Evacuated

"by no means" doesn't sit well with this.
???not yet I think???
Now this is definitely getting...dodgy??
Compare 2Cor. 8:2

Re: Ripples
Sure, it's just a matter of time, however, if too many big changes are made without first clarifying all it's connecting concepts, it could get quite messy. It's already quite confusing for some, since the "Faithful Slave" adjustment. We still get brothers giving talks with old material as references  some evidently not aware something has changed since that outline came out...
 
I'm working - by working I mean taking forever - on a database that will contain all major concepts and their connecting concepts, showing previous and current connections. Just purely for my personal interest hehe hence it's taking forever lol

and this is quite clearly explained in the Watchtower with reference to the context:
*** w07 3/15 p. 11 par. 4 Highlights From the Book of Jeremiah ***
What are “the two families” spoken of here? One is the royal family through the line of King David, and the other, the priestly family of the descendants of Aaron. With the destruction of Jerusalem and Jehovah’s temple, it appeared that Jehovah had rejected these two families and would no longer have a kingdom over the earth or have his worship revived.
Paralleling this scripture with the discussion in Ezekiel regarding the "two sticks" seems to be mostly inappropriate, save the general principle regarding the unity enjoyed by those who serve Jehovah, regardless of family, status, role in service etc.
What you have highlighted however, is the vitally important need to use the most up to date tools available to us at this time. I had noticed adjustments to these cross-references but not really considered the significance of this in a doctorinal setting. Thanks for doing this. Someone may be inclined to research the changes in cross references at some time and hopefully publish them. It won't be me, but I would definitely review a such a list of these with interest.
I am giving a positive reputation to your post for this one fact alone.
With regard to doctorinal ripples due to the adjustment in understanding the "Babylonish captivity", I am confident any adjustments to our understanding will be clarified in due time, and will make complete sense once that is done. 

 

True statement. I would add "at home". Pretty difficult elsewhere. Parents must become computer savvy if they allow their children to use them....and they really have no choice in the modern world. Home network is the only really effective way to go.

(Psalm 91:5) You will not fear the terrors of the night, Nor the arrow that flies by day,
(Psalm 91:13) On the young lion and the cobra you will tread; You will trample underfoot the maned lion and the big snake
Sadly, Gods people will need to be MORE cautious than the serpents......................

Parents, you need not control your children’s every move, but you do need to monitor their computer use. Do not abandon them to online immorality, violent games, spiritism, and bad association.
"Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you."—Jas. 4:8.

At Heb 13: 17 The phrase "be obedient to those taking the lead" can also be rendered "Be obedient to those who are governors of you" or "your governors". There used to be a cross reference to Matthew 2: 6. "Governing one". The phrase "taking the lead" is probably to avoid confusion, since  "our leader is one, the Christ". Some friends are assuming that the removal of many of the old cross references must mean a change in thinking for those passages. There are large numbers of them now gone. However, the old cross reference to Heb 13: 17 is still valid though, since it's a translation issue not a doctrinal one. The Greek word is the same in Matthew 2: 6. The KIT also remains unchanged as "governing".
This weeks mid-week meeting mentions the "two families" in Jeremiah. There was an old cross reference to Ezekiel associating the "two families" with the "two sticks" - one for "Joseph" and the other for "Judah" - that become one. We recently adjusted our understanding of the "two sticks" but the content for the meeting is based on references from 2007... (See reference Bible Jeremiah 33: 24 cross reference Ezekiel 37: 19) However, this is clearly a doctrinal issue. (See "Questions From Readers" Pp 31-32 JULY Study WT 2016) The adjustment shows that the northern and southern parts of Israel became one nation when they returned to Jerusalem in 537 BCE. A parallel is drawn to our day, stating that from 1919 CE onward God's people have been gradually reorganised and reunited. Judah refers to the Heavenly hopers or "little flock" and Joseph refers to the Earthly hopers or "other sheep". This adjustment didn't really sit well because it had so many repercussions or ripples. One major one, being that in order for the modern Judah and Joseph to be brought together, it would mean that the "other sheep" was always a separate group that existed prior to the "Spiritual Babylonian Exile" that we also recently adjusted to run from circa 2nd century ending in 1919 CE. If true, then there were "other sheep" during the first century too, existing as a separate group with a separate hope. (See article "Called Out of Darkness" Pp 21 - 25 NOVEMBER Study WT 2016) To be clear, in order to bring the two [modern] sticks together, they both had to exist prior to being apart.
I don't necessarily think that the removal of many cross references means adjustments ahead. Some undoubtedly will, but some, I think, were just part of simplifying them down. 
 
