JW Insider

Lol, yes, that's my way of trying to stay on topic. Seriously though, spellcheck is a pain on my phone. It does whatever. My fault for not noticing though. Perhaps that was Furuli's problem too....

I think it was clear that Arauna was referring to humans, not animals. Jehovah was the first to create beings that died, and they died before Satan could cause Eve and Adam to rebel.
Are we back to discussing Furuli's book again? That's the way he spells immortality in at least one place, too.
Just to go off topic a bit more, the view on whether animals died prior to Adam has been pretty consistent. One of the reasons that some fundamentalists need to deny the age of dinosaurs is that they don't want them to have died until Adam sinned. We also used to insist that the animals prior to Adam didn't kill each other for food, going back to Russell, Rutherford, Franz, but this is not insisted upon anymore. Of course, Russell also believed that since animals were so much lower than humans that Jehovah could have used evolution to develop them into their specific kinds.
Going back only half as far as Russell we have a 1950 Watchtower that gives a good answer that's still consistent with current teachings, about how animals lived and died, and will be expected to live and die, even in the new system. (Also happens to cover that point about the kind of death that is destroyed in the lake of fire.)
*** w50 10/15 p. 399 Questions From Readers ***
● Revelation 21:4 says that in the new world there will be no more death. Does this mean that even animals will not die then?—M. I., New York.
This text does not mean that all death will be eliminated. Rebellious human creatures will die during Christ’s millennial reign, and those siding with Satan at the end of the thousand years will perish. (Isa. 65:17, 20; Rev. 20:7-10) True, Revelation 20:14 shows death destroyed and thereafter Revelation 21:4 says there will be no more death, but the death referred to is death due to inheritance from Adam. Men will not then degenerate and die because of Adam’s transgression, but at any future time Jehovah God could execute any willful rebel that would disrupt the peace of the new world. Hence Revelation 21:4 speaks only of the Adamic death of humans, and has no application to the animal realm.
As to whether animals will die in the new world we cannot be dogmatic. It appears that men will not kill them for food, nor will animals prey upon one another. In the new world Jehovah’s original purpose relative to food supplies will be realized, as stated to Adam and Eve: “See, I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are found all over the earth, and all the trees which have seed-bearing fruit; it shall be yours to eat. To all the wild beasts of the earth, to all the birds of the air, and to all the land reptiles, in which there is a living spirit, I give all the green plants for food.” (Gen. 1:29, 30, AT) If that outstanding carnivorous animal, the lion, is to “eat straw like the ox”, surely no others will be meat-eaters. (Isa. 11:6-9) Incidentally, this shows that Revelation 21:4 does not eliminate all death of organic life, for plants will die to become food for men and animals.
But merely that animals will not be used for food does not prove they will live forever. There is reason to believe they will die. Man’s disobedience in Eden did not bring death to animals—they had been living and dying and many forms becoming extinct for thousands of years before man’s creation. The new world will eliminate the effects of Adam’s disobedience, but that does not concern animal death. The status of the beast has remained unchanged since its creation—it lives out its life span and dies. At no time has it had set before it the prospect of eternal life.
Man’s position is different. Adam had hope of eternal life set before him, but that hope vanished when he failed to pass the test of obedience. Had he passed that test he doubtless would have eventually eaten of the “tree of life”. Through Adam all men lost the opportunity of eternal life, but through the ransoming work of Christ Jesus the opportunity is restored and men of good will may hope for eternal life in the new world. None of this concerns animals.
If a man is willfully wicked and scorns the ransom, he will never gain eternal life, though he lives for a few years now. He loses the better position of opportunity that is open for mankind, and drops into the same position as that of animals, a position that offers no opportunities of eternal life. Of such ones the inspired apostle Peter wrote: “But these men, like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed, will, in the things of which they are ignorant and speak abusively, even suffer destruction in their own course of destruction.”—2 Peter 2:12, NW.
If animals had opportunity for eternal life, why would these men who lose such opportunity be compared to them? There seems to be no Scriptural basis for arguing that animals will live forever in the new world, but rather that they will continue being born, maturing, bringing forth offspring, and dying. Argument to the contrary seems to be based largely on sentimental grounds.
 

