st Century. Not all anointed ones have a teaching assignment inside the congregation.1Cor 11:3; 12:29, 1Tim 2:12. The task of preparing and distributing spiritual food is clearly carried out under the oversight of the Governing Body. The "domestics" are all those who are fed. This includes individual members of the Governing Body, the rest of the anointed, and all others who respond to the Christian message to gain evelasting life on earth. So the illustration now makes perfect sense. The Governing Body are the faithful and discreet slave, with the responsibilty of providing spritual food for all anointed Christians, and anyone else who wishes to "take life's water free".
With such a simple definition now, it seems unecessary to refer to them as a class. In fact, it might even have a negative connotation in view of other associations with the word.We know who they are as individuals and, thanks to the JW Broadcast, we know what they look and sound like. Even with modern technolgy it would be difficult to have that same personal awareness of each one of the anointed.

"Several appropriate applications"....@JWInsider
I like this one:
Regardless of any homespun ideas and highfalutin' aspirations held by the religious leaders of Jesus day, the basic "denarius" wage they had agreed with the master of the vineyard was that described early on in the history of the "vineyard" at Exodus 19:5-6:
"Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ 
To realise this would involve far more than the miserable attempt they made of justifying themselves as righteous by keeping a set of self-invented legal interpretations  that had the effect of obsoleting the instructions given by the master. "you make the word of God invalid by your tradition" Mk.7:13.
Peter made it clear that another group would become recepients of that "denarius" at 1Pet.2:9:
"But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation",.
In speaking to his fellow anointed Christians (spritual Israelites), Peter showed the "denarius" to include the responsibility to: "declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light".
Of course there was no way that the religious hypocrites who had engineered the death of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36) would take any delight in this "denarius". In reality, it would include accepting the one who they had wilfully murdered to be their King & High Priest, (Acts 2:36), submitting to water baptism in his name, (Acts 2:38.) And then there was his ransom sacrifice. This served  as the only genuine means of obtaining a "righteous"standing before God, invalidating their fake certifications. They would have to acknowledge that they had been duped into the engineering of the payment of this ransom, (Acts 5:30). Additionally, with submission to Christ's role as head of the Christian congregation (spiritual Israel), they would be required to testify publicly to all of this in taking the message of the "kingdom" to the entire inhabited earth. (Matt.28:18-20).
To make matters worse, they would have to accept the same "denarius", all shoulder-to-shoulder, as that paid to a rag-tag group of "unlettered and ordinary", "accursed" ones, late arrivals on the scene, with no pedigree or credentials! In fact, they would have even to submit to one of these as holding the "keys to the kingdom.....!!!!   
On the positive side, some of these 'full-day' workers were quite happy to accept this same "denarius", along with the 11th hour workers, as recorded at Acts 6:7:
"Consequently, the word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples kept multiplying very much in Jerusalem; and a large crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith."

Probably just following the 1971 nonsense in the Aid to Bible Understanding. p460. (Who wrote that?)
The mistake appears to have been corrected in the Watchtower by 15/12/72  (page 768) when it is stated " that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·neiʹa or “fornication” in the Bible sense."
Also, "Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. "  (Who wrote that?)
 

