Evacuated

A CO once told our congregation of a family whose children hated coming to the meetings.  Turned out that that was the only time the children were ever disciplined and so they actually feared the meetings.  I remember my mother could quell us with a look whenever we were out because of the training we had been accustomed to at home.  

not so difficult to find .... now that the "SEARCH" button is available ....

No it is not to OK hit children, particularly with a belt.
If parents are unable to prevent their children' disturbing others for whatever reason in the auditorium, then they should remain outside the auditorium, with their children, until the children are able to behave in a manner that does not disturb others.

You have probably hit the nail on the head here James. (Not sure who the "we" is for you). Anyway it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what "we" think because the reality will unfold anyway. Until it does, "we" can explain, rationalise, adjust as "we"wish. The way things turn out, however, is not the province of "we", and if "we" want to be there when the whole thing does resolve (or unravel depending on your point of view), then "we" had better be sure "we" are rootin' for the right side.
Ah do declare!...Ah think ah've got it!! 

This is absolutely incorrect. He was ignoring prevailing opinion at the time. His quote specifically states it was not the organization's view at the time. (hence, not in Watchtower print) I didn't drill down any further, seeing no need to challenge every word from trustworthy persons. But frankly, I thought is was their view at the time, with regard to Bethel service.
If you want special privileges anywhere, you may have to conform to some rules. These are not binding for Christians in general, but only for those who wish to officially represent JWs, as elders and MS's do. With Bethel service, I believe it is more a matter of conforming to family headship, Bethel often being called 'the Bethel family.' Among actual families, one family head decrees this or that rule for family members, another does not, or has different ones.
Nobody has to serve in Bethel. Nobody has to pioneer. Nobody has to serve as an elder or MS. But if you do, there may be additional requirements beyond that which apply to Christians generally. It is that way with representing anyone anywhere.
 

Argument is not your forte @Shiwii. Try and speak straight. You might have more success.

Don't be soft. Diversity is not division.

@Anna the key would be to stay on topic or start your own new topic. 
I only fork it off if it is completely astray from the topic theme.

Although many like to imagine and assume that the Biblical symbolism Russell used has something to do with the Masons, and/or that his Biblical study of God's Witness in Egypt had something to do with the Masons, the reality is that neither is of the Masons, any more than the Bible itself is of the Masons.
 
rlctr.blogspot.com-Masonic Symbols.pdf

Excuse me interjecting here, but I am sure that Catholics not understanding or agreeing with how the doctrine of torment in hell could be real might have been provided with persuasion of a little more physical nature than the application of scriptures.....  

Don't be soft. Diversity is not division.

Don't be soft. Diversity is not division.

Don't patronise. It's a sure way of closing doors. I shouldn't have to tell you that. (There you go!)
Good that you appreciate the need to keep a confidence. There's no need to elaborate. Abstract discussions are too inconclusive on this kind of thing so I'll move on from this subject.

About 4 people?

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)
Everyone knows that all of us might hold certain minor variations in our personal beliefs about a verse or an idea here and there, and if we are not dogmatic and if it does not contradict a key teaching then we are "safe."  But it is easy to cause trouble with personal beliefs, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the idea that their personal beliefs make them somehow better or more spiritually mature than others. This was a rather obvious problem for a time at Bethel.
I didn't see it as openly when I was there, but I'm told that there was a practice that probably peaked in the early to mid 1970's and coincided with the hype about 1975 that ran from 1967 to 1974. The practice was for many "Bethel Elders" (especially those in authoritative positions) to talk about ideas they held that differed from the current Watchtower teachings. This was not considered a sign of disrespect, but a way to gain more respect, a way to position themselves as spiritually mature and studious. It was especially the more mature brothers who had responsibilities in the Service Dept, Correspondence, Writing, and similar work. It seemed like every "Table Head" could speak about some nuances of differences in belief that he held, and there was a kind of free-thinking openness that many brothers found refreshing. Younger Bethelites were able to have enlightening conversations among themselves about doctrinal possibilities based on sharing things they heard from table conversations.
The expansion of the Bethel family due to the increased inflow of Witnesses in the pre-1975 era might have had something to do with why this was cracked down upon. With the new Governing Body assignments that expanded beyond the Board of Directors, some of the brothers like Sydlik and Schroeder who were well known for this practice, began to be heard only in more hushed tones. Others followed suit, so that non-conformists seemed to censor themselves (I'm told). Of course, it's quite possible that other factors resulted in the self-censoring. Perhaps there was a fear that it could get out of control; perhaps it came from Knorr or Franz. All I know is that people still talked about the more open freedom that had been the norm in the years just before I got to Bethel, and various Bethelites would still identify who had said what about certain doctrines. The consistency among various Bethelites told me that most of it was probably true, and I was able to verify some of it with Dan Sydlik, Bert Schroeder, Fred Rusk, Sam Friend and others personally.
On the matter of the "overlapping generation" I would think it's simply a matter of attitude and "style." Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Seems to indicate you understand the meaning of "generation" as per the wt/gb.