I think it was clear that Arauna was referring to humans, not animals. Jehovah was the first to create beings that died, and they died before Satan could cause Eve and Adam to rebel.
Are we back to discussing Furuli's book again? That's the way he spells immortality in at least one place, too.
Just to go off topic a bit more, the view on whether animals died prior to Adam has been pretty consistent. One of the reasons that some fundamentalists need to deny the age of dinosaurs is that they don't want them to have died until Adam sinned. We also used to insist that the animals prior to Adam didn't kill each other for food, going back to Russell, Rutherford, Franz, but this is not insisted upon anymore. Of course, Russell also believed that since animals were so much lower than humans that Jehovah could have used evolution to develop them into their specific kinds.
Going back only half as far as Russell we have a 1950 Watchtower that gives a good answer that's still consistent with current teachings, about how animals lived and died, and will be expected to live and die, even in the new system. (Also happens to cover that point about the kind of death that is destroyed in the lake of fire.)
*** w50 10/15 p. 399 Questions From Readers ***
● Revelation 21:4 says that in the new world there will be no more death. Does this mean that even animals will not die then?—M. I., New York.
This text does not mean that all death will be eliminated. Rebellious human creatures will die during Christ’s millennial reign, and those siding with Satan at the end of the thousand years will perish. (Isa. 65:17, 20; Rev. 20:7-10) True, Revelation 20:14 shows death destroyed and thereafter Revelation 21:4 says there will be no more death, but the death referred to is death due to inheritance from Adam. Men will not then degenerate and die because of Adam’s transgression, but at any future time Jehovah God could execute any willful rebel that would disrupt the peace of the new world. Hence Revelation 21:4 speaks only of the Adamic death of humans, and has no application to the animal realm.
As to whether animals will die in the new world we cannot be dogmatic. It appears that men will not kill them for food, nor will animals prey upon one another. In the new world Jehovah’s original purpose relative to food supplies will be realized, as stated to Adam and Eve: “See, I give you all the seed-bearing plants that are found all over the earth, and all the trees which have seed-bearing fruit; it shall be yours to eat. To all the wild beasts of the earth, to all the birds of the air, and to all the land reptiles, in which there is a living spirit, I give all the green plants for food.” (Gen. 1:29, 30, AT) If that outstanding carnivorous animal, the lion, is to “eat straw like the ox”, surely no others will be meat-eaters. (Isa. 11:6-9) Incidentally, this shows that Revelation 21:4 does not eliminate all death of organic life, for plants will die to become food for men and animals.
But merely that animals will not be used for food does not prove they will live forever. There is reason to believe they will die. Man’s disobedience in Eden did not bring death to animals—they had been living and dying and many forms becoming extinct for thousands of years before man’s creation. The new world will eliminate the effects of Adam’s disobedience, but that does not concern animal death. The status of the beast has remained unchanged since its creation—it lives out its life span and dies. At no time has it had set before it the prospect of eternal life.
Man’s position is different. Adam had hope of eternal life set before him, but that hope vanished when he failed to pass the test of obedience. Had he passed that test he doubtless would have eventually eaten of the “tree of life”. Through Adam all men lost the opportunity of eternal life, but through the ransoming work of Christ Jesus the opportunity is restored and men of good will may hope for eternal life in the new world. None of this concerns animals.
If a man is willfully wicked and scorns the ransom, he will never gain eternal life, though he lives for a few years now. He loses the better position of opportunity that is open for mankind, and drops into the same position as that of animals, a position that offers no opportunities of eternal life. Of such ones the inspired apostle Peter wrote: “But these men, like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed, will, in the things of which they are ignorant and speak abusively, even suffer destruction in their own course of destruction.”—2 Peter 2:12, NW.
If animals had opportunity for eternal life, why would these men who lose such opportunity be compared to them? There seems to be no Scriptural basis for arguing that animals will live forever in the new world, but rather that they will continue being born, maturing, bringing forth offspring, and dying. Argument to the contrary seems to be based largely on sentimental grounds.
 

I think we can look at it like this. According to Psalm 110, Jesus sits at Jehovah's right hand to rule in the midst of his enemies, and the various forms of death, such as from war, pestilence, famine, etc., are the primary enemies that Jesus rules in the midst of and ultimately 'put under his feet,' that is, conquered. So it's the "enemy death" that is conquered by finally destroying it permanently. If and when Jehovah uses "death" after the 1,000 years, it will be by his own hand, a cleansing, and will therefore be a "gift" to his people. The "sting" of the enemy, death, will be gone forever.
That's another topic. How do we "know" that humans on earth (after they "come to life" when the 1,000 years are completed) will not be immortal?