This is just unadulterated Rubbish! It does not matter where it originates!
Jesus said: (1st Century):
Matthew 5:32: "everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality (porneia), makes her a subject for adultery"
Matthew 19:9: "whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another commits adultery"
Jehovah's Witnesses said (1988):
Insight from the Scriptures (1988) v1 p642:
"Sexually immoral acts committed by a married person with someone of the same sex (homosexuality) are filthy and disgusting. Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God’s Kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. (Le 18:22, 23; Ro 1:24-27; 1Co 6:9, 10) These grossly filthy acts come under the broad designation por·neiʹa. It is also noteworthy that, under the Mosaic Law, homosexuality and bestiality carried the death penalty, freeing the innocent mate for remarriage.—Le 20:13, 15, 16."
It is also worth remembering what Paul said to Timothy at 1 Timothy 1:9-10: "recognizing that law is made, not for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, ungodly and sinners, disloyal and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, sexually immoral people, men who practice homosexuality, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and everything else that is in opposition to the wholesome teaching"
Regardless of the statistical assaults of determined mudslingers, I would venture that, for the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, grappling with definitions of fornication and what constitutes permissable extremes of sexual deviancy has not been at the top of their list of after-party small talk topics. I would also hazard a guess that, over the years, many of those charged with spirtual guidance and shepherding responsibilities would have been fairly naive in these matters also. (This is relected in historical discussions on such subjects. See the 1970's references quoted above). 
Now, (2017), there is an ever-escalating need to re-evaluate and become educated in these matters, in a non-prurient context, within the congregation. Contributing to this are: 
the escalation of sexual immorality in the world at large, the large numbers of "skinned and thrown about" sheep-like ones coming into the organisation the determined assault of opportunist predators on the true Christian congregation, seeing it as a victim pool the determined attempts of society to sexualise at a younger and younger age, the increasing institutional abandonment of scriptural norms of sexual behaviour, the institutional abandonment of traditional gender definition and roles, the growing preoccupation with sexual activity and experimentation, the saturation of all media with sexually oriented behaviour and images the glorification of sexual abnormality in the entertainment world the globalisation of uncensored pornographic media due to internet penetration...... You can add what ever you like to this list. As far as I can see, that re-evaluation and educational program is in place and is progressing effectively in the opposite direction, but, you had better believe it..... We are at war!
Eph.6:12: "we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places."
 
 

For anyone stumbling across this sad little cameo, the embroidery of text, both in the youtube and forum posting creates puzzlement. The video is about the family relationship problems that some elderly folk brought on themselves by dissassociating themselves from the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Their issue seems to be around their regret over the estrangement this created in their relationship with their granddaughter.
It is difficult to see a relevant connection with the post title "Why does the governing body lie?" or the reference to issues involving a disfellowshipped husband and his Witness family.

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

Giannis 
You sound frustrated, Maybe its the language that is insufficient.
Anyway, apologies if I misunderstand you due to that.
With regard to the latest points you raise.
Giannis: In ancient Israel the congregation of Israel knew everything about everyone.
I find this statement too extreme. The Awake you quote is interesting, but only as a comparison between Mosaic and American legal standards. 
Obviously, Israel was a sovereign state with a judiciary, as is the USA. So there are legitimate comparisons in their legal systems, the right to public trial being one of them. However that provision does not substantiate your statement. In fact, even today there are situations when the public is excluded from legal procedures.
But, as Paul made clear in Rom 13, currently "Caesar" or the state "bears the sword" and serves as Gods's minister for good or bad toward his servants. We are all relatively subject to Caesar's laws and, as far as secular matters are concerned, generally, public trial is still a provision of that system should we fall foul of the law or indeed be a victim of crime.
So you do have the right to a public trial today..in "Cesar's" courts.
However, the Christian congregation is a spiritual arrangement and actually is not constituted as a sovereign state in the way of ancient Israel or the modern USA.
Elders have a responsibility to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean, and also to keep Jehovah's name and the name of His Son clear of reproach. This will necessarily mean dealing with wrongdoers, making assessments regarding wrong conduct, taking action to clear out badness from the congregation, and helping repentant ones regain spiritual health. At times, this may include mediation between congregation members to maintain peace in the congregation. @JW Insider has adequately outlined reasons for confidentiality in an earlier post in this thread. 
Where the breaking of Cesar's law is a component of errant behaviour amongst congregation members, then victims are completely at liberty to invoke the provisions of that system (bearing in mind Paul's counsel at 1 Cor. 6:6-8). Indeed, there may well be a legal obligation to refer such matters to the one "that bears the sword".
Is this the account you refer to?
To take a true-life illustration of recent months: A certain youth professed to be a Christian minister. Yet he was carrying on homosexual acts with professed friends of his. When he found it expedient to travel to another part of the country he missed his homosexual friends. So he wrote one of them threatening to expose him if he did not come to where he lived so that they could continue their homosexual relations. But it was not long before this young professed Christian made some overt acts that exposed him and today he is under a ban of at least three years from any Christian congregation of Jehovah’s people.
 