 

Wow! Whatever happened to you? These are the only relevant parts of your response. I can understand your withdrawal. Sorry to have touched such a raw nerve! 

In terms of the Christian congregation, compare 2Cor.5:20.
Or: 
deputy (noun): a person who is appointed to undertake the duties of a superior in the superior's absence

Got it, but I mean, who on dedication and baptism is considering disassociation and disfellowshipping? Maybe those who get married while planning their separation and divorce???

Given to me recently. Ex. 6:2-3. This is taken from the Bible in the Welsh language (prob.William Morgan ver.) and is useful in Wales, (or anywhere that Welsh is spoken), for the May 2017 special campaign in the Welsh language. It impresses non-Welsh speakers as well.

Given to me recently. Ex. 6:2-3. This is taken from the Bible in the Welsh language (prob.William Morgan ver.) and is useful in Wales, (or anywhere that Welsh is spoken), for the May 2017 special campaign in the Welsh language. It impresses non-Welsh speakers as well.

"obeservations" -- reservations at a restaurant for gluttons?

Given to me recently. Ex. 6:2-3. This is taken from the Bible in the Welsh language (prob.William Morgan ver.) and is useful in Wales, (or anywhere that Welsh is spoken), for the May 2017 special campaign in the Welsh language. It impresses non-Welsh speakers as well.

Risking accusations of semantic quibbling, I have to say that disassociation is just not the same as non-association (or formerly associated).
The term disassociate, or more commonly, dissociate, when applied to one's former affiliation to a group, seems to imply a formal separating or severing of a relationship formerly held, rather like a divorce. This might include publicly severing one's former connection with that group, perhaps going as far as formally renouncing aims and objectives once held in common. Or, perhaps, engaging in a practice so diametrically opposed to those aims and objectives as to indicate what may not have been verbally stated.
To drift away from association with a group, for whatever reason, be it cooling of common interest, personal preference, time contraints, or a particular unresolved grievance involving other group members, carries a far less antagonistic stance toward the group as a whole.
In any event, the former action, that of disassociation, whilst possibly preceded by the latter action, drifting away, has far more consideration and deliberation involved, a rejection of fundemental tenets perhaps once held dear, perhaps a militant stand against activity once zealously engaged in, an awareness of the dramatic change in relationship to the group subject to this action, and a recognition of consequences effecting the relationship the disassociatee might have formely enjoyed with those who choose to remain group members.
The latter, drifting away, is more focussed on one's personal preferences or activity schedule, and whilst there may be personality issues involved, the group as a whole is not "tarred with the same brush" as it were. Also, a denial of the groups validity does not take place. In fact, there may sometimes be expressions like " It just wasn't for me, I couldn't keep up with such and such (requirement or activity)", or "I know it is a good organisation on the whole but I just couldn't accept this or that (practice or person or experience)"
Thus it can be seen that the deliberate action of "disassociation" carries far more weighty and considered commitment than the shifting of goals and interests accompanying the process of "drifting away". Although both result in state of separation from former associates, the relationship resulting from either is entirely dissimilar. 

You're included in the confusion it appears............

Would a naive, true-believer 10-year old  'disassociate' themselves? At what age would  someone be likely to "disassociate" themselves? It's not a rubber stamping excercise you know.

Don't you see all these suggestions of sinister, mind-control techniques practised by clandestine Jehovah's Witnesses as a sophisticated version of Gen 3:1-5?
And couldn't we apply the principles of control as described on  http://changingminds.org pages to just about any social group to a greater or lesser degree? Just substitute their experiences and relevant characteristics for those of terrorists in the way in @AnnOMaly has done with Jehovah's Witnesses. (maybe an excercise for one of the wits among us to apply it to the Women's Institute, or the Woodcraft Folk).
It looks like it's actually a description of the way humans behave in groups.
It seems to me that nobody really understands why Jehovah's Witnesses do what they do unless they actually are active and happy Witnesses.

I don't understand what this means.
Quite true. Although this goes for everyone in every congregation (and everyone else) unless some kind of controlled survey is done.
There is an element of truth in this because "once a JW always a JW" is a reality of life. However, there is nothing particular sinister or unusual about someone who enjoyed a privilege receiving a sanction from the community that bestowed it, if they behave in a way that demonstrates disrespect (in the eyes of that community) for that privilege. For some examples see here: Lost privilege 
"Having cake and eating it" is an unfortunate metaphor that is echoed here. At least John Lennon had integrity, even if you don't agree with all he stood for. (Notice a hook here).
On another note, I have even known of unbelieving partners or parents to suffer discriminatory treatment because of the association a relative may have or have had with Jehovah's Witnesses. And that not just under a Nazi type regime.
You haven't thought about this statement although I understand what you mean by it. There could very well be an issue of poor family management in connection with college attendance. It will depend entirely on the circumstances. What is wrong is to say that college attendance and poor family management are synonymous in all cases.
This is rubbish regardless of missapplied Soc letters to elders. All elders qualifications should be reviewed regularly. A negative review where "children" are seeking higher education will depend on the attitude and conduct of those "children", and the same as regards the father.
My son-in-law went to college and gained a BA in an academic disciplne with absolutely no problems depite severe dyslexia. He then pioneered, and got married to my daughter. Then able to gain reasonable employment, he sought further vocational qualifications with success
He now is able to provide well for his family and serves as an elder. There were no sanctions imposed on any part of his family during this period.
But then, my observations may not be representative of other people's personal experiences.
Perfectly valid pont here. I mean it's pretty clear that following in Jesus footseps just does not mean doing what he did. Otherwise there would be literally millions of people hanging on stakes everywhere if they wanted to be true Christians.
I think @Anna just meant that there are sacrifices involved if want wishes to follow a dedicated Christian course. This may well include the pursuit of a secular vocation and the academic path to that goal. Paul's estimation of such things as " refuse" was all very well for one who "wore the T-shirt" as it were, it is true. But, nevertheless, many have made that sacrifice willingly and have not regretted it. Likewise there are many (like my son-in-law) who have done otherwise, not regretted it, and more importantly, have not been sanctioned for it.
However, in respect of the original post, and given that my view may well be unrepresentative, personal obeservations, I still feel that to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to ‘total control’ is......."total baloney"!
 
 
 
 
 