I think we can look at it like this. According to Psalm 110, Jesus sits at Jehovah's right hand to rule in the midst of his enemies, and the various forms of death, such as from war, pestilence, famine, etc., are the primary enemies that Jesus rules in the midst of and ultimately 'put under his feet,' that is, conquered. So it's the "enemy death" that is conquered by finally destroying it permanently. If and when Jehovah uses "death" after the 1,000 years, it will be by his own hand, a cleansing, and will therefore be a "gift" to his people. The "sting" of the enemy, death, will be gone forever.
That's another topic. How do we "know" that humans on earth (after they "come to life" when the 1,000 years are completed) will not be immortal?

But you might pay a bit more for the advantage in knowing just how well the car was maintained, how carefully it was driven, etc. Right? You know and trust the "previous" owner, because it was you.

Yes, it's definitely been moved. I've noticed things move quite frequently... 

What you generally describe does seem to work with the gospel accounts. There are some specific points I would still question, including the fact that Anna already pointed out: Jesus was not nailed until reaching the final place of execution.
Some have shown concern about whether Jesus could really have carried his stauros considering the weight. There is some evidence that the Roman execution process could include putting a notch in the patibulum beam of the stauros that was carried in public on the way to the execution site. 
Some have also shown concern about the extra time it would take to prepare a patibulum with a notch while in the midst of a "rush" to judgment. But if a stake/tree was already standing at the place of execution "Skull Place" it could have already contained the notch that the patibulum was merely hoisted onto.
The idea of the arms stretched wide across a patibulum to carry it, and then later having the hands nailed widely apart onto that same patibulum also solves an issue about whether a ladder was needed. If Jesus were already nailed to a patibulum then 2 or 3 soldiers who were 6-feet tall could easily hoist it to a notch (already prepared) about 8 feet off the ground. If the arms remain at about the same level as the head, then Jesus' feet are still a foot or two off the ground depending on his height. And they would need to be nailed, too.
Previously, some have speculated that the very fact that this Skull Place existed and two criminals were being executed there on the same day could be an indication that the scarce timber of this country was already standing in place ready for constant re-use without the need to dig new holes and hoist tall poles into them and shore them up so that they could not fall over. The patibulum practice of making someone march through the public carrying it on their back, makes perfect sense in such an environment. 
But it's still speculation. To me it's a matter of which way the overall evidence leans.

I think it's still there. Under "Becoming a Witness"

I think this has been discussed somewhere before, that in fact Gnam's claim was correct, that is, in the context of a family member living at home, which would naturally apply to husband and wife, and any children that were currently a part of the household. But, the claim was deceptive because it did not clarify this, and allowed for the assumption that the topic included ANY family member living inside or outside the home, in other words in a broad sense, which is how most people view "family". 

Yes. I think this is implied. It's a very imperfect world, and sometimes the world rubs off on us.
But this does not mean that all of the arguments made by WTS lawyers in defense of the WTS are false. I think this is what some non-Witnesses (especially, ex-Witnesses) are anxious to believe. What's shouldn't be lost here, is that many of the points that WTS lawyers make in cases about child abuse are actually quite true. For example:
The Watchtower Society/Organization is not responsible for the criminal and sinful actions of its members. Many of the arguments made in court that people complain about are merely trying to mitigate liability that was not the liability of the WTS in the first place. In many cases the victim goes after the WTS because that is the only place they can get financial redress. The primary criminal party is the perpetrator. There are times when the local elders are the ones showing negligence in after-the-fact investigations, trying to protect the reputation of the congregation or certain members of it. The liability, in this case should be on those elders. Only when following improper instructions from the WTS, should the WTS be partially liable. And even here, the local elders should understand their own personal responsibility if a process seems unconscionable. Much has been made of members of the judicial committees destroying notes made during the "investigation" process, as if this is all about a cover-up. Yet, destroying extraneous notes is (and often should be) common practice in organizations of all types, so that the findings are highlighted, not the messy process. If someone believes all elders are evil, they will think that the "official" version, which is never destroyed, is always a cover-up. But this view says more about the person imputing the wrong motives, and shows that they have not understood the typical investigation process. Watchtower disciplinary policy in congregations is not to be confused with Caesar's discipline. There are things the WTS should have done better to reduce the repetition of such crimes by perpetrators, but very little can be done about the original crime. There were things about the process in judging such matters that needed improvements too. More recently these "after-the-fact" matters and processes were handled and revised about as well as can be expected. Anyway, I only went off topic here to show that it's too easy to claim that WTS defense attorneys are constantly being dishonest. In most cases they are just using the law to protect the financial interests of the client. It's more of a negotiation, and they have to be careful what words they use. But there are also times when the "twisted" words of some attorneys shows that the WTS itself wishes it could hide some practices from the world. But if these practices are right, such as "shunning," then we should be proud to be upholding righteous counsel from the Bible. If upholding righteous counsel from the Bible makes us liable before the world, we should be proud to accept the consequences. Lying about it, or twisting words about it, makes it obvious that we are ashamed to uphold God's word in the way that we do.
This is quite separate from child abuse cases, which have also sometimes included dishonesty by both defense attorneys and attorneys for victims. But when Geoffrey Jackson argues that we don't believe that Proverbs referred to a physical rod for disciplining children, or when a Witness child custody attorney argues that our summer conventions were really more about vacation fun than spiritual education, or when . . . .
I won't turn it into an itemized list for opposers, but these things have already been commented upon elsewhere.

