JW Insider

Yes. This started late in 1981, a little before the GB member was disfellowshipped, but after he had been asked to resign from the Governing Body. These kinds of things were not typical, as far as I could tell, except around the epicenter of Brooklyn Bethel.
You're welcome. As I mentioned to Anna, I thought that this kind of thing was much more rare outside of the headquarters area. I appreciate getting a better picture from some of the anecdotes you have included on the topic.
Percy's case was the most extreme that I took personally, and which made my blood boil. There was another, but I won't tell it again now in any detail (about my sister being asked to put up with her violently abusive husband and to try more meekness, field service and prayer, because they didn't want to remove his privileges as a ministerial servant).
But please remember that these are told in the context of the time that they happened. We are nowhere near perfect, and we don't really claim to be, but we have all seen many improvements, especially in the last decade or two. And I think that all of us continue to expect more big improvements, some of which are likely to surprise us.
In fact, I was pleased that @Eoin Joyce didn't think this was the whole story (about Percy) and that @TrueTomimplied that such stories might be only partially true. When something that happened is extremely difficult to believe, then it should be that much less likely to ever happen again.
I notice that the question of dirty laundry and motive also comes up, which shouldn't be surprising. The question should be welcomed. If we are concerned about truth and justice and improvements and error and tradition and 'strongly entrenched things' then the common "refrain" will be the request to refrain. Accusations of pride and apostasy are expected too. Love for the brotherhood should override these minor obstacles, however, and we should do our best to imitate Biblical examples of faith and courage.
I appreciate the discussion. If we see error we should spotlight it. In the long run, this makes the light of truth shine more brightly.
(Mark 4:21, 22) 21 He also said to them: “A lamp is not brought out to be put under a basket or under a bed, is it? Is it not brought out to be put on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.
 

I'm sure there are two or more sides to every story. We met Percy probably about 80 times. I was very interested in his reasons and his reasoning. He had no senility of any kind, and I like that he focused on the positive. He would show me how fast he could get up from his chair. He could walk, and even get up the stairs, but it was painfully slow. Still, he didn't want the wheelchair. It was really for people like me who were impatient to get him from point A to point B and back as quickly as possible. His complaints were usually about food, and he was very particular about how his food was cooked, but he was very appreciative. He discussed recipes with my wife, and told us both a lot of wonderful stories and experiences, some of which have probably appeared in past yearbooks and from assembly platforms.
I tried to imagine what would have happened between Percy and the elders that made him seem like such a danger. He had been in the same congregation for 50 years, and hadn't got in trouble before. Of course, I finally asked him and he was very clear about it. The elders asked him to reveal private conversations with his friends that he had discussed Bible topics with where those topics were out of harmony with current Watchtower teachings. He had made it clear to the elders that he wouldn't discuss private conversations with his friends. This is obviously an affront to the entire process because it does not show deference to the authority of the elders. He had three judicial hearings, and even went to 124 Columbia Heights for the last one.
You probably know that there was a set of questions in those days that Bethel elders were asking of persons suspected of disloyalty. One of them was the question about whether the "suspect" believed that the Watchtower Society and its Discreet Slave was the only organization Jehovah was using to feed spiritual truth on the earth today. (Don't know if Percy told this to the elders, but to me he said answered that same question with another question about how the scripture says, 'For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.) He thought the question itself was not fully scriptural, which ultimately leads to the fact that he is questioning the faithful and discreet slave. As I'm sure you know, that was the true and only definition of apostasy at that time: "Do you question the faithful and discreet slave?" If the judicial committee can get you to either directly or indirectly answer that question in the affirmative, then you are an apostate.
I would never claim that Percy was exactly right in his opinion. And I would never suggest that anyone be so blunt with elders on a judicial committee, especially one with Bethel elders. At Bethel, many of the long-term elders are completely divorced from the reality of living in the real world. There was often little room for justice to be tempered with mercy inside Bethel. Every week, we had to listen to Brother Knorr and and others make loud and angry tirades about who was being kicked out of Bethel for this or that. We sometimes had to sit through the shame and embarrassing details of their sins. I heard it was much, much worse under Rutherford where he was able to dress down someone until he got them to cry in front of hundreds of people. I don't think some of these brothers were trained to think of real-world consequences to the person being judged, or the subsequent consequences to their own reputation for acting harshly.