No, wrongly anticipated. We have no basis for judgement is my point, faithful once, or otherwise. All we can see is their desertion, regardless of their justification.
It may well be that erroneous views were promoted at the time, which we can pronounce as so now very well, in hindsight.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do....and many, if not all, did! There was enough truth adhered, to even in those days, for any so minded as Peter to conclude: "“Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life." John 6:68.
But........connect me back up with the theme????? 

Without watching the video, I would not hand a tract to a child, or would do so only with asking the child whether he thought that okay. Even then it can backfire, but if you've laid the groundwork is easy to mitigate trouble.
at one door in the evening, I met a teenager. After brief innocuous discussion, I told him my quandary: some parents don't like unknown visitors showing anything to their kids, and did he think I should or not? He said 'yes.' I should him the video on social media, a video that cannot even remotely thought to be proseletizing. I returned a week or so later, caught his brother, and did much the same.
Finally I returned and met the mother. She was miffed that I had shown things to her kids. I told her I had never wanted to speak with them in the first place - it was she I was looking for. Besides, I had specifically asked them if it was alright to speak, and they had said it was. "you know kids - they will say anything," she responded. I assured her I would not call again, she relaxed at that, and I was able even to explain why we come in the first place, referring to Matt 24:14. 'Obviously, the ones who will do this are those who believe in it - who else would be expected to?'
To another teenager, years earlier, I had said I would return later when her folks were home, and left. I was with a Spanish sister, not long in this country, who said she would have witnessed to her. It is that way in Latin America. Children take on responsibility at a very young age, and few have any problem with their kids being addressed with the Bible or anything else. They mature far more quickly than do American kids, who are sometimes still silly as can be at age 30.

Good illustration re. the schoolchildren 
It's such a simple concept, it only gets complicated by people trying to explain who ISN'T part the generation! 

I'm thinking out loud a bit but this is how I have explained it in under a minute:  {Simplicity is key although some apostates may try to confuse and make light of this simple illustration with apparent words of worldy wisdom and drivel - just wait and see if it happens}:
   Lets say a child is born in the year 1996 and starts school in the year 2001. In that year he sees the event of 911. He ends his school age  in the year 2013 however another child begins school in the year 2013. That child did NOT witness the event of 911 however for a time isn't both students actually "students" in school and therefore of a particular school age or "generation"?  Is this not an example of an "overlap generation'? A child starting school in 2014 would NOT be of THAT contemporary generation [contemporary to the 911 event of the students]. Now many other generations can overlap with this one but the pivotal point is the event of 911.  It seems so simple to me. And if you ask the 5 year old : Who is a student in school at this time in the year 2013? Even he can figure out it is not just the one in first grade but also the one in 12th grade. Whereas a student beginning school in 2017 would not have witnessed the event of 911 as a student nor be a contemporary of the 2001 student but would be a contemporary of the 2013 student, his overlap is not related to the event of 911. So of course there can be and is many overlaps but only one overlap is the generation of being a student regarding the pivotal year of 911.