This article discussed the hardening power of a practice of sin and the account illustrates the lengths a person could go to and the consequence when following such a course. I can't see any reason why further explanation would be required here, other than saying that the reference is 46 years old. Hopefully, that person learned, albeit the hard way (1Cor.5:5, 13), and has since been restored to the congregation. 1 Cor 6:9-10.
I think @JW Insider has indicated above how you could go about making your grievances public. You seem to have already embarked on this course anyway.
I do hope you can resolve your issues without cutting yourself off.

All the more reason to apply the scriptures I suggested.
You cannot find the true picture from anecdotal evidence.
The Awake article is interesting but only as a comparison between Mosaic and American legal standards. I am not sure it supports the idea that  " In ancient Israel the congregation of Israel knew everything about everyone."  (my italics). I would need more specific examples for that conclusion. The statements in the article are not supported by examples.
What scriptures give you the Christian right to a "public trial"? And, if permissible, may I ask, what have you done to require such a trial?

It is not possible to support these statements with fact.
Yes to both. However, with regard to following scripture, in the spirit of Apollos. Acts 18:24-28.
Where is the scriptural proof of a requirement to indiscriminately publicize the reason for disfellowshipping or dissasociation?
Have your elders used 2Tim.2:23 or Titus 3:9 to support their dislike for your questions? Have they attempted to provide answers to them?. I suspect even if they have, you have not been satisfied, as your many posts in this forum seem to indicate.
Why not apply the principle in Ps.4:4? It's all about attitude really. (Compare Ph. 3:15, the principle, not the immediate subject matter).
I recommend the advice provided by JW Insider quoted below:
I would also add that the work of preaching the good news of Jehovah's established kingdom in the hands of His anointed king, Christ Jesus, should be the main focus of our efforts at this time. I would add that to the list of activities in JW Insider's comment above.
For many honest-hearted ones, getting to know Jehovah and his son Jesus, learning about the ransom, the kingdom, the truth about life, death, sin, getting free from the deceptive domination of Satan in their lives, and coming into association with the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's people, is the best thing thing that could ever happen to them. And, if media reports are anything to go by, it appears that there are greater opportunities in your country to share the good news of the kingdom than many others of us have at this time.
I do hope you can resolve your difficulties, if not your questions.
Do you have this saying?
Ας μην καίμε τα χλωρά μαζί με τα ξερά. 

This is excellent
The only honest response is "bring it on!"
Can you see how this applies?: 
“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?"
Matt.12:25-26

Great Crowd renders service INSIDE the Sanctuary? was the question.
Anyway, your discussion highlights the great privilege extended to the great crowd and the value Jehovah places on their integrity, thanks to the atoning power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

You are complicated aren't you? I don't actually say....anything.
The little Lego brother was just objecting to being left off the "Slippery Slopes" list provided by @James Thomas Rook Jr.
However, now that you mention it, there may be lessons to be learned.
Locally, 4 complete sets of Watchtower Bound Volumes, 1970- 2000 were recently donated to the rather bendy-shelved KH library. That's actually 120 volumes! That's to say nothing of a number of other sets that lately graced the paper dump mountain at the local municipal recycling centre! Some others, I hear, were sent skywards in garden bonfires. And there are the many other items of WTS literature that turn up in these and other places, once their former owners overcome their guilt and release them from garage and loft repositories.
" "Inventory is the anointed" ", (to borrow your phrase) seems a little off the mark, but there does seem to be room for more appropriate allegory here.
Maybe there is room for another topic then? What should become of, or even, What do you do with, unwanted theocratic"Inventory"?