I believe I know of at least two of those types of cases personally. 
I know the feeling. But waiting on Jehovah does not mean waiting on the organization. I took a great risk not long after I left Bethel, and it was mostly at the request of my wife and brother. I was not 100% willing to take the risk because I had just been recommended for appointment as an elder about a month earlier, and it would be confirmed at the next Circuit Overseer's visit. As a Ministerial Servant I had already been giving dozens of public talks in various congregations around NYC for about 5 years, and I have to admit that I didn't want to lose this privilege. I hate to admit that there was very probably some "ego" involved in my decision to avoid the risk.
But I finally took the risk anyway. And I got away with it.
My older brother and his wife were best friends with another couple in their Brooklyn congregation, and my wife and I were in a different congregation that met in Queens, NY, 15 miles away. My brother was the best man at my wedding, yet this other spiritual brother, we'll call him Gene, was the best man at my brother's wedding. I mention it to show that Gene was "closer than a brother" to him. Gene and his wife, we'll call her Jill, were quite ashamed for what they allowed to happen to them.
Part of this story is well known by some of you already. But here goes:
Gene and Jill called up my brother one night after their meeting and Jill was crying, because Jill is a Registered Nurse (RN) and she was just told by the elders that she could no longer visit Percival Harding or she would be disfellowshipped. Percy was a 91-year old anointed brother who had started congregations (classes) in Russell's era, and was a colporteur in Rutherford's era until 1925 and served at Bethel for 4 years until 1929. He was born in 1890 and had been active and loyal for the past 71 years, much of it in full-time service. But he had just been disfellowshipped because, at some time during the past few months, he had discussed some Bible topics privately with another friend, and that friend shared his own view with an elder. At this point there was nothing dogmatic or even public in any of these discussions of Bible topics from Percy, although I don't know anything about the other friend he had spoken with. When the elders asked Percy what they had talked about he wouldn't answer, and got disfellowshipped for not cooperating and then telling them that he believed Jehovah blesses our work as an organization, but that Jehovah treats us and judges all of us as individuals, not specifically because of the merit of the organization. He believed the Bible teaches this (and could even show where the Watchtower taught the same) and I assume he wouldn't budge from this position.
Jill, the RN, was upset at the threat of being disfellowshipped, of course, and she and Gene went to the elders and begged to at least continue giving him the free medical attention she had been giving him in the past. He could get to the bathroom himself, but was very slow, took daily medication, and needed someone to come in and see him at least a couple times a week. Another sister visited regularly delivering his groceries, and to clean and cook for him. Percy lived on the second floor of a brownstone walk-up that required about 8 steps up from the sidewalk to the first floor door, and 16 more steps up to the second floor. He was taken to the meetings in a wheelchair. Percy was very alert and sociable and well-liked in a very large congregation often attended by about 200 persons every weekend.
The sister who visited him for cooking and cleaning was also threatened with disfellowshipping if she continued to help him. 
When Gene insisted that this made no sense. He was also threatened with disfellowshipping, too. He wanted this matter to be decided upon by Bethel. But there were already at least two Bethel elders involved and both of them had very responsible positions. We'll call them H**** P****** and J**** P********. In other words, the case had already reached brothers in the Writing Department. (One of whom became the editor of the Awake! magazine shortly afterward.)
I already mentioned my own concerns in this regard, but it was so hard for my wife and Gene and Jill to believe. To tell the truth it was actually fairly easy for me to believe because I had already ignored and remained silent for the same kind of treatment of a few older Bethelites in the previous year. I was afraid to get involved, also because I was handling assignments for one of the members of the Governing Body who had been personally involved in all the high-profile 1980 disfellowshippings at Bethel. I was afraid of his reaction, and never spoke up.
I knew I would lose everything in a minute, and might even be disfellowshipped if caught, but my brother and his wife begged, and the nurse, Jill, was desperate. (They thought no one would recognize us in the area.) No one in their congregation dared to visit the man any more. Only a non-JW woman, who acted as a kind of landlord or building manager (on the first floor) would do anything for him for the first few days. Percy had no close relatives, except elderly ones a couple thousand miles away in Canada, whom he could not reach. He had estranged himself from them 70 years earlier by becoming a "Russellite" Bible Student and one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
My wife and I agreed to start weekly and sometimes bi-weekly visits, and I began a friendship with him. He offered me an entire library with a full collection of just about everything Russell and Rutherford ever wrote. He told me about Rutherford in a way that corresponded exactly with stories my "table head" told at Bethel. We would pick up groceries for him and my wife would cook and clean. I got him some daily exercise and helped him with the bathroom, but mostly he loved to talk. I learned so much.
After several weeks, one of the ex-JW groups in NYC heard about him and began setting up regular visits to help him out. Over the months, I crossed paths with two of these other disfellowshipped persons, one of whom had been disfellowshipped recently at Bethel (and recognized me), and also a NYC circuit overseer who had been disfellowshipped in 1980.
We stayed out of the way of all these other disfellowshipped persons who visited him, and my wife and I continued visiting him regularly for two years (1981-1983), for at least three hours a week plus the one-hour drive each way. Yet, I never got caught, or at least I never got turned in. Today might be the first chance for some people in my congregation to know about it, although I don't think anything drastic will happen at this point.
Jill and Gene both drifted away from the congregation after this incident, and they told my brother it was over this. My brother's wife, too. There was another nurse involved who might have also left over this, but it may have been over something else. But at least 200 persons in his congregation must have been at least somewhat affected by this, and he was well known and well-liked by another large congregation meeting in the same hall.
But still, no one from the congregation he had been in for 50 years ever visited him, and I'm told that this remained that way until he died in 1994.
Looking back, I don't think I had a choice. My wife agrees. She sees it the same way. If we had been disfellowshipped over this, I probably would have found it nearly impossible to admit real repentance, and I even tried to come up with phrases, in case we were caught, so that it might sound like we were repentant but still "honest" to Jehovah. (My wife didn't believe in that kind of rehearsed answers, and I don't either anymore.)