@Witness referenced a recent Watchtower article from 2013 that shows that the word "shunning" is interchangeable with "disfellowshipping."
It was also in the same 2013 Watchtower where an article was referenced on jw.org:
*** w13 8/1 p. 2 Table of Contents ***
READ MORE ONLINE | www.jw.org
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES—Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
(Look under ABOUT US > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)

The Frequently Asked Questions section is still there, but that particular article has been removed. You have to go to the Wayback Machine (internet.archive.org) and look for the article that was picked up 62 times between August 30, 2012 and February 6, 2019. (There have been 16,777 captures from the jw.org website on the Wayback Machine from 2012, and the most recent was today). The article in question says:
Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
... We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.
And we can go back to the 1970's up through 2016 (and website up to 2019) to see that the word "shun" was commonly used as part of our vocabulary for how we should shun disfellowshipped persons. The 1988 case has been mentioned above as it was reported in the 1988 Watchtower.
The shunning article was removed from the website in February 2019 about 15 months after the Canadian case in 2017. Just before the Canadian court presentation in 2017, the October 2017 Wathtower said this:
*** w17 October p. 16 par. 19 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***
For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
This is exactly at odds with Gnam's claim that normal family life goes on.
2017
*** lvs chap. 3 p. 40 par. 19 Choose Friends Who Love God ***
He may choose to leave the congregation himself, or he may have to be disfellowshipped. If this happens, the Bible clearly says that we should “stop keeping company” with him. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.—See Endnote 8.
2019
*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.
2016
It was in the 2016 Assembly where the following part of the program even included a dramatic example of how family members don't allow family life to go on normally:

But the actual word "shun" disappeared from the website in 2019 (so far).

@Witness referenced a recent Watchtower article from 2013 that shows that the word "shunning" is interchangeable with "disfellowshipping."
It was also in the same 2013 Watchtower where an article was referenced on jw.org:
*** w13 8/1 p. 2 Table of Contents ***
READ MORE ONLINE | www.jw.org
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES—Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
(Look under ABOUT US > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)

The Frequently Asked Questions section is still there, but that particular article has been removed. You have to go to the Wayback Machine (internet.archive.org) and look for the article that was picked up 62 times between August 30, 2012 and February 6, 2019. (There have been 16,777 captures from the jw.org website on the Wayback Machine from 2012, and the most recent was today). The article in question says:
Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
... We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.
And we can go back to the 1970's up through 2016 (and website up to 2019) to see that the word "shun" was commonly used as part of our vocabulary for how we should shun disfellowshipped persons. The 1988 case has been mentioned above as it was reported in the 1988 Watchtower.
The shunning article was removed from the website in February 2019 about 15 months after the Canadian case in 2017. Just before the Canadian court presentation in 2017, the October 2017 Wathtower said this:
*** w17 October p. 16 par. 19 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***
For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
This is exactly at odds with Gnam's claim that normal family life goes on.
2017
*** lvs chap. 3 p. 40 par. 19 Choose Friends Who Love God ***
He may choose to leave the congregation himself, or he may have to be disfellowshipped. If this happens, the Bible clearly says that we should “stop keeping company” with him. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.—See Endnote 8.
2019
*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.
2016
It was in the 2016 Assembly where the following part of the program even included a dramatic example of how family members don't allow family life to go on normally:

But the actual word "shun" disappeared from the website in 2019 (so far).

@Witness referenced a recent Watchtower article from 2013 that shows that the word "shunning" is interchangeable with "disfellowshipping."
It was also in the same 2013 Watchtower where an article was referenced on jw.org:
*** w13 8/1 p. 2 Table of Contents ***
READ MORE ONLINE | www.jw.org
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES—Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
(Look under ABOUT US > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)

The Frequently Asked Questions section is still there, but that particular article has been removed. You have to go to the Wayback Machine (internet.archive.org) and look for the article that was picked up 62 times between August 30, 2012 and February 6, 2019. (There have been 16,777 captures from the jw.org website on the Wayback Machine from 2012, and the most recent was today). The article in question says:
Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
... We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.
And we can go back to the 1970's up through 2016 (and website up to 2019) to see that the word "shun" was commonly used as part of our vocabulary for how we should shun disfellowshipped persons. The 1988 case has been mentioned above as it was reported in the 1988 Watchtower.
The shunning article was removed from the website in February 2019 about 15 months after the Canadian case in 2017. Just before the Canadian court presentation in 2017, the October 2017 Wathtower said this:
*** w17 October p. 16 par. 19 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***
For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
This is exactly at odds with Gnam's claim that normal family life goes on.
2017
*** lvs chap. 3 p. 40 par. 19 Choose Friends Who Love God ***
He may choose to leave the congregation himself, or he may have to be disfellowshipped. If this happens, the Bible clearly says that we should “stop keeping company” with him. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.—See Endnote 8.
2019
*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.
2016
It was in the 2016 Assembly where the following part of the program even included a dramatic example of how family members don't allow family life to go on normally:

But the actual word "shun" disappeared from the website in 2019 (so far).

@Witness referenced a recent Watchtower article from 2013 that shows that the word "shunning" is interchangeable with "disfellowshipping."
It was also in the same 2013 Watchtower where an article was referenced on jw.org:
*** w13 8/1 p. 2 Table of Contents ***
READ MORE ONLINE | www.jw.org
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES—Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
(Look under ABOUT US > FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS)

The Frequently Asked Questions section is still there, but that particular article has been removed. You have to go to the Wayback Machine (internet.archive.org) and look for the article that was picked up 62 times between August 30, 2012 and February 6, 2019. (There have been 16,777 captures from the jw.org website on the Wayback Machine from 2012, and the most recent was today). The article in question says:
Do You Shun Former Members of Your Religion?
... We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped.
And we can go back to the 1970's up through 2016 (and website up to 2019) to see that the word "shun" was commonly used as part of our vocabulary for how we should shun disfellowshipped persons. The 1988 case has been mentioned above as it was reported in the 1988 Watchtower.
The shunning article was removed from the website in February 2019 about 15 months after the Canadian case in 2017. Just before the Canadian court presentation in 2017, the October 2017 Wathtower said this:
*** w17 October p. 16 par. 19 The Truth Brings, “Not Peace, But a Sword” ***
For example, Jehovah instructs us to “stop keeping company” with unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Despite our pain of heart, we must avoid normal contact with a disfellowshipped family member by telephone, text messages, letters, e-mails, or social media.
This is exactly at odds with Gnam's claim that normal family life goes on.
2017
*** lvs chap. 3 p. 40 par. 19 Choose Friends Who Love God ***
He may choose to leave the congregation himself, or he may have to be disfellowshipped. If this happens, the Bible clearly says that we should “stop keeping company” with him. (Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) This can be very difficult if he is a friend of ours or a member of our family. But in a situation like this, our loyalty to Jehovah must be stronger than our loyalty to anyone else.—See Endnote 8.
2019
*** od p. 200 Part 2: Christian Living ***
17. If an announcement is made that someone is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, how should we treat him?
• “Stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”—1 Cor. 5:11.
• “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.”—2 John 10.
2016
It was in the 2016 Assembly where the following part of the program even included a dramatic example of how family members don't allow family life to go on normally:

But the actual word "shun" disappeared from the website in 2019 (so far).

Here, the word “shunned” is interchangeable with “disfellowshipped”:
"We do not automatically disfellowship someone who commits a serious sin. If, however, a baptized Witness makes a practice of breaking the Bible’s moral code and does not repent, he or she will be shunned or disfellowshipped. W 13/8/1
 
 
 

Yes. I think this is implied. It's a very imperfect world, and sometimes the world rubs off on us.
But this does not mean that all of the arguments made by WTS lawyers in defense of the WTS are false. I think this is what some non-Witnesses (especially, ex-Witnesses) are anxious to believe. What's shouldn't be lost here, is that many of the points that WTS lawyers make in cases about child abuse are actually quite true. For example:
The Watchtower Society/Organization is not responsible for the criminal and sinful actions of its members. Many of the arguments made in court that people complain about are merely trying to mitigate liability that was not the liability of the WTS in the first place. In many cases the victim goes after the WTS because that is the only place they can get financial redress. The primary criminal party is the perpetrator. There are times when the local elders are the ones showing negligence in after-the-fact investigations, trying to protect the reputation of the congregation or certain members of it. The liability, in this case should be on those elders. Only when following improper instructions from the WTS, should the WTS be partially liable. And even here, the local elders should understand their own personal responsibility if a process seems unconscionable. Much has been made of members of the judicial committees destroying notes made during the "investigation" process, as if this is all about a cover-up. Yet, destroying extraneous notes is (and often should be) common practice in organizations of all types, so that the findings are highlighted, not the messy process. If someone believes all elders are evil, they will think that the "official" version, which is never destroyed, is always a cover-up. But this view says more about the person imputing the wrong motives, and shows that they have not understood the typical investigation process. Watchtower disciplinary policy in congregations is not to be confused with Caesar's discipline. There are things the WTS should have done better to reduce the repetition of such crimes by perpetrators, but very little can be done about the original crime. There were things about the process in judging such matters that needed improvements too. More recently these "after-the-fact" matters and processes were handled and revised about as well as can be expected. Anyway, I only went off topic here to show that it's too easy to claim that WTS defense attorneys are constantly being dishonest. In most cases they are just using the law to protect the financial interests of the client. It's more of a negotiation, and they have to be careful what words they use. But there are also times when the "twisted" words of some attorneys shows that the WTS itself wishes it could hide some practices from the world. But if these practices are right, such as "shunning," then we should be proud to be upholding righteous counsel from the Bible. If upholding righteous counsel from the Bible makes us liable before the world, we should be proud to accept the consequences. Lying about it, or twisting words about it, makes it obvious that we are ashamed to uphold God's word in the way that we do.
This is quite separate from child abuse cases, which have also sometimes included dishonesty by both defense attorneys and attorneys for victims. But when Geoffrey Jackson argues that we don't believe that Proverbs referred to a physical rod for disciplining children, or when a Witness child custody attorney argues that our summer conventions were really more about vacation fun than spiritual education, or when . . . .
I won't turn it into an itemized list for opposers, but these things have already been commented upon elsewhere.

Lawyering (and barristering) is a whole field unto itself with its own ethics considerations, similar to how policeman in the United States are legally allowed, and often expected, to lie to a suspect to elicit incriminating information for a case. My oldest son is an attorney. In his last two years of law school they had him do paid summer internships with a well-known and well-respected firm in NYC, and they kept putting him on cases to help defend cigarette companies and insurance companies to lower their payouts. He was not an attorney yet, but he learned how the entire existence of some of the major law firms is based on their ability to get away with lying. After he took the exam and became a lawyer himself, he took a job in family court, and found, of course, that dishonesty pervades each side of arguments there, too. So now he does mostly real estate, wills and estates, and contract law. (Yet in just those few weeks of paid internship as a non-attorney he made more money than in his first year of being an attorney.)
The case with Gnam above is not nearly as serious as others, even compared to examples of other Watchtower lawyers in the U.S. But I don't condone such dishonesty, even in small amounts. In my opinion Mr. David Gnam is dishonest here, and therefore a wrongdoer, and very likely an unrepentant wrongdoer. I don't think he should be disbarred, but he should not be used by the Watchtower Society in any way unless he is ready to be honest.

Well said. 
I sympathize with all victims but with the latest laws the government has shifted the responsibility of bad legislation onto all the organizations working with children.
The government changed the laws so the victims can go after old cases retroactively now they are adult and can talk and testify better and take the ' organization ' to court.  This means that the government is shifting its responsibility on the organizations who work with children. But many of these organizations have closed.... like boy scouts etc. We are still active.
There are not many JW cases but because it is JW, those who hate us blow up these cases as if we are all child molesters..... when most of us live clean, honest lives and hate these crimes.
They are not going after the perpetrator because they know it is too hard to convict.  They go after the organization - which in most cases did not have the resources ( child psychologists etc) to go after the perpetrator.
We are an organization which tries to create a safe environment for children but we are not a crime fighting organization. This is the job of the police and government. They should take these cases and get a conviction and put the perpetrator behind bars - not retroactively after 20 or 30 years put it on the organization.  
In this way the perpetrator is still walking free and JWs carry the shame. Perpetrator ....... does he have any consequences for his actions with this legislation! 

Am I to be disciplined?  Oh no not  4jah - he is going to decapitatate me

Yes. I think this is implied. It's a very imperfect world, and sometimes the world rubs off on us.
But this does not mean that all of the arguments made by WTS lawyers in defense of the WTS are false. I think this is what some non-Witnesses (especially, ex-Witnesses) are anxious to believe. What's shouldn't be lost here, is that many of the points that WTS lawyers make in cases about child abuse are actually quite true. For example:
The Watchtower Society/Organization is not responsible for the criminal and sinful actions of its members. Many of the arguments made in court that people complain about are merely trying to mitigate liability that was not the liability of the WTS in the first place. In many cases the victim goes after the WTS because that is the only place they can get financial redress. The primary criminal party is the perpetrator. There are times when the local elders are the ones showing negligence in after-the-fact investigations, trying to protect the reputation of the congregation or certain members of it. The liability, in this case should be on those elders. Only when following improper instructions from the WTS, should the WTS be partially liable. And even here, the local elders should understand their own personal responsibility if a process seems unconscionable. Much has been made of members of the judicial committees destroying notes made during the "investigation" process, as if this is all about a cover-up. Yet, destroying extraneous notes is (and often should be) common practice in organizations of all types, so that the findings are highlighted, not the messy process. If someone believes all elders are evil, they will think that the "official" version, which is never destroyed, is always a cover-up. But this view says more about the person imputing the wrong motives, and shows that they have not understood the typical investigation process. Watchtower disciplinary policy in congregations is not to be confused with Caesar's discipline. There are things the WTS should have done better to reduce the repetition of such crimes by perpetrators, but very little can be done about the original crime. There were things about the process in judging such matters that needed improvements too. More recently these "after-the-fact" matters and processes were handled and revised about as well as can be expected. Anyway, I only went off topic here to show that it's too easy to claim that WTS defense attorneys are constantly being dishonest. In most cases they are just using the law to protect the financial interests of the client. It's more of a negotiation, and they have to be careful what words they use. But there are also times when the "twisted" words of some attorneys shows that the WTS itself wishes it could hide some practices from the world. But if these practices are right, such as "shunning," then we should be proud to be upholding righteous counsel from the Bible. If upholding righteous counsel from the Bible makes us liable before the world, we should be proud to accept the consequences. Lying about it, or twisting words about it, makes it obvious that we are ashamed to uphold God's word in the way that we do.
This is quite separate from child abuse cases, which have also sometimes included dishonesty by both defense attorneys and attorneys for victims. But when Geoffrey Jackson argues that we don't believe that Proverbs referred to a physical rod for disciplining children, or when a Witness child custody attorney argues that our summer conventions were really more about vacation fun than spiritual education, or when . . . .
I won't turn it into an itemized list for opposers, but these things have already been commented upon elsewhere.

