James Thomas Rook Jr.

You know Jack .... I think it is hypocritical to the extreme that you are very concerned about the Kingdom Hall's networking system getting into YOUR laptop computer or devices, ...... yet you are indignant, and you seem to think you have a natural right to get into THEIRS.

... like at the famous "Battle of Little Big Horn" when George Armstrong Custer's  army troops were being massacred by the Indians, while firing his last bullets he turned to the Indian Scout beside him, and said  "What are we going to do NOW, Scout?"
The Scout replied  "What you mean WE, pale face?"
 

Sometimes, to do the "right thing" ... you have to suffer GREAT personal injury, loss of livelihood, your home, your family, or even have to die.
Sometimes you have to do that thing which is abhorrent and against all natural ingrained inclinations ... AND THINK!
Dying is easy to do for your faith, losing your money and real estate is harder to do, as there is no glory in it.
Dying for your faith is an instant "free pass". OTHER people will clean up the mess.
Losing your money, your comfortable job,  and your real estate is embarrassing ... and HARD.
That is why we have the current policy of chopping off the babies head when it cries.
It does not require any real thinking, and we STILL sleep warm at night in a soft bed.
Because we know that ... no matter WHAT we do .... the free money keeps rolling in.

Yes it is a mess caused by the GB inventing things 'beyond the things written'.  When i was still a brother it was announced from the platform that one of our daughters was 'no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. This daughter was actually acting as a foster parent to a child which was born to one of our other daughters, so it was a deeply involved situation. I made it known to everyone that i would not shun my daughter who was no longer a Witness because she needed our help in many ways. The GB should not make these blanket rules which only put burden on people shoulders. 

This was a Bethel "Family Night" (kind of a variety show with talented brothers showing their skills and with a couple of experiences). An older longtime Bethelite had been in charge of a clean-up before a city inspection of factories in this area of Brooklyn. The Squibb Pharmaceutical factory got a first place award and Bethel's printing factory came in second place. (Which is actually really amazing considering the cleanliness required of a pharmaceutical company compared to the much lower bar required of a printing factory.) When Brother Schroeder and Brother Gehring heard this in rehearsal, they whispered to each other and Brother Schroeder talked to the brother. I couldn't really tell if the brother was extremely upset, but he looked concerned as if getting some negative counsel.  I was a few seats away and couldn't hear them. At the actual Family Night presentation, the brother who gave the experience changed it to "Both Squibb and the Watchtower each received a rating of 100 percent!!" The difference would have been striking to anyone who attended rehearsal which included about 50 people.