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. 
It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point.
Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy. 

Sorry about the long post. I didn't even get to some of the things I wanted to say. But what I had hoped to do is show that we can't avoid interpreting, and it's always our "foundational" views that color just how we interpret them.
I didn't want to make too much of the distinction between relatives in the flesh and relatives in the faith, because we are all brothers, and that expression should truly mean what it sounds like: that all of us are relatives, now. 
I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side. I'm sure you already know it but our foundation for interpretation is easily seen by one of the first discussions of disfellowshipped relatives in the Watchtower. It first reminds us that we are not allowed to kill our disfellowshipped children because the law of the land forbids it:
*** 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, . . . ”—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. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.
 
The rest of the article showed some additional cases where the law of the land and/or God's law requires certain types of contact with relatives. For example: not being able to throw minors out of the house, not being able to divorce due to disfellowshipping/apostasy, marriage partners living and eating under the same roof, etc. 
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. 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, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. 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.
 
Because of cases mentioned such as these certain verses are said not to apply, which appears to be the correct interpretation: 
*** w52 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.
 
When the Watchtower said: "we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws" it gives away the foundation. We are looking for the extent of "sacrifice" that is possible, not the necessary minimum. We are not looking for loopholes to show how much mercy is possible.
I suspect that Percy Chapman (the branch servant in Ontario) wrote this question so that Fred Franz could submit the answer with an already written article. I have no evidence in this case, but I saw evidence in the 1970's that something like this was done for other other QFR's. So it's a bit difficult for me not to read between the lines and see the attitude of Fred Franz coming through. I could just see him giving a talk on he subject and adding "perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia" to that first paragraph. 

