JW Insider

Yes, it is a man made rule, but based at least in part on scriptural principles. Also these are man-made rules coming from those who should be in a better position to see a wider set of statistics and experiences as they get reports from all around the world. Elders are sometimes called "epi-skopos" in Greek, meaning overseers. When we consider those who literally watch over a flock closely, we might expect them to count the number of sick, the number who die, the number eaten, the number of sheep in various categories: mottled, speckled, young, old, male, female. They also know the dangers of taking them through "Wolf Ravine" or making them wade through "Poison Water River." Similarly, if the elders working at headquarters got 100 reports of divorces right after holding an international convention in Las Vegas or Amsterdam, but no reports of divorces every time they held the same size international conventions in Helsinki or Reykjavík, I think it would be a wise man-made rule not to schedule international conventions in Las Vegas or Amsterdam. Not all traditions make the word of God void.
The WTS had a program to pay for Law School for selected individuals already working full time at Bethel or other full time service who showed promise or aptitude for such. This program was dropped, and you can be sure that there those at HQ who were counting the cost, much like those shepherd counting the survivors of "Wolf Ravine." They reverted back the previous system of using volunteers who had finished Law School before becoming Witnesses.
Age 17.
But all scores that count are measured at the end of Junior year, not Senior year of American High School. Therefore it requires a conscious choice to pick the maximum number of advanced placement classes which could result in the best choices and scholarships and would therefore be a path chosen by age 15 or 16 at the latest.
Local papers print up the bio given by a Guidance Counselor office of each high school reporting on the scores of their "Valedictorians" and those who are accepted by certain colleges.
Asked and answered in a prior post.
So far, I believe well more than half of the GB says.   
I believe that since WE, if we hope to be noble-minded individuals, are responsible to search the Scriptures and see whether these things are so, then this must be WE not only THEM. And there are many ways to tell someone about the Kingdom hope, the paradise, the resurrection, God's purpose, God's government, and why it's got to be a sight better than what we are putting up with now. Sometimes the CLAM workbook is spot on, sometimes it doesn't fit my style at all.

This might be true, but I think that you have had some trouble pinning this "GB worshiper" label on people here. You probably see a lot of potentially contradictory ideas that seem like cognitive dissonance to you. But this might just be a point that many thousands of JWs have reached, while trying to make sense of the extent of human imperfection in trying to put a human structure around good spiritual concepts.
We often look back at Israel's past, or even note the imperfect leadership of the early Christian congregation. Do we expect to be any better? Jesus said of the Pharisees and other religious leaders in his day that they had put themselves in the seat of Moses, and some ended up making "disciples" who were worse off than before they started. Yet what did Jesus also say about some of the same leaders?
Matthew 23:2-4 says: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.…
We can still follow, even "obey" religious leaders, even when we know they are very imperfect.
Any organized religious structure will end up being led by men who are imperfect, and therefore by men that we can never trust 100 percent, no matter how well they think they are doing. This is really what we must always expect: "Put not your trust in earthling man (even princes/nobles) in whom no salvation belongs" "Let God be found true though every man be found a liar."
Still, Christianity requires a human, social structure because it is a "brotherhood." It's a place where we can comfort others and be comforted, encourage others and be encouraged, feed and clothe and visit others, and be fed, clothed, and visited as needed. But those who would be "leaders" at the very top of any organization will always tend to grasp at reasons to explain and hold on to their authority. They may not well understand this authoritative position they are engaged in, and human nature will lead them to continue in the type of behavior that works best for persons in authority. They will tend to look for what they believe is the best solution to any religious questions (doctrine, process), and then make a "command" out of it. It's the reason that we don't see a lot of public admission that a question has them vexed. Instead, in order for authority to work (for most of us) they must make a private decision about what solution works the best (least number of unexplained discrepencies) and then teach this "solution" (often conjecture) as if it is gospel. 
(1 Peter 4:11) . . .If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God;. . .
(NIV) If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so.
Some of these "oracles" will attract sycophantic followers. That's also human nature. Russell acted as one of those "oracles" and so did Rutherford and Fred Franz, and David Splane to an extent. Just like in the first century congregation, people followed Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, who were all fine ministers. Some of us want to think of these modern day examples as being apostle-like. Some might even be apostle-like, but it's up to us to never just accept them this way, but to put all new teachings to the test.
(Revelation 2:2, 14) . . .and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars.. . . you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus. . . . you tolerate that woman Jezʹe·bel . . . I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching . . .
Notice that Jesus' instructions to the 7 congregations was never about waiting for a governing body of apostle-like persons to tell them what was true and false teaching. It was the congregation's own responsibility to put to the test anyone who wanted them to be accepted as apostle-like. They were responsible to compare it to the true original apostolic source (for us, the Biblical source of teaching)  "Therefore, continue mindful of how you have received and how you heard, and go on keeping it. . ." (Revelation 3:3)
As an aside, I would also say that the congregation is a place to inculcate the existing Bible teachings, not a place to find "new" teachings. It's a place to keep our spirits up, and keep our love alive, so that we can endure. Jesus addresses those in the congregations, but ends this section by making a point about how they all would stand to be judged as individuals.
(Revelation 3:19-22) 19 “‘All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent. 20 Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into his house and take the evening meal with him and he with me. 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”
We're never going to get away from leaders who are imperfect and who will, by human nature, tend to ask us to believe and act only in a certain way. This is useful for some, especially at first. But we should also mature:
(Hebrews 5:14) 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