Yes. I think this is implied. It's a very imperfect world, and sometimes the world rubs off on us.
But this does not mean that all of the arguments made by WTS lawyers in defense of the WTS are false. I think this is what some non-Witnesses (especially, ex-Witnesses) are anxious to believe. What's shouldn't be lost here, is that many of the points that WTS lawyers make in cases about child abuse are actually quite true. For example:
The Watchtower Society/Organization is not responsible for the criminal and sinful actions of its members. Many of the arguments made in court that people complain about are merely trying to mitigate liability that was not the liability of the WTS in the first place. In many cases the victim goes after the WTS because that is the only place they can get financial redress. The primary criminal party is the perpetrator. There are times when the local elders are the ones showing negligence in after-the-fact investigations, trying to protect the reputation of the congregation or certain members of it. The liability, in this case should be on those elders. Only when following improper instructions from the WTS, should the WTS be partially liable. And even here, the local elders should understand their own personal responsibility if a process seems unconscionable. Much has been made of members of the judicial committees destroying notes made during the "investigation" process, as if this is all about a cover-up. Yet, destroying extraneous notes is (and often should be) common practice in organizations of all types, so that the findings are highlighted, not the messy process. If someone believes all elders are evil, they will think that the "official" version, which is never destroyed, is always a cover-up. But this view says more about the person imputing the wrong motives, and shows that they have not understood the typical investigation process. Watchtower disciplinary policy in congregations is not to be confused with Caesar's discipline. There are things the WTS should have done better to reduce the repetition of such crimes by perpetrators, but very little can be done about the original crime. There were things about the process in judging such matters that needed improvements too. More recently these "after-the-fact" matters and processes were handled and revised about as well as can be expected. Anyway, I only went off topic here to show that it's too easy to claim that WTS defense attorneys are constantly being dishonest. In most cases they are just using the law to protect the financial interests of the client. It's more of a negotiation, and they have to be careful what words they use. But there are also times when the "twisted" words of some attorneys shows that the WTS itself wishes it could hide some practices from the world. But if these practices are right, such as "shunning," then we should be proud to be upholding righteous counsel from the Bible. If upholding righteous counsel from the Bible makes us liable before the world, we should be proud to accept the consequences. Lying about it, or twisting words about it, makes it obvious that we are ashamed to uphold God's word in the way that we do.
This is quite separate from child abuse cases, which have also sometimes included dishonesty by both defense attorneys and attorneys for victims. But when Geoffrey Jackson argues that we don't believe that Proverbs referred to a physical rod for disciplining children, or when a Witness child custody attorney argues that our summer conventions were really more about vacation fun than spiritual education, or when . . . .
I won't turn it into an itemized list for opposers, but these things have already been commented upon elsewhere.

You are just trying to kill off 4Jah with cognitive dissonance and I do not approve. You know very well that he will wildly cheer one statement, turn furious at the next, and laugh hysterically at the one thereafter—and that the strain will cause him to drop dead.
Such attempted manipulation ought not be allowed. I am forwarding a note to the elders who run this forum to ban you from it.
It really is the case that in the last days people will be saying what is bad is good and vice versa. It is not only you. I just called out Arauna for trying to kill him too, by playing with matters of capitalization. Really, everyone is going awry here—all the true prophets have been killed off and it is only I that remains—yes, only I.

Lawyering (and barristering) is a whole field unto itself with its own ethics considerations, similar to how policeman in the United States are legally allowed, and often expected, to lie to a suspect to elicit incriminating information for a case. My oldest son is an attorney. In his last two years of law school they had him do paid summer internships with a well-known and well-respected firm in NYC, and they kept putting him on cases to help defend cigarette companies and insurance companies to lower their payouts. He was not an attorney yet, but he learned how the entire existence of some of the major law firms is based on their ability to get away with lying. After he took the exam and became a lawyer himself, he took a job in family court, and found, of course, that dishonesty pervades each side of arguments there, too. So now he does mostly real estate, wills and estates, and contract law. (Yet in just those few weeks of paid internship as a non-attorney he made more money than in his first year of being an attorney.)
The case with Gnam above is not nearly as serious as others, even compared to examples of other Watchtower lawyers in the U.S. But I don't condone such dishonesty, even in small amounts. In my opinion Mr. David Gnam is dishonest here, and therefore a wrongdoer, and very likely an unrepentant wrongdoer. I don't think he should be disbarred, but he should not be used by the Watchtower Society in any way unless he is ready to be honest.

Lawyering (and barristering) is a whole field unto itself with its own ethics considerations, similar to how policeman in the United States are legally allowed, and often expected, to lie to a suspect to elicit incriminating information for a case. My oldest son is an attorney. In his last two years of law school they had him do paid summer internships with a well-known and well-respected firm in NYC, and they kept putting him on cases to help defend cigarette companies and insurance companies to lower their payouts. He was not an attorney yet, but he learned how the entire existence of some of the major law firms is based on their ability to get away with lying. After he took the exam and became a lawyer himself, he took a job in family court, and found, of course, that dishonesty pervades each side of arguments there, too. So now he does mostly real estate, wills and estates, and contract law. (Yet in just those few weeks of paid internship as a non-attorney he made more money than in his first year of being an attorney.)
The case with Gnam above is not nearly as serious as others, even compared to examples of other Watchtower lawyers in the U.S. But I don't condone such dishonesty, even in small amounts. In my opinion Mr. David Gnam is dishonest here, and therefore a wrongdoer, and very likely an unrepentant wrongdoer. I don't think he should be disbarred, but he should not be used by the Watchtower Society in any way unless he is ready to be honest.