Something goes rather subtly off track in all these "generation" discussions for me. It really makes absolutely no difference to the reality of the situation whatever any of us think about the way the final "generation" before Armageddon is structured.
The basic idea of two groups of people, whose lives overlap, spanning a period of time delineated by the year 1914CE and the (yet unknown) outbreak of the "great tribulation", is so elementary that it does not require even a child's chalkboard to explain.
There are illogical dissections going one. For example:
 Who are "them"? How do we know that those disputing and leaving the Bible Students back then were actually anointed at all? Maybe only those proving loyal in the face of trials were genuine in the first place.
How about:
We have discussed this before, but to me, if something is said to be discerned as starting in 1874CE, still continuing in 1943CE, then regardless of revising the start date due to erroneous chronology or doctrine, if that start date includes the year 1914CE in its span, then the event is discerned in 1914CE regardless of any error in interpretation of detail.
Really, the only way we are going to know if our current view of an overlapping group of people, connected by their shared experience and destiny, are indeed the "generation" Jesus was referring to, is to be there when the "great tribulation" starts, and by Jehovah's underserved kindness, to be there when the final post Armageddon dust settles. Isn't that the important element of this?

True, but irrelevant to the generation discussion. We all know that the generation of 1914, consists of a number of generations any way you care to slice and dice those living in these "last days".
Very good point actually, but such an irresistable discussion!. Anyway, I'm out of here until discipline is restored. No disrespect to @JWInsider. Apologies to @Librarian. 

Still banging on about the "generation" here are we? Well, nothing wrong with that (Acts 1:6), as long as we don't fall out over it.
Interesting quote in 2008 WT 15 Feb:
"The word “generation” usually refers to people of various ages whose lives overlap during a particular time period or event. For example, Exodus 1:6 tells us: “Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.” Joseph and his brothers varied in age, but they shared a common experience during the same time period. Included in “that generation” were some of Joseph’s brothers who were born before him. Some of these outlived Joseph. (Gen. 50:24) Others of “that generation,” such as Benjamin, were born after Joseph was born and may have lived on after he died.
  So when the term “generation” is used with reference to people living at a particular time, the exact length of that time cannot be stated except that it does have an end and would not be excessively long. Therefore, by using the term “this generation,” as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Jesus did not give his disciples a formula to enable them to determine when “the last days” would end. Rather, Jesus went on to emphasize that they would not know “that day and hour.”—2 Tim. 3:1; Matt. 24:36."
Is that difficult to grasp? Is there something wrong with me because I think I understand what this says?
And it considerably precedes JW Broadcasting and Brother Splane's discussion in (I think) 2015.
 I find it infinitly easier to understand compared to this attempt : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlapping_generations_model

Now (with respect) don't you overstep either. This refers to " the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction".
There's absolutely nothing wrong in being interested in these times and seasons, as long as we try to avoid (with difficulty on occasion) the snare of second guessing Jehovahs timetable.
And we can also be very interested in those "times and seasons that the Father has not placed in, or has released from, "his own jurisdiction". (There is ample evidence of this in the Hebrew Scriptures).
And a healthy interest in such matters is encouraged by Jesus in his admonitions to "keep on the watch", and illustrations in connection with "slaves" and "virgins", regardless of not knowing the day or hour.
Also by Peter at 1Pet.1:10-11: "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for you made a diligent inquiry and a careful search.  They kept on investigating what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating concerning Christ as it testified beforehand about the sufferings meant for Christ and about the glory that would follow.."
and 2Pet.3:12 "........await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah......."
And indeed the apostle Paul: Romans 13:17 And do this because you know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers." 1Cor.7:29 "...the time left is reduced..." 
And with regard to an appropriate level of interest, the 2008 Watchtower quoted earlier demonstrates this adequately for me in that it states: "Therefore, by using the term “this generation,” as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Jesus did not give his disciples a formula to enable them to determine when “the last days” would end. Rather, Jesus went on to emphasize that they would not know “that day and hour.”

Now that wasn't so difficult actually was it?
I'll overlook the offensive bluster. I know you are capable of an entirely rational response (as in the first quote) when you are in a better frame of mind.
You should try and get a handle on what stresses you out so much 'though. It can't be healthy! Are you holding a grudge or something??
Anyway, take it easy mate!  
 
PS. Could you like my comment please. I've just noticed my reputation figure stands at 666 and I don't like liking my own posts!!