Accidentally saw her on a late show with her daughter hawking a book. (After all, with Hillary, the late show had booked a Hawk.)
Don't mean to start any rumors, but her robotic laughter had been turned up to "11" and made her sound a bit drunk, to me. Also, her daughter answered questions about needing to be protective of her mother because of all the mean things people like Trump were saying about her. It seemed sad and patronizing to poor little Hillary, as if Chelsea was speaking about taking care of a defenseless out-of-touch Alzheimer's patient.
 

“Trying to fulfill.”
That hardly sounds delusional to me. Nor does it seem haughty or pretentious. 
If it is not them, who else could it be? (No Facebook pages allowed) (It is not Dilbert, either)

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.
But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.
But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 
I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.
But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.
But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 
I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.
But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.
But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 
I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.
But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.
But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 
I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

This could be true for some. No one was telling me I couldn't go to college, though. Their concern was that it would set a poor example to appoint an elder and then the congregation simultaneously found out I was going to college. But if a congregation needs elders, there is almost no difference in the amount and types of assignments given to ministerial servants. Even as an MS, I had been giving 5 different public talks (3 from the outlines), and was still being invited to give some of them in different congregations every few weeks. I believe I had either the 15 minute "Instruction Talk" or a 15 minute part on the Service Meeting about 3 times a month. And I was not told I had to pioneer, while attending college, but had offered this idea as a way to show that college was a not a full time priority in my life. No one held me to it anyway, as I only could manage pioneering for two more years. In my third year I was offered a great job and started it before graduation.
But still, it's always good counsel to give to anyone who is thinking about college, that they think about their priorities before making a decision. I've given the same counsel to others, but I make sure they still know it's their own choice, and we wish them all the best outcomes.
But then 30 years later, the issue comes up again with my own children. The need to step down as an elder if your kids go to college is not enforced consistently, at least in the United States. When children get large scholarships it can make it more sensible economically to go to a four year college, but it still gives the impression that you are putting economic and material interests ahead of the urgency necessary based on the shortness of the time to the end. The issue of setting a good example is not just for the congregation, but also the fact that you might not even have your own family in "subjection." Of course, kids go to college when they are 18, and I don't believe in "subjection" at this point in their lives. I believe in learning from my kids, and letting myself be subjected to hearing about what they are learning. 
I am not concerned too much about the Society's position on higher education. At this point, the economic benefits are too often a trap due to the high cost and doubtful employment outcomes. And although I'm sure I'd be welcomed to return as an elder, I am happy with all the things that can be done without the title. Also, you might know that I have a lot of difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote shunning, 1914, the sign, the generation, the "presence," and few other things on which we might well be right, but are too dogmatic about. I'm happy to wait until the pendulum swings in the direction of less dogma. Titles are not important.

Well each person will have to choose if they will vote. The bible clearly indicates that Babylon the great is religion which is bedfellows with politics. Christian's are warned to get out of Babylon the great.
This will become a test for witnesses in the time of end since jesus was also accused on a false political charge of sedition. Non- voting is the reason governments will hate us as is our stance to refuse to go to war. 
This is the factor which allows for us to be a truly peaceful people all over the world with a self-sacrificing love for each other.

You talking about WT Society and "higher education" ? Because i spoke about "higher education" as something that GB see as not good for members. GB consider such plase as "brood" of fornication and demonic influence. But people where ever they  go will be faced with bad things ….even in JW congregations.
“The educational system varies from country to country. In the United States, for example, public schools offer 12 years of basic education. Thereafter, students may choose to attend university or college for four or more years, leading to a bachelor’s degree or to postgraduate studies for careers in medicine, law, engineering, and so forth. Such university education is what is meant when the term “higher education” is used in this article. On the other hand, there are technical and vocational schools, offering short-term courses that result in a certificate or diploma in some trade or service.” Watchtower 2005 Oct 1 p.27
The educational system in many countries teaches students not only practical skills but also human philosophy. Students are encouraged to question the existence of God and to disregard the Bible. …. Some Christians who have pursued university education have had their minds molded by human thinking rather than by God’s thinking. .... A sister who has been in full-time service for over 15 years says: “As a baptized Witness, I had read and heard about the dangers of pursuing university education ............ What effect did higher education have on this sister’s thinking? She answers: “I am ashamed to admit that the education I pursued taught me to be critical of others, especially my brothers and sisters, to expect too much of them, and to isolate myself from them -   Watchtower 2019 Jun pp.6-7
….and so forth
 

I am sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. I understand your concern about what the GB think, as they are supposed to be providing food at the proper time, and we are supposed to trust that this food is faultless. But sometimes it isn't. We know that although doing their best, the GB can still make mistakes. In that case, what is ultimately more important than what the GB says or thinks, is what Jehovah says and thinks. This is what I had in mind. By reading several related scriptures it becomes evident that the answer to your concern is that we have to leave it in Jehovahs hands, fully trusting that he is the reader of hearts and is perfectly just and loving, and would NEVER destroy anyone unjustly, even if in our opinion they did the most horrible things. So within this framework, it really doesn't matter what the GB think. Again I apologize, I really did not mean it to sound unloving, just factual. 
So when you mention that we have to be in line with the orgs. thoughts, yes, but first and foremost we have to be in line with Jehovah's thoughts.

Thank you @Anna I totally agree with this point. 

I acknowledge how i don't know what they know and think.
But what i know in general, is that Christendom talking about going to Paradise after death and having wonderful life there, i didn't hear they expected to be Kings and Priests  :)))

I would never denigrate human rights. I like those things. Life is easier when they are respected. But I prefer the term Golden Rule. It preserves all that is noble about human rights while discarding all that is pretentious. 
We are too short-sighted to properly use our human rights. Plus, our own bodies do not respect them, so can they really be called “rights?” In his day, Ronald Reagan was arguably the most influential person on earth. Ten years later, in the throes of Alzheimer’s, he didn’t know who he was. In this case, obedience to Christ will one day remedy this assault on our human right to unlimited life, limb, and health. Clearly this is the human right to focus upon, as we practice the golden rule.
Still, “human rights” is the buzzword today, not “golden rule,” so that is the game that must be played. It doesn’t always translate into a plus.
I wrote up an example some time ago. Mormons had succeeded in a California ban on gay marriage. In 2010, the ban was overturned and the judge sited a famous JW case:
“The reference by Judge Walker to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette will have the Watchtower Society scratching their heads. “How did we help those wicked sons and daughters of Sodom and Gomorrah?” they will be asking themselves.
“To which I replied: “No they will not.”
“Well....... “It was never the intention of the intolerant Witness religion to grant any freedom of expression outside their own narrow view,” he asserts.
“Nor was it their intention to restrict any other group from benefiting from legal precedent they’ve established,” I replied.”
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/09/proposition-8-mormons-jehovahs-witnesses-and-joel.html
Noble though the concept of human rights may be, the Bible doesn’t necessarily embrace them. Does it celebrate the human right of unlimited free speech? Sometimes it celebrates shutting people up:
“It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain.” (Titus 1:11)
I have no problem acknowledging “apostates” get some credit for this. I said so with regard to the May 2019 WT that reproach for CSA falls on the abuser, not the one who reports it.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html
Everything in life is action/reaction, and the constant efforts of some of them have served to highlight an injustice. Once people leave the Christian organization, it is easy to lose track of them, and these “whistleblowers,” if they want to be called that, did not allow that to happen. In fact, for ones who stayed true in all other areas, they might afterwards resume their place and forever draw satisfaction from what contribution they have made. 
They rarely do, however. One of the most striking things about “apostates” is that they eventually throw EVERYTHING away. The unique combination of positive traits and beliefs that identify Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witnesses alone—they discard it all.
 