I believe the problem is completely resolved by the Bible itself. You gave several examples of the ways in which situations either become an kind of announcement that we are fanatics, or that we have no natural affection, or that situations are created where we would need pharisaic rules to deal with all the many different possibilities. And I agree that many do come back after disfellowshipping, but that's just as much due to a method that any psychiatrist knows is the same as emotional blackmail. The combination of emotional blackmail, guilt, and personal ego, end up playing as much of a role as spiritual concern. There is also the factor of how humans love to judge and love the feeling of superiority and self-rightousness that they get through judging. The opportunity to shun a disfellowshipped person is something that some might even gloat about to themselves. 
(Luke 18:11) . . .The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 
 
Yet, the Israelites were given a law that supposedly provides the foundation for the Christian practice of expelling someone from the congregation. I don't think we are starting in the right place if we think like this. We need to start with the words of Jesus himself. Remember that it was Jesus who said that expelling one's wife for any reason was a concession that Moses gave due to their hard hearts.
(Matthew 19:7, 8) . . .They said to him: “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, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 
 
But Jesus did not preach that we should have hard hearts. The Jewish law said that there was to be no punishment for a man who beat his slave to death as long as the slave suffered for more than one day before dying. (Exodus 21:20, 21)  The Jewish law allowed for the beating of children with a literal rod. The Jewish law allowed for chopping off hands and gouging out eyes and knocking out teeth.
But now we have a different kind of law that is written on our hearts. The entire law itself can be summed up in just a few words:
(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Also, Luke 10:28)  . . .  keep doing this and you will get life.”
(John 15:17)  “These things I command you, that you love one another.
(Romans 13:8-10) . . .Do not owe anything to anyone except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. 9 . . . whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.
(Galatians 5:14) . . .For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 
(James 2:7, 8) . . .Do they not blaspheme the fine name by which you were called? 8 If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 
(Matthew 7:12) 12 “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.
 
So I think we need to keep that primary point from all those verses in mind, when we try to understand what was going on in the earliest Christian congregations. So I'll give it a try: 
Matthew 18:7 as you quoted above says that the "expelled" person becomes just like a man of the nations and a tax collector. In other words, they are no longer thought of as "family" (brothers) or as "someone related to us in the faith." But they are now just like everyone else in the world that we generally might avoid except when necessary to speak with hospitably, or do business with. But does this refer to a temporary or a final situation? Of course, Jesus set the perfect example by associating with tax collectors, and spoke with persons who rejected him. Ideally, a person of the nations would be someone that we would continue to see as our neighbor. Within months after this comment by Jesus in Matthew 18, people of the nations would now be desired to join with them again as those related to them in the faith. Also note that Jesus used the same pairing of "tax collectors" and "people of the nations" in the following way: (Matthew 5:43-48) 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  When we consider the logistics of disfellowshipping in the first century congregations, we should remember that some met in homes where the social consideration of hospitality was the key, where one could invite many people in, but if you were not invited you would not dare to "invade" the house. The size of the houses of most Christians would probably result in a much closer, more intimate atmosphere, and were probably usually timed to include the meal, with an exception made for the Memorial celebration. Therefore, if a person was invited in, it would be quite impossible not to associate in a close and friendly manner, which might provide the reason that some would not be invited into the house, "not even eating with such a one." Note this situation at Matthew's house (which may have been bigger than average, of course): (Matthew 9:10-13) . . .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.’ . . . As congregations began to use larger facilities, people could just come through the door and take a seat: (1 Corinthians 14:23) . . .So if the whole congregation comes together to one place and they all speak in tongues, but ordinary people or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you have lost your minds?  (James 2:2, 3) . . .For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in splendid clothing comes into your meeting, but a poor man in filthy clothing also enters, 3 do you look with favor on the one wearing the splendid clothing and say, “You take this seat here in a fine place,” and do you say to the poor one, “You keep standing” or, “Take that seat there under my footstool”?  With those last two points in mind, now think about a key point that is rarely, if ever, explained according to the context. It's the point about the "rebuke given by the majority:"  (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 7 now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness. 8 I therefore exhort you to confirm your love for him. 9 For this is also why I wrote to you: to determine whether you would give proof of your obedience in all things. 10 If you forgive anyone for anything, I do also. In fact, whatever I have forgