JW Insider

@Space Merchant, More importantly, the claim that is most confusing is one you are apparently still trying to hold onto for some reason.
I said:
And you replied:
This is still completely false. There is no degree to which the Septuagint is related to 1 Timothy 3:16.
You are right about 1 Timothy 3:16 not having the word "God" in the original, just as nearly all NT scholars would agree. I am only wishing to correct any misunderstanding your statements might cause with respect to the nature and value of the Septuagint.

Talks we'd like to hear at the 2019 Convention

This still doesn't seem to speak to what the Septuagint actually is. The writing of the Hebrew Bible (OT), in Hebrew, was generally completed by the 5th century BCE, (the 400's BCE). The most important parts of the Septuagint (LXX) were completed in the mid 200's BCE, and some parts as late as the 130's BCE.
A lot of what the Septuagint translators did is considered very accurate. In many cases it was perhaps more accurate, (closer to the older Hebrew originals) than the work of the Masoretic scribes, who claim to have carried on a tradition of maintaining accurate copies of the original Bible manuscripts from the original Hebrew.
But unfortunately we don't have any of those original Septuagint manuscripts from the 200's BCE. And we only have fragmentary portions from the second and first century BCE. We don't really have any effectively complete Septuagint translations until the 300's CE, the fourth century CE. That's as much as 600 years after this Greek translation was first made! And 800+ years after the original Hebrew OT was complete.
On the other hand, we have the "Dead Sea Scrolls" including both fragments, and in some cases, full or nearly complete scrolls of some Bible books in Hebrew evidently going back into the first century BCE, up to as late as 70 CE. (Some of those Hebrew scrolls may date even into the second century BCE.)
So what does that do to the claim that the Septuagint is the oldest and most reliable source? Remember you said:
The oldest parts of the Bible originated in Hebrew, and the oldest known Hebrew manuscripts and texts go back, hundreds of years in some cases, prior to the oldest known manuscripts of the Greek translation, the Septuagint. In a few cases, such as with the 'Great Scroll of Isaiah' this first-century Hebrew scroll effectively matches the text that the Masoretes had maintained even 1,000 years after that Isaiah scroll. (I use the words "effectively matches" because even though there are hundreds of differences, they are usually small and don't change the meaning significantly.)
Of course, the OT quotations found in the NT almost all came from the LXX, so it was considered accurate enough to be the translation used in the NT. There are places where it is undoubtedly more accurate, closer to the original Hebrew manuscripts, than those Hebrew manuscripts we currently rely on. Some of these points were discovered when the Qumram scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls; DSS) came to light. There are even some fragmentary portions of the Greek LXX among the mostly Hebrew DSS.
But many portions of the LXX are highly questionable, too. Jeremiah is fully 1/7th shorter in the LXX. That's a difference of about 7 chapters worth of content missing from dozens of different places around the book, plus hundreds of other wording differences. Also the LXX contains many portions and passages interspersed within the OT that most religions, including JWs, do not consider part of the Bible.
As you probably know, like nearly all Jewish and Christian denominations, the WTS has chosen to publish the OT of the NWT Bible based only on the Masoretic text, and does not rely on the LXX as the correct text when there are differences between LXX and the Masoretic text. This might be surprising, since much of the Masoretic text is known only from about 900 years ago, and yet we know much of the LXX from about 1,700+ years ago. But even the DSS, known from closer to 2,000+ years ago is not often used in the NWT when it corrects the Masoretic text.
[To simplify, I greatly rounded some time estimates, edited out a lot of details about Alexander and the spread of the Greek language, which portions of the OT were in Aramaic, etc., to cut this down to a more readable size.]

I agree, and I also agree that a few of the poster's other comments have given me the impression that JWs are being selectively chosen as if they are uniquely afflicted with certain problems. But for this particular question, it struck me as one that took a completely different tack:
It was almost like saying, hey we know that all kinds of groups are troubled by such crimes, but there is one group that has claimed a lot of examples of angelic protection, especially while engaged in the ministry to outsiders. So why is it that individuals are almost certainly NOT being protected from a problem that can occur right within the congregation itself.
I don't think anyone is arguing for an Ananias and Sapphira style judgment. (Although I'd like to see at least certain parts of such criminals deadened by the holy spirit.)
To me, the question reminded me of the claims by some snake-handling sects who might be protected from venomous snakes and scorpions (Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18, NWT 1984):
(Mark 16:18)  18  and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. Persons from these sects, will often proudly show off their snake-handling skills, but they will not be nearly so likely to show off their ability to digest arsenic. If persons from these sects were loudly proclaiming the protection (from snakes) by angelic forces or holy spirit, then It would be a perfectly legitimate question to point out the number of persons from these sects who might have died by poison or even alcohol abuse.  
The question would have nothing whatsoever to do with how many other sects were afflicted by deaths from poison or alcohol abuse.

@Jack Ryan might have a lot of issues, or these might not even be his own issues. At any rate, this particular question is a good one, in my opinion.
(And @Gone Away it doesn't really matter if he should expand it to include all persons who get hurt from all types of crimes and injustices. He has started with a specific, narrow example and this should help us to focus on the point of the question.)
Back to what you were saying that I requoted, @Space Merchant: In this case, J.Ryan is not treating pedophilia and child sexual abuse as if it were just a JW-only thing. In fact, the nature of the question very clearly shows that he is questioning why we are quick to imply that angels have often run interference for JWs who are in the midst of the preaching work. He is right that we have shown images of angels in protective mode and guiding mode as they watch over the preaching work. I know of several of the images he is referring to. There have been dozens of examples of experiences printed in yearbooks, Watchtowers, and from the convention platform that thank Jehovah for specific cases of angelic protection in the face of all kinds of dangers.
Most of these more recent articles about angels, with one exception, no longer depict a ghostly angel hovering over the door-to-door work, although one recent one, below, indicates that they are "over" the cart-witnessing work. Most of the more recent articles show several examples of angels in Biblical times then show the preaching work, but without the depiction of the angel in modern times. Still, the wording that goes along with the pictures is telling:

Watchtower, 5/15/2009 p.23 and 24
 
When viewed alongside the recent pictures that try to give us a sense of the hundreds of millions of such angels standing at the ready it really does, and really should, make us wonder about specific activities that angels are handling in modern times. Did those angels in the Yearbook experiences really make a person miss when they shot bullets at point blank range during times of war and persecution in modern times? Did angels make a person of the right heart condition glance over at a cart? Or was it the receptive heart condition that caused them to glance? Did an angel send a Witness to the door exactly when the householder finished praying for guidance in their search? Other religions have told of the same experiences. What makes our claims different?
These questions will also touch on why Jehovah permits wickedness, and why someone's prayer might be answered when another one's is not. It may also touch on human nature. When almost everyone except an especially photogenic young child is saved from an explosion, a burning building or a crashed train or airplane, we will often hear the media interviewing people who say that God must have had a special purpose for that child. We will hear about how wonderful God is in sending an angel to swoop down and save this one or that one. We will not hear about the injustice and loss to the others who died.
At any rate, not that anyone has a complete answer, but this is still a good question.

Angels help declare the good news throughout the earth
-- Watchtower's caption, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017169

And it would be easy to fix, and make us better Christians, imo. A son of a Governing Body member who was assigned to handle "Public Relations" for a time, once confided (to someone else) that almost all of our public relations problems would just go away if we changed our stance on shunning and blood.
Well we already changed our stance on the stictness over blood, accepting just about every available medical blood therapy up to and almost including whole blood transfusions, which are becoming rarer in Western countries anyway, due to the expenses related to some blood therapies.
And we have no Biblical reason to maintain our stand on shunning as strictly as we tend to promote it. 
The only major new item that has come up since this brother mentioned these two items is the child sexual abuse scandal. And we're doing almost everything we can do on that one.
True Christians will always be spoken against, but it is best not to give anyone a good reason.
(1 Peter 3:16, 17) 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ. 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good, if it is God’s will to allow it, than because you are doing evil.  

‘Olympia doesn’t celebrate birthdays,’ Serena revealed during the US Open. ‘We’re Jehovah’s Witnesses, so we don’t do that.’ - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6107057/This-Serena-Williams-not-celebrate-daughters-1st-birthday.html
I would not go to comment on other details you offer in your post or in MailOnline article what Serena said. That would be vast of time. :)))
But for giving reasons on our acts and choices because of religion affiliation that person have, I can say how "instruction" that was given to me and some others JW brothers who faced with "neutrality issue" aka refuse to accept military service in ex Yugoslavia was this: Brother Miloš Knežević, first elder of Betel in Yugoslavia (Belgrade 1980, before and after this year) told me NOT to tell that i refuse service because i am JW. But because of my "bible trained conscience that tell me do this"!
It looks strange to me, even then (i was 19), to defend my position in this way. But that was not to defend myself but JW YU Betel and JW religion in YU, in other word WT. 
It is funny to hear how Serena said, "my 1 year old daughter not celebrating birthday", but that is the way how mother teaching her children ... and those around them :)))
 

And it would be easy to fix, and make us better Christians, imo. A son of a Governing Body member who was assigned to handle "Public Relations" for a time, once confided (to someone else) that almost all of our public relations problems would just go away if we changed our stance on shunning and blood.
Well we already changed our stance on the stictness over blood, accepting just about every available medical blood therapy up to and almost including whole blood transfusions, which are becoming rarer in Western countries anyway, due to the expenses related to some blood therapies.
And we have no Biblical reason to maintain our stand on shunning as strictly as we tend to promote it. 
The only major new item that has come up since this brother mentioned these two items is the child sexual abuse scandal. And we're doing almost everything we can do on that one.
True Christians will always be spoken against, but it is best not to give anyone a good reason.
(1 Peter 3:16, 17) 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ. 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good, if it is God’s will to allow it, than because you are doing evil.  

To both @Srecko Sostar and @Space Merchant
Thanks for the clarification, both of you, and I didn't mean to get you to rehash this same conversation. I remember this particular one, although I didn't take so much of an interest in it because it seemed that Srecko Sostar had made some gullibility mistakes and Space Merchant had correctly pointed that out. I thought that might be the thread you were speaking about. But when you, Space Merchant, had worded what you said about a certain one of his December 2017 claims being forever immortalized, I thought I had missed a followup thread or some of the posts from that thread that had perhaps been deleted, as you said. I was interested because you made it sound as if it were much more sinister of a problem than I had recalled. I remember the excellent research you put into that rebuttal for both Witness and Srecko. But I understand where you are coming from, and I understand that Srecko has learned something from you. I had never looked into some of the information you provided there, Space Merchant, and I appreciated it, too. I personally had looked at "Six Screens of the Watchtower" a couple times, a couple years ago, and thought it was one of the worst of the anti-JW sites for its lack of accuracy. What a waste of time.
Just an aside, but when a person sees he has made a mistake, no longer believes fully in a specific point he has made, and he or she removes the mistaken, confusing post for that reason, I think this can be the right course of action.

Yes. I am aware that this happens. But remember that we are discussing a special case where, let's say, you now have children that your mother would like to visit. In this case, as much as she might want to be able to shun you completely, she now needs to make contact with you to get the necessary permission.
Some parents are probably angry at the fact that a child who is now DFd has ruined their reputation as a good, exemplary parent who raises God-fearing children. Mothers lose as much "reputation" as fathers  (or even more) in this situation, and anger is a way to eclipse the natural affection we should have been born with. I have heard of parents and siblings and others in the congregation who will literally spit on the ground in the direction of the DFd person. The Watchtower magazine in the past has implied that there might even be a desire by the parents to kill such children. A Watchtower article that came out when my parents were first considering having children made it sound as if parents would need a reminder not to kill their apostate child:
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. The article makes it sound as if we should be disappointed that we don't live in a "theocratic" nation like Saudi Arabia, or under a Taliban-like rule where we could still kill our children. The closest consolation the same article could offer was the following:
The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors . . . . Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped. I'm reminded of this more recent article where the idea of shunning is conspicuous by its absence:
*** w01 10/15 p. 14 par. 10 Who Will Separate Us From God’s Love? ***
Some Christian parents have been accused of hating their children because of not allowing them to accept medical procedures that violate God’s law or not letting them engage in pagan celebrations. . . . Some opposers have spread slanderous lies in the media, even falsely accusing Jehovah’s Witnesses of being a dangerous cult.  

this is not the first Mark Twain quote that turns out to be phony.
I have also had to toss out the irresistable "When I was 16, my father was so ignorant I could barely stand to have him around. Five years later I was amazed at how much the old man had picked up in such a short time."
It is like David Splane regretfully tossing in the trash: "When you and I get together over the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, we will have solved not just our problems, but those of the entire world.
Actually, I don't toss out nothin. I just qualify them. If he didn't say it, he should have. It is not my fault if he gets tongue-tied.

Yes. I am aware that this happens. But remember that we are discussing a special case where, let's say, you now have children that your mother would like to visit. In this case, as much as she might want to be able to shun you completely, she now needs to make contact with you to get the necessary permission.
Some parents are probably angry at the fact that a child who is now DFd has ruined their reputation as a good, exemplary parent who raises God-fearing children. Mothers lose as much "reputation" as fathers  (or even more) in this situation, and anger is a way to eclipse the natural affection we should have been born with. I have heard of parents and siblings and others in the congregation who will literally spit on the ground in the direction of the DFd person. The Watchtower magazine in the past has implied that there might even be a desire by the parents to kill such children. A Watchtower article that came out when my parents were first considering having children made it sound as if parents would need a reminder not to kill their apostate child:
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. The article makes it sound as if we should be disappointed that we don't live in a "theocratic" nation like Saudi Arabia, or under a Taliban-like rule where we could still kill our children. The closest consolation the same article could offer was the following:
The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors . . . . Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped. I'm reminded of this more recent article where the idea of shunning is conspicuous by its absence:
*** w01 10/15 p. 14 par. 10 Who Will Separate Us From God’s Love? ***
Some Christian parents have been accused of hating their children because of not allowing them to accept medical procedures that violate God’s law or not letting them engage in pagan celebrations. . . . Some opposers have spread slanderous lies in the media, even falsely accusing Jehovah’s Witnesses of being a dangerous cult.  

@JW Insider No worries and thanks. I said what I said because I know if I had never saved that information, not knowing he will delete his current and a year old post on Glasgow, he would say something entirely different, for I had only saved it to make note of what to research on, only to find out Sostar deleted both post at the same time.
But this is common on some forums, for someone will say something, then deleted it afterwards when people see it, and when it is brought up again, the original poster will speak negatively and act as if his own words do not belong to him, but when one have a snippet of what is deleted and or in full, the tables turn quickly and what is said remains on whatever forum in question for as long as the forum exist, which is the case here. So if anyone, even guests, who want to see the whole Glasgow thing, they see it there, should anyone opposite to them take what Sostar had said with seriousness, the actual information is there that says otherwise.
But yes, everyone makes mistaken, even me, for I tend to dwell on things with minor paranoia, other times, when dealing with oneness and Trinity believers I tend to get irritated and often go overboard only to correct myself after, mainly when I do not have my research notes with me, when I forget something that becomes an issue. But in Sostar's case, he is just a different case entirety.
But yes, some people learn things, some people have a hard time learning, while others do not learn at all.

To both @Srecko Sostar and @Space Merchant
Thanks for the clarification, both of you, and I didn't mean to get you to rehash this same conversation. I remember this particular one, although I didn't take so much of an interest in it because it seemed that Srecko Sostar had made some gullibility mistakes and Space Merchant had correctly pointed that out. I thought that might be the thread you were speaking about. But when you, Space Merchant, had worded what you said about a certain one of his December 2017 claims being forever immortalized, I thought I had missed a followup thread or some of the posts from that thread that had perhaps been deleted, as you said. I was interested because you made it sound as if it were much more sinister of a problem than I had recalled. I remember the excellent research you put into that rebuttal for both Witness and Srecko. But I understand where you are coming from, and I understand that Srecko has learned something from you. I had never looked into some of the information you provided there, Space Merchant, and I appreciated it, too. I personally had looked at "Six Screens of the Watchtower" a couple times, a couple years ago, and thought it was one of the worst of the anti-JW sites for its lack of accuracy. What a waste of time.
Just an aside, but when a person sees he has made a mistake, no longer believes fully in a specific point he has made, and he or she removes the mistaken, confusing post for that reason, I think this can be the right course of action.

As in who gave us the number, the website of which you listed states it very clearly, the links for your website states the following (I'll link you the glossary on the final part):
 
You didn't rely on the video because the video in question even tells you of who will come to Glasgow and the venues of which they will reside in, the video's title, of which you relied on states the following:
The December 2017 (December 9, 2017) comment made by you was of your own design, not of anyone else, for their concern is being part of the world or not, you took it a step further by stating the following: JWorg attracted thousands of people and millions of pounds to Scotland on XX Commonwealth Games, Glasgow 2014.
When this thread existed, it only pointed back to one source when goggle searched: Srecko Sostar.
You also went on to say the following: 
video reveal JWorg in sport and business events, Glasgow 2014. OR UK TV news  REPORTERS WERE LIE? Among some Scottish Products :))) is JWorg. How many JW rank and files surfed on you-tube, in 2014 and after, to find out what was been actual in 2014, and be in time with activities of their religion? ~ Sostar
If anyone looks at that video, they themselves can clearly see this was not the case, not even outlandish sources would make that remark either and this was pointed out by you and only you when the video gave a clue of something entirely different. Mind you, as I said before, everyone else' concern was those being part of the world or not, hence why some of the comments were deleted by the poster, but no one made claim to what you have stated, not even part of it alludes to such of what you stated.
The other thread you deleted, in connection to this in discussion, you even stated that the JWs were running a business this way, this was prior to when you deleted everything as of July 18th, 2018.
Indeed this was a mistake, but what was added into the mix was of your design, no one else, be it members of the faith, disgruntled ones, and or other.
I mean everyone makes error, even me, but going this far is silly.
You'd be surprised when your information was passed on. Let's just say an Arab had a few words to say on this matter, and people do read into things, and also tend to connect it with something and or someone.
Everyone is aware, regardless of their faith and or background, that the venue was of used 2 weeks after the sporting event, I mean, the Hydro SSE is quite the spectacular venue, who could miss that when it is the talk of the ton to some?
Everyone makes errors, even JWs, for a I told you before, we are all imperfect and it is the price of which we pay, for there is good and there is bad, something of which you took issue with before also.
Here is the Link of which I had mentioned, therefore, understanding is of importance: https://abr.business.gov.au/Help/Glossary
 
If the Awesome Church is registered as a Business Name/Number, it does not make them a legitimate business (and lord and behold, it can be looked up and found, even though I do not take kindly to Trinitarians, their ABN can be found and is in connection with a legitimate source), just another religious institution, the same case can be made of any of whom is of religious position and or non-profit.
No one is asking to stone you, they are merely asking you to read into things, for yes we do make errors, but to continue to make error upon error upon error and using said error only shows you, be it corrected or not, do not take the time to read into things. I myself tend to jump to conclusion on things, mainly when someone says something that does not bode well with me or something else, but at least, later on I try to learn something. You must do the same also otherwise one can accept what Gone Away have stated of your words, flawed.
That being said, that is all that will be said of you and the other things speak for itself, like you having yet to show me the truth of Chloe elsewhere. But will leave it at that because  because you expect so-and-so to save you for a second time, it won't happen here, nor ever again, hence why I am more aware of how you tend to do things.

Last year i meet my mother on street, first time after my living JW. I said, "Hello mom" . Mom turn her face and she passed by me.
Also my brothers, siblings did the same. 
About what "honor" we talking about? :))
..... this say ...if she are not going to attend cong. meeting then  outcome, solution will be....???  call roadside assistance!
Image! External form! And what would other (who had influence) do about!
This kinds of reasons are not fascinating at all. Not to me.

Which outcome?
WTS running out of money? Lack of baptismal candidates? WTS desire to have DF'd children not allow grandparents to see their grandchildren? Grandparents desire never to see any grandchildren who are children of their own DF'd sons and daughters?  

I often chalk up your statements as hyperbole-laden rants. But this I must agree with whole-heartedly. One can make an argument that our process is actually Biblical, but then Jesus said it was OK to throw out some of those legalistic principles in favor of love and mercy.

@TrueTomHarley, That was 1974. And you'll notice that one of the reasons was the reproach it would bring on the organization when a worldly person would be the only one to see that the woman would be treated kindly and humanely. Because the person would be parked close to the Kingdom Hall, the worldly person would instantly make the association that these people do not have love among themselves, a mark of true disciples. What if the worldly person had influence in the community?
But there were cycles oscillating back and forth between strictly shunning family members and relaxing the rules a bit in favor of mercy, then going right back to tightening up the rules again when considered too loose.
The time of the "Inquisition" as it was called at Bethel in late 1979 and early 1980 up through the resignation and later DFing of R.Franz, was a time of very strict 'straining of gnats.' Congregations on their own would probably tend toward the 1974 article, but Percy's DFing came from Bethel elders.

I haven't seen this so much. And, of course, it also implies that the elders are easily fooled by claims of repentance. You go on to say that the ruse doesn't really work and they get shunned again although reinstated. I have seen a few situations which, if representative of anything, would imply quite the opposite of what you seem to claim here.
Draconian shunning is usually reserved for 'apostasy' and is rationalized as especially excusable, even demanded, when it has the organizational backing of the "DF" label. Often, necessary family business really is completely forsaken, including weddings, funerals, medical care, and family businesses brought to failure due to abandonment by the Witness partner who did not wish to be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. But I also know of cases where the Witness considers all debts to the DF'd to now be cancelled, and more recently a request for "permission" to suspend the shunning just long enough to fight an estate will that might bring advantage to the Witness.
But here is where anecdotal experiences I have heard, more clearly diverge from your example:
There are cases, you have probably seen them, where two siblings or a married couple have have shown themselves to be apostates, by claiming that the JWs are a cult, that the FDS/GB is a made-up construct, that we don't follow the Bible, etc., etc. But for some reason, only one of the two was disfellowshipped. There is absolutely no known difference between the beliefs of two siblings, or the two married persons. The Witness relatives will use the DF label as the reason to shun one of them, as expected. But the lack of the DF label is the excuse to continue associating with the other, as if nothing had happened.
Many, perhaps even most Witnesses are reasonable and don't shun in a draconian way, and some don't even shun at all, and things seem to go on normally. But it is true that if they are caught not shunning, they could end up being counseled by the elders themselves, which in rare cases could lead to disfellowshipping if their reasons for continuation of not shunning do not align with the reasons expected. The person could say to the elders that there are special circumstances, such as mental illness or physical handicap, and they must continue to associate so that a stable mental or emotional state of the exJW is maintained. All elders I know would give a "dispensation," and say, that's fine, just don't advertise it, or make a big deal about the exception. But if the person being counseled for the very same reasons in the very same circumstances will say that they believe the FDS/GB must be wrong on this point because the Bible demands mercy in such cases, this will lead to a discussion of why they don't fully accept the FDS, the organization, Jehovah's arrangement, and depending on the elders, could easily lead to the Witness holding their ground according to their conscience, and being disfellowshipped themselves.
I don't say these things lightly. I was personally involved in a case where I risked making that exception and my wife and I took care of a 90-some year old long-time Witness named Percy Harding. I'll give his name because it's been discussed elsewhere. He attended the same Kingdom Hall as my brother attended in Brooklyn, while I lived in the adjacent borough of Queens. The old brother, a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford's time in the WTS, had grown a bit cantankerous in his old age and thought the FDS was overstepping its bounds in some of the claims that tended to draw an equivalence between the rules of the organization and "the Lord." But he loved the brothers and didn't want to be disfellowshipped. My brother's best friend, and best man at his wedding, was married to a nurse. They were both Witnesses, of course, and when Percy was disfellowshipped, the nurse was threatened with disfellowshipping herself if she continued to care for the old man. (He was nearly bedridden, and Witnesses were dropping off his groceries for him, and two Witness sisters, one of whom was a nurse, were visiting him about 4 times a week.) The husband balked at this threat, and he was threatened with disfellowshipping, too. My brother had the idea that my wife could take over as one of the sisters because she worked in Brooklyn at 144 Livingston, not far from Percy's house on President St, just off 4th Ave, a few blocks away. Also, I often drove through Brooklyn for my job in NYC (Manhattan). I also had a few friends at Bethel who would give me a pass, a dispensation, if I explained my reasons in a careful way.
We ended up taking care of him for a couple of years, and enjoying our visits with him. Unfairly, my wife would cook and clean, and I would help him manage some of his physical therapy and toilet, and listen to stories about Russell and Rutherford. These were usually positive, upbuilding stories, but he pulled no punches when he disagreed with something. (He said that the WTS went through a time under Rutherford when equating the WTS with 'the Lord' was even more blatant and explicit.)
He finally died with NO OTHER WITNESSES daring to visit him. But I did see several exJWs who had learned of his case and who helped ease the burden by helping to take care of him.

This is a case of being "righteous overmuch" or "self-righteous" and "haughty" like the Pharisees. Paul put the ideas together in Romans quoted above:
(Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting,  . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable . . . The haughty, self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, too, were "inventors of [such] injurious things" as Jesus pointed out:
(Matthew 15:5, 6) . . .‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. They found ways to avoid the merciful treatment of relatives by trading it for evidence of how righteous they looked in front of others.
(Matthew 6:2) . . .So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . . It's directly related to the issue of "table fellowship," too:
(Matthew 9:10-13) 10 Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

Maybe. To me it sounds like the original post is recommending that ex-JWs return evil for evil:
(Romans 12:17-21) 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good. What some Witnesses do under the supposed umbrella of "tough love" is actually "evil" in the sense of showing no natural affection, or shutting off their true affections. It is hypocritical love if they are able to shut off love for family just to avoid contact with a disfellowshipped person. The paragraph in the Bible just before the one quoted above starts out:
(Romans 12:9) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. . . . Based on this idea, there is another way to read the entire idea about Biblical disfellowshipping:
(2 Corinthians 6:3-13) 3 In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, so that no fault may be found with our ministry; 4 but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . .  by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech,. . .  11 We have opened our mouth to speak to you, Corinthians, and we have opened wide our heart. 12 We are not restricted in our affections for you, but you are restricted in your own tender affections for us. 13 So in response—I speak as to my children—you too open your hearts wide. (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, . . . malicious disposition, . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things. Remember, too, that Jesus said that Moses was allowed to give the law that Israelites could disfellowship their own wives only as a concession to their own hard-heartedness:
(Matthew 19:7-8 ) : “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives,. . . It's true that Christians should not "share" with evildoers, for what sharing do believers have with unbelievers, what sharing does light have with darkness. But this cannot mean completely avoiding them, or even a complete lack of association with them. Paul made this clear in the central, pertinent discussion of the topic:
(1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to 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. When a person accepts their disfellowshipping, and is no longer presenting himself or herself as a member of our faith, they are no longer calling themselves our brother. The most vocal ex-JWs make it all the more obvious that they are not calling themselves our brother. So they become just as a person of the world to us.
(Matthew 18:17) . . .. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. Scripturally, however, that means that we are perfectly within our own rights to exercise the freedom of our Bible-trained conscience, to associate with them just as we would anyone else in the world. This does not necessarily mean close association, or "table fellowship" which was acceptance of these ones as an insider, related to us either as family or those related to us in the faith. Yet, we should consider that Jesus had "table fellowship" with sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, gentiles, and unclean persons, without condoning their sin. People found fault with his ministry but Jesus did not give any cause for stumbling through such table fellowship. (2 Cor 6:3,4 quoted above.)
There is sometimes an in-between step where a person still calls himself our brother, and we should still admonish him as our brother. Yet they are not fully walking in accordance with Christian teachings. These are the ones we "mark" --to withdraw our close association from them-- even though they are still considered brothers. Apparently, Paul especially had in mind greedy persons who wanted to remain in association for what they could get, not what they could share. They wanted the free food, as a key feature of Christianity was its open-hearted table fellowship, providing material food for the poor, the orphans, the widows, etc:
(2 Thessalonians 3:6-15) 6 Now we are giving you instructions, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who is walking disorderly and not according to the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you should imitate us, because we did not behave in a disorderly way among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” 11 For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such people we give the order and exhortation in the Lord Jesus Christ that they should work quietly and eat food they themselves earn. 13 For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing good. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother. It must have been frustrating, that some would just be no more than meddlers, taking and not finding ways to share, but Paul admonishes the Christians not to give up in doing good. [Good works included giving, sharing and distributing material goods.] I think that many ex-JWs are frustrated at the unchristian conduct of some Witnesses, but ex-JWs, too, should not give up in doing what is good if they wish to "heap fiery coals" and conquer evil with good. Most Witnesses probably need to "get out more" as it is, and seeing one's grandkids can only help to have a good effect in general, and help to open the hearts wider. Even if the ex-JW being shunned believes the Witness is a bad influence, the fact of a grandparent spending any time at all with a grandchild can only be a good influence on the grandparent.

I often chalk up your statements as hyperbole-laden rants. But this I must agree with whole-heartedly. One can make an argument that our process is actually Biblical, but then Jesus said it was OK to throw out some of those legalistic principles in favor of love and mercy.

Mr JW  Insider this down is my comment in full version as respond to Space Merchant. Judge by yourself what is it. All of us as private or legal persons/entities have NUMBER. And that is what i try to show  to SM. Who gave us number? For what purpose? For what sort of work?
About Glasgow video. Yes that was my mistake. I was relied to much on those who put that video, not in full length. Second problem is my English and to not listen more carefully. Mea culpa with smile! :)) Would somebody stoned me because it? People on responsible positions in WT making many and much more worst  errors on global level for at least 8 000 000 people. How many looked my deleted post? And with what response, with what consequences for their life? Thanks for reading this! 
 
So you are JW who spiritually is not part of this world? That is nice.
I will provide links from Australian government site about Australian Branch. Only to illustrate, the same is around the world. Watchtower have Identity number and in this case it is Charity ABN 42002861225 (ABN is Australian Business Number), and they have additional business name - "Watchtower Travel".  Travel Company? :)))))
 https://www.acnc.gov.au/RN52B75Q?ID=91956EB4-F967-4486-8D20-89B6E9A28BCC&noleft=1
http://www.abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View/42002861225
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/bySearchId.jspx?searchId=69158541&searchIdType=BUSN&_adf.ctrl-state=ptvq0dfmh_4
 

Happened to me once. Ended up with a torn hibiscus.