That was intended. Also I believe the autism spectrum is very useful in helping to understand autism in its various forms. Math is also all the rage in schools today, but it doesn't mean we should reject it.
For those already suffering, it is much more practical to deal with symptoms. In the long run, yes, it is much more useful and revealing to put the emphasis on causes.
You might notice that I was just brainstorming about the various "levels" of benign and malignant apostasy so that we would think about the ways we judge others. I think it's revealing, and not necessarily in a bad way, that two persons can spout the same apostate views about the Bible or the Watchtower Society, and only one of them gets disfellowshipped. The other still says the same things but he will often get full association with his Witness family and relatives. I think it shows the desire to have a form of natural affection, which by definition is "natural." (2 Timothy 3:3). I think some of us are here are good Witnesses without many qualms at all about association (online at least) with those who have clearly apostasized.
On the "spectrum," so to speak, I actually spoke a lot about causes, and very little about the symptoms. Of course, I wasn't too specific about either, as I was just trying to come up with some sample categories to show just how the types can be all over the place, and sometimes our own treatment of persons, and the Society's treatment too, is necessarily inconsistent. 
And one of the points is that we have a personal responsibility to watch out for our spirituality, and can't just follow what others tell us to do in every case. Imagine the possibilities if some Witnesses showed a lot more love to persons in the @Witness household, who were not DF'd, and how this might result in a good Witness (no pun intended). Or imagine the possibilities if some Witnesses decided to associate with persons in the @Witness household without any concern to their own spirituality, and became "infected" with thought that resulted in doubt and a lack of faith. The point is that we are sometimes on our own, and must always be careful about anyone and anything that we associate with. Jesus associated with tax collectors, but we are also given a Biblical responsibility to treat some in the congregation as tax collectors, even some who might be called a brother.
Hard to say. Personally I think there is room for some individual conscience in a lot of areas that are currently matters of "legalism." This does not mean that anyone can expect to depend completely on their own conscience without appropriate counsel when it seems to affect their spirituality. But the GB have given a lot of thought to human rights, and have made a lot of progress in many nations of the world to defend right to assembly, right to our own religious practices, right to preach from door to door, right to "demand" blood alternatives, right to be seen as ministers, or as a legal religion.
To our long-term benefit, GB members have acknowledged human rights more and more in interviews about child abuse, child endangerment, education, corporal punishment (especially seen before judges in custody cases, presentations before the ARC, questions fielded by the "PR"/correspondence departments, etc). In a practical way, some of the practice hasn't caught up with the "human rights" rhetoric yet.

The more typical saying from people in Christendom who learn about the possibility of heaven is something like this: "I don't care if the Lord just wants to use me as a doormat, I just want to be with Lord because I love him."

Well, aren't you the cynical one?

Don't know if it's related, but I heard of a lawsuit or two where a Hall and property were just recently remodeled and spiffed up to be worth, 3 million, for example, but the Society was so anxious to cover financial expenses that they forced a quick sale for only one million, and now the congregations are separated to various Halls, not-so-nearby. A brother was removed because he wanted to raise this into a financial issue. But there might also be a kind of problem showing up that some get too attached to the properties that they have helped to find and fund. (Like a rich person that donates a lot for a church, or buys a pew to get his name on it.)
As you say, I'm not sure that each of these cases has been handled with proper communication. Also, I'm not sure the term 'financial benefit' is fully appropriate either. In some cases the impression was 'financial necessity.' I heard talk of financial instruments (bank loans) that would have been embarrassing not to be able to meet. The Catholic church is not afraid to announce that they have had a diocese here and there on the verge of bankruptcy, which is sometimes really no more than loan restructuring. But I don't think anyone is ready for terms like this to be used about us, yet I believe that there was a real concern about one such loan. If it becomes public elsewhere, I will post some of the information I base this idea on. If not, consider it just unsubstantiated rumor. Not worth repeating.

Well, aren't you the cynical one?

It sounds like a lot of JWs are treating all of you as if you were all apostates.
I've seen situations in households that sounded similar where the persons who were not disfellowshipped were still associated with as a way to continue to keep tabs on other persons. I've see situations where the non-disfellowshipped members had the exact same views as the disfellowshipped but family members continued to associate with the non-disfellowshipped ones as a means to continue having the semblance of some kind of family: especially to see children, grandchildren, etc. Also, I have seen cases, and this includes one of my now deceased uncles, who was baptized young, and disfellowshipped when he left as a teenager. Long before I was born, he would say stupid and terrible things about JWs and Jehovah, just to get a rise out of my mother and grandmother (his sister and mother). But over the years he settled down, got married, raised kids, took good care of his wife and his share of taking care of his mother and other elder aunts and uncles of his. But he couldn't come back to the JWs if he wanted to, because he was now an "affirmed" atheist/agnostic with no interest in religion - but no interest in speaking out against religion, either. By the time I was growing up, we never went out of our way to visit him and his family, but they were often over at my grandmother's house.
So, a disfellowshipped person, who is now an atheist and who doesn't focus on JWs is somewhere near the middle of this spectrum.
Some of the groups on the spectrum therefore include:
JWs in good standing who apostasized from other religions. Former JW's who were not DF'd, but who drift away because they have no interest in speaking out against JWs. These would not really be distinguishable from those who drift into inactivity for unknown reasons. Former JW's who were disfellowshipped and or who left because they couldn't live up to moral standards. Former JW's who were disfellowshipped for any known reasons but so long ago that a kind of unwritten "statute of limitations" has run out, especially for purposes of associating with family and relatives. Former JW's who were "stumbled" by something they saw, or experienced: abuse, 1925, 1975, changed teachings, etc. Former JWs who didn't want to be disfellowshipped, but who were "cast out of the synagogue" because they felt a conscientious need to speak out against one or two specific teachings or practices. (Those who did not "push" away but who were "pushed.") Former JW's who speak out against specific teachings or practices, but for whom their confusion is chalked up to a mental illness they have no mental capacity to overcome. (I'm talking about an obvious mental illness handicap of some kind, not merely an accusation.) Those DF'd for apostasy, but who we never hear from again. Those DF'd for apostasy, but who continue to make noise against JWs. Those NOT DF'd for apostasy, but who make a lot of noise and accusations specifically against JWs Then we also have a category, of those who are truly apostate, but who are not found out and remain in full association. Perhaps they find ways to undermine fellow JWs or manipulate, sometimes in a more subtle way, perhaps by a haughty attitude, perhaps by giving them a bad reputation in the way they take advantage of others. Some may find semi-anonymous settings in which to create contentions, and make strong judgments to "curse" others. Some may get away with their own immoral practices and defend themselves in ways that draw in the vulnerable. These are like the rocks/reefs in Jude 1:12:
When these people eat with you in your fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love, they are like dangerous reefs that can shipwreck you. They are like shameless shepherds who care only for themselves. They are like clouds blowing over the land without giving any rain. They are like trees in autumn that are doubly dead, for they bear no fruit and have been pulled up by the roots. (New Living Translation)
 
There are some who do speak up and offer false or confusing teachings, or maybe even true teachings but in a way that creates disorder and confusion.
We should remember that there were those who would speak up in the early Christian congregation with a saying or a bit of knowledge or a tongue, or a translation for someone who had been moved to speak in a tongue. Not all of these bits of knowledge would make sense to everyone. Paul knew that. John knew that. Not everything would build up. Sometimes the utterance would be worthless, or worse, might appear to have been from a demonic spirit. These gifts were causing confusion, and Paul wished to bring some order to the congregations. Ultimately, a simple solution was apparently implemented. If it promoted Jesus Christ as Lord, let it stand.
(1 Corinthians 12:1-3) . . .Now concerning the spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 . . .  3 Now I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.
(1 John 4:1, 2) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God,. . .2 This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God.
(Revelation 19:10) . . .For the witness concerning Jesus is what inspires prophecy.”
Because of the wide variety of persons both inside and outside the congregation to watch out for, I think a lot of the onus is on individual Christians to decide who is good or bad association for themselves. The apostate may feel himself under no obligation to stand off from us, so we have to "apostasize" from them, especially those who continue to associate. We "mark" them. But if they have not stood away from us, and still want to associate, then technically they might not even be "apostates" and we should not judge them so harshly. But if we feel they are not building us up spiritually, and we seem not to be able to offer them anything, then they can be to us like a man of the nations or a tax collector. We can therefore associate as needed, but always, as with anyone, we keep a view to how this association might build us up or tear us down, and therefore we are very careful of such associations.
When we use the expression, "they went out from us because they were not of our sort," we have to be careful that we are referring to the sort of people we should be. We should be the sort of persons who will continue to show love to all kinds of persons, even our enemies. We have to be careful that we have not become the sort who judge harshly, or who push people away just because we don't understand them, or because we are too haughty to be questioned.
 

Don't know if it's related, but I heard of a lawsuit or two where a Hall and property were just recently remodeled and spiffed up to be worth, 3 million, for example, but the Society was so anxious to cover financial expenses that they forced a quick sale for only one million, and now the congregations are separated to various Halls, not-so-nearby. A brother was removed because he wanted to raise this into a financial issue. But there might also be a kind of problem showing up that some get too attached to the properties that they have helped to find and fund. (Like a rich person that donates a lot for a church, or buys a pew to get his name on it.)
As you say, I'm not sure that each of these cases has been handled with proper communication. Also, I'm not sure the term 'financial benefit' is fully appropriate either. In some cases the impression was 'financial necessity.' I heard talk of financial instruments (bank loans) that would have been embarrassing not to be able to meet. The Catholic church is not afraid to announce that they have had a diocese here and there on the verge of bankruptcy, which is sometimes really no more than loan restructuring. But I don't think anyone is ready for terms like this to be used about us, yet I believe that there was a real concern about one such loan. If it becomes public elsewhere, I will post some of the information I base this idea on. If not, consider it just unsubstantiated rumor. Not worth repeating.

Well, aren't you the cynical one?

“Bless you, my daughter.”
Lord, spare us from condescending people.

That was intended. Also I believe the autism spectrum is very useful in helping to understand autism in its various forms. Math is also all the rage in schools today, but it doesn't mean we should reject it.
For those already suffering, it is much more practical to deal with symptoms. In the long run, yes, it is much more useful and revealing to put the emphasis on causes.
You might notice that I was just brainstorming about the various "levels" of benign and malignant apostasy so that we would think about the ways we judge others. I think it's revealing, and not necessarily in a bad way, that two persons can spout the same apostate views about the Bible or the Watchtower Society, and only one of them gets disfellowshipped. The other still says the same things but he will often get full association with his Witness family and relatives. I think it shows the desire to have a form of natural affection, which by definition is "natural." (2 Timothy 3:3). I think some of us are here are good Witnesses without many qualms at all about association (online at least) with those who have clearly apostasized.
On the "spectrum," so to speak, I actually spoke a lot about causes, and very little about the symptoms. Of course, I wasn't too specific about either, as I was just trying to come up with some sample categories to show just how the types can be all over the place, and sometimes our own treatment of persons, and the Society's treatment too, is necessarily inconsistent. 
And one of the points is that we have a personal responsibility to watch out for our spirituality, and can't just follow what others tell us to do in every case. Imagine the possibilities if some Witnesses showed a lot more love to persons in the @Witness household, who were not DF'd, and how this might result in a good Witness (no pun intended). Or imagine the possibilities if some Witnesses decided to associate with persons in the @Witness household without any concern to their own spirituality, and became "infected" with thought that resulted in doubt and a lack of faith. The point is that we are sometimes on our own, and must always be careful about anyone and anything that we associate with. Jesus associated with tax collectors, but we are also given a Biblical responsibility to treat some in the congregation as tax collectors, even some who might be called a brother.
Hard to say. Personally I think there is room for some individual conscience in a lot of areas that are currently matters of "legalism." This does not mean that anyone can expect to depend completely on their own conscience without appropriate counsel when it seems to affect their spirituality. But the GB have given a lot of thought to human rights, and have made a lot of progress in many nations of the world to defend right to assembly, right to our own religious practices, right to preach from door to door, right to "demand" blood alternatives, right to be seen as ministers, or as a legal religion.
To our long-term benefit, GB members have acknowledged human rights more and more in interviews about child abuse, child endangerment, education, corporal punishment (especially seen before judges in custody cases, presentations before the ARC, questions fielded by the "PR"/correspondence departments, etc). In a practical way, some of the practice hasn't caught up with the "human rights" rhetoric yet.