When I first wrote that the point of this OP is not new and that a DF'd child should be shunned, I meant that this has been part of standard "policy" and therefore it is not an entirely "new point" that any Witness should be surprised at. I was also saying it's a rule that was evidently influenced by a different type of economic situation where children immediately moved away from the "roof" of their parents as soon as they could get steady employment. You have probably read some of the early discussions about disfellowshipping of family members in the Watch Tower publications and realize that the "rules" tend to map to the typical middle-class Anglo-American style of homelife that Bethel writers often imagined as an ideal target audience. What Brother Herd was saying was nothing totally new; we've said for years that children should be shunned.
So that was the context of my post that you questioned. But I thought you were putting it in a different context, where you were asking me personally if I thought that shunning a child could ever be "authorized" or scripturally defended. And to those questions I answered that there could be circumstances where shunning a child could be the right thing to do, personally, although I do not think that most shunning that goes on among us is thought through. For most of us, it's a congregational decision following a set of rules reinforced bureaucratically from a central legalistic authority: the WTS. But in reality each of us stands on our own. In this regard none of us should be under any central authority except God and Christ. We should not shun because we are told to shun. Even in the Corinthian congregation, Paul expected that a majority would rebuke this particular man, given the circumstances. He did not expect 100 percent agreement about the way a "disfellowshipped" person was treated. Note the words I highlighted when I quoted this verse above:
(2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 . . . not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man, 7 so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad. 8 Therefore I exhort YOU to confirm YOUR love for him. 9 For to this end also I write to ascertain the proof of YOU, whether YOU are obedient in all things. 10 Anything YOU kindly forgive anyone, I do too. In fact, as for me, whatever I have kindly forgiven, if I have kindly forgiven anything, it has been for YOUR sakes in Christ’s sight; 11 that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs. Note also that Paul didn't expect to be the central authority for the Corinthian congregation, but that he would follow their lead in this matter. As they saw fit to forgive, Paul would obey their lead.
I think a lot of Witnesses would see another phrase in that passage as the one to highlight where Paul says "also I write to ascertain the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things." A lot of Witnesses would see this as a congregational directive from a central authority like Paul or the apostles or a "governing body." But looking at it in the context of what Paul is saying here and several times elsewhere in 2 Corinthians, he is really saying that we should NOT get caught up in any hard fast rules that are inflexible and unbending. The overriding rule to be obedient to "in all things" is the fact that Jesus is the true Head watching over the congregation, and Jesus taught us to be forgiving. Satan wants us to forget that and lose our "fellow feeling" lose our "humanity" lose our "natural affection." And trying to legislate love and forgiveness is a sure way to lose touch with the entire idea of Christ's love and Jehovah's undeserved kindness. If we are only following rules instead of a desire to imitate Christ, then we are being overreached by Satan.
At any rate, this was my point, that we should not be expected to shun just to follow the rules imposed upon a congregation. We shun when it is appropriate, and the Bible tells us that there are times when this is appropriate. But it is our personal conscience telling us what we should do. Just because Lloyd Barry shunned Theodore Jaracz doesn't mean the rest of us should have, as it was probably based on the idea of Matthew 18 or 2 Thessalonians 3. When something is well known in a congregational setting then it is probable that many individuals will decide what to do, and most will do the right thing. If 5 people out of 100 are shunning a man for some reason, this does not necessarily the rest should. Even if a majority of a congregation has shunned someone this does not necessarily mean that the rest should either. (And I suppose this could occur in cases where family bonds should override the majority for certain individuals, too.) Shunning is a "rebuke" meant to say that Christians in the congregation do not approve of the way the conduct might reflect on the teachings of Christ. The reputation of the Christian congregation is the same thing, or should be. The congregation should reflect the teachings of Christ the Head. I know you thought I was overly concerned with the reputation of the congregation, but this is a scriptural concern, too. Note that in the same or adjacent context of how the Corinthians were handling an infamous case of incest, it appears that by not "shunning" the wicked one, it was giving the impression that the Corinthians were proud of putting up with such a thing. But just following this is another verse that appears to also speak to reputation:
(1 Corinthians 6:3-6) . . .Then why not matters of this life? 4 If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down on in the congregation whom you assign as judges? 5 I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers? 6 Instead, brother goes to court against brother, and before unbelievers at that! Yes, this idea gets abused, so that in some churches, even murderers and extortioners and other criminals find sanctuary, and child sexual abusers have been hidden and shuffled around in these same churches. Unfortunately even in our own congregations certain such crimes have been hidden. I don't condone this. Crimes are for the government to punish, those who hold the sword. But the civil matters can surely be adjudicated by wise trusted brothers who could at least do as well as the TV-star "Judge Judy" and her ilk. (You might actually be surprised at how many such "cases" are worked out through congregational elders.) Of course, what's a "civil" matter in some countries might be a "criminal" matter in another country: adultery, for example. The "superior authorities" of Romans 13 have that say, unless they are overstepping God's rulership.
By the way, I don't mean to imply that shunning is only for the reputation of the congregation, looking at it from the outside. There are insiders looking at the reputation of the congregation, too. And another reason has nothing to do with reputation, directly, and that is the need to keep the congregation clean. The "spirit" or attitude of an entire congregation can be influenced, and specific individuals in the congregation could be improperly influenced. "A little leaven spoils the whole lump of dough." "One bad apple..." "Bad associations spoil useful habits." etc.
Note that in Revelation 2 and 3, that the congregations reported directly to Jesus as Head as to whether they properly shunned the teachings or prophecies of certain ones affecting those congregations.
Again, I'll repeat that our method of shunning can be based on our own personal conscience as individuals. But there is nothing unscriptural about it. There may be something unscriptural about the way many of us go about it, however.
 
 

What is known as a 'wind up merchant' then. 
 

@James Thomas Rook Jr.  Haha.... I like how you said that.
I think there is a good tag on here about JFK's assassination stuff as well.
Amazing how as time goes by truth / history is written by the victors.

Some on here say i go completely off topic. But this post is not about masturbation and pornography on the bigger scale of things, its about the Video the GB of JW Org may have made. So it seems you have gone off topic, and it could be said that you are using the topic to tell how much work you do concerning the subject. However, the topic is not about how seriously you take it, it is about the JW Video.  
So when you ask me what am i doing about it all, I give no reply, as it would be off topic. But in reality i don't go asking people if they masturbate and why. It is none of my business what others do in that respect. 

It is my job to help you THINK.
It is NOT my job to supply you with answers.

At Warwick Watchtower World Headquarters they have a very large lake on the property, with a huge remote controlled powered  valve on the bottom, ostensibly to release flood waters with the throw of a switch, when they get too high.
" Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."     (Mark Twain / 1835-1910 / Reflections on Religion / 1906)
"The church is always trying to get other people to reform; it might not be a bad idea to reform itself a little, by way of example."   (Mark Twain / 1835-1910 /A Tramp Abroad)

If while readin' my posts, John, you keep your thumb on the left side of the monitor as you scroll down, you will not lose your place.
I throw my lot in with Jehovah's Witnesses ... not so much because I agree with them, but because generally, they agree with ME. 
I only claim to be a Barbarian, interested in Justice, Truth, and the Theocratic Way.
Oh yes ... I almost forgot .... God's thinking makes perfect common sense, as TRUE theology must.
Corporate interpretations .... sometimes yes ...... sometimes no.
If I am wrong, I must pay the full price for my being wrong.
If THEY are wrong, I STILL pay that full price, whatever it is.
They pay no price whatsoever for totally screwing up other peoples' lives, when they are wrong.

What you are seeing is NOT actually what is there.

Before I die, I would like to read a non fiction version of the Warren Report about JFK's death.

It is hard to believe that 1999 was 19 years ago ....  wow .... like Kermit the Frog says "Time is fun when you are having flies!".
Alien Song I will survive.mp4

Ah but is it the GB's thinking or God's thinking, this is the whole point ? 
Can they give direct scripture where God states such ?  If there is no scripture then are they going beyond the things written ? If so they are adding burden to God's word. 
Surely there is enough pressure for any true servant of God to deal with, without making them feel guilty in an extra way. And as I've said before it might just make some younger people stumble, by thinking that the GB is putting on pressure whilst allowing 'other things' to go unpunished. 
They may see double standards and be stumbled to the point of quitting the JW Org. 
 

Isn't their company motto "Don't be evil"?
Kinda creepy isn't it?
Sort of like a group saying "Don't be cannibals".... which makes you wonder....Could they be cannibals?
Shivers down my spine.

@James Thomas Rook Jr.  Good point. It's not like GOVERNMENT has ever lied to us before... LOL

Here is a thought I just had ... different races are affected differently by different practices .... could it be that this is a very severe problem for some races, leading them to criminal activity and degradation, yet other races it does not affect in an adverse way at all?
I mean .... white people are very susceptible to cystic fibrosis, and malaria, but black people have more of a natural immunity to malaria, and as far as I know, cystic fibrosis is completely unknown (?) in black people. American Indians are said to be completely made crazy by "firewater", or whiskey as known today, but other races , not so much. Jewish people have Tay-Sachs disease, but white people and blacks, and Indians do not (presumably ... I may have gotten some facts mixed up ...)
All people and races are NOT the same .... this is a liberal fantasy.
I did math for 45 years for a living, but I probably could not compete with the average Asian teenager. There is a REASON why the best basketball players are black,  and the best Physicists are Jewish and India Indian ( ...long story there ...).
All people are all equal in the eyes of Jehovah and the Christ.... but NOBODY is equal to anybody else ... and there is a reason why there are NO Japanese Sumo Ballerinas, or 6'-7" Fighter Pilots.
There is a famous joke, with several variations floating around,  that sums this up .... about "Heaven", and "Hell", and the reason it is funny is that there is a basis in truth to it.
Heaven:
The police are British The cooks are French The engineers are German The administrators are Swiss The lovers are Italian Hell:
The police are German The cooks are British The engineers are Italian The administrators are French The lovers are Swiss   Perhaps the reason Jehovah God NEVER mentioned this subject at all, with a view to prohibition.... EVER ... was that with the Jews, it was a simple matter of stress relief ... like a boiling tea kettle letting off  steam ..... or like after a large Mexican Dinner, a round of flatulence, later.
( Think about this ... the human body is 90% water, and when full of digesting food and fermentation or gas pressure builds up ... the gas pressure relief valve is at the BOTTOM of a tank of liquid.  WOW! )
I do not know , but I suspect that like a drunk American Indian, masturbation among some individuals and/or races can be devastating mentally and socially, while for others merely a form of very private relaxation.
Whatever the case is, or perhaps some version I did not think about .... there is ONE THING that ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ABSOLUTELY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY ORDERED NOT TO DO, UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH!
"Do not go beyond the things Written"
 
 

They hear ‘Turn me on, dead man.’ It is very distinct and impossible to mistake, when they play backwards Revolution #9.
Check your ‘Beatles checker’

By the way, as a real aside ... did you know that in court cases about child molestation, the WTB&TS has repeatedly claimed "clergy-penitent privilege" to try and keep from having to disclose information to the authorities?
They claim they are clergy when it suits their corporate purposes, and declare they are not, when not on trial.

... by the way .... Jehovah never spoke against suicide ... another cultural moray to subvert common sense.
Soldiers understand this.
Busybodies do not.
By the way ... in principle, my comments are still on topic.
What is REALLY being discussed here is clergy over-reach, and going beyond the things the Bible  actually says.

Would it be murder if someone was trapped in a burning car, was on fire, and I shot them in the head, killing them.
TECHNICALLY, yes.
... but not REALLY.
Not in the REAL world.of common sense.
On 9-11, when the World Trade Center Towers went down, dozens of people leaped to their deaths, rather than be burned alive.
Was that suicide?
TECHNICALLY, yes.
... but not Really.
Not in the REAL world of common sense.

there are many things that are stupid, that Jehovah has not spoken against.
Its called FREEDOM.
I personally would rail against smoking because it is stupid, suicidal, addiction to drugs, and expensive, but NOT extrapolate and put words into Jehovah's Mouth that he did not speak.
The Society's policies often are a VERY good idea (sometimes NOT) ..... adherence where they espoused Bible counsel correctly, saved my life, integrity,  and health many times .... but when I used to Scuba Dive, Skydive, Surfboard, ride a motorcycle, and explore the Congo (working), and other things, opinions vary as to their advisability, and I considered their overreaching  just being busybodies, forbidding to others what scared them for the sake of total control of EVERYTHING.
(Sad, cringeworthy joke: "Everything that is not forbidden ... is mandatory".)
Jehovah spoke against becoming a drunkard many times .... and I seem to remember,  even against "druggery"..
What is "druggery", anyway? 
And who decides?
If Jehovah did not explicitly say that ... I personally would not make the Almighty God my personal agenda spokesman hand puppet.
However, "Quod est Necessarium, est Licitum" (That which is necessary, is legal). If someone smoked, say marijuana for glaucoma to preserve their eyesight, or to lessen the pain from cancer, I personally think that prohibition would NOT apply.
I am willing to bet my LIFE on that.
My mother and father died slow, from cancer.  If someone was dying and in great pain from disease or injury, being addicted to morphine I personally consider that drug addiction to be quite acceptable.
If they got "high" from it, it would be a side effect.  NOT "druggary" at all.
TRUE Theology ALWAYS has to make common sense !
 

Well ... since I have three mixed race children (white, black, Spanish, Inca Indian and Asian mix) with a permanent "tan", a suspicion of racism is thereby cut off at the knees.