Risking accusations of semantic quibbling, I have to say that disassociation is just not the same as non-association (or formerly associated).
The term disassociate, or more commonly, dissociate, when applied to one's former affiliation to a group, seems to imply a formal separating or severing of a relationship formerly held, rather like a divorce. This might include publicly severing one's former connection with that group, perhaps going as far as formally renouncing aims and objectives once held in common. Or, perhaps, engaging in a practice so diametrically opposed to those aims and objectives as to indicate what may not have been verbally stated.
To drift away from association with a group, for whatever reason, be it cooling of common interest, personal preference, time contraints, or a particular unresolved grievance involving other group members, carries a far less antagonistic stance toward the group as a whole.
In any event, the former action, that of disassociation, whilst possibly preceded by the latter action, drifting away, has far more consideration and deliberation involved, a rejection of fundemental tenets perhaps once held dear, perhaps a militant stand against activity once zealously engaged in, an awareness of the dramatic change in relationship to the group subject to this action, and a recognition of consequences effecting the relationship the disassociatee might have formely enjoyed with those who choose to remain group members.
The latter, drifting away, is more focussed on one's personal preferences or activity schedule, and whilst there may be personality issues involved, the group as a whole is not "tarred with the same brush" as it were. Also, a denial of the groups validity does not take place. In fact, there may sometimes be expressions like " It just wasn't for me, I couldn't keep up with such and such (requirement or activity)", or "I know it is a good organisation on the whole but I just couldn't accept this or that (practice or person or experience)"
Thus it can be seen that the deliberate action of "disassociation" carries far more weighty and considered commitment than the shifting of goals and interests accompanying the process of "drifting away". Although both result in state of separation from former associates, the relationship resulting from either is entirely dissimilar. 

Risking accusations of semantic quibbling, I have to say that disassociation is just not the same as non-association (or formerly associated).
The term disassociate, or more commonly, dissociate, when applied to one's former affiliation to a group, seems to imply a formal separating or severing of a relationship formerly held, rather like a divorce. This might include publicly severing one's former connection with that group, perhaps going as far as formally renouncing aims and objectives once held in common. Or, perhaps, engaging in a practice so diametrically opposed to those aims and objectives as to indicate what may not have been verbally stated.
To drift away from association with a group, for whatever reason, be it cooling of common interest, personal preference, time contraints, or a particular unresolved grievance involving other group members, carries a far less antagonistic stance toward the group as a whole.
In any event, the former action, that of disassociation, whilst possibly preceded by the latter action, drifting away, has far more consideration and deliberation involved, a rejection of fundemental tenets perhaps once held dear, perhaps a militant stand against activity once zealously engaged in, an awareness of the dramatic change in relationship to the group subject to this action, and a recognition of consequences effecting the relationship the disassociatee might have formely enjoyed with those who choose to remain group members.
The latter, drifting away, is more focussed on one's personal preferences or activity schedule, and whilst there may be personality issues involved, the group as a whole is not "tarred with the same brush" as it were. Also, a denial of the groups validity does not take place. In fact, there may sometimes be expressions like " It just wasn't for me, I couldn't keep up with such and such (requirement or activity)", or "I know it is a good organisation on the whole but I just couldn't accept this or that (practice or person or experience)"
Thus it can be seen that the deliberate action of "disassociation" carries far more weighty and considered commitment than the shifting of goals and interests accompanying the process of "drifting away". Although both result in state of separation from former associates, the relationship resulting from either is entirely dissimilar. 

Too true for the Russian Federation. BUT the WT Aug 2017 says:
Today, there are over 400,000 publishers in the countries that were once part of the Soviet Union! 
What Jehovah has accomplished already through Jesus in that window of freedom since 1991!

@JMax Definitely Fake News. 100%    I added the tag "Fake News" to his post as well.

The Economist magazine, covering the ban, has coined a new term. I will use it.
 
"The ruling is a testament to the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox church, especially of a radical wing who see the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a dangerous sect that deviates from the official version of Christianity."
 
The 'official version.'
 
I haven't said 'Christendom' in years. Instead, I've said 'traditional.' No more. Now the churches represent 'the official version.' 
 
Just who are the officials? In Russia, they are the Russian Orthodox Church. In America, they are the Evangelicals. Post something about the faith in their hearing and you will be flooded with outcries of "cult" due to rejection of their favorite doctrines. Yet, unless I am very much mistaken, the two official versions would not get along. In fact, I suspect they would hate each others' guts, though for the purpose of maligning Jehovah's Witnesses they might form a temporary 'best buddy' relationship.

No one is disfellowshipped for their beliefs.....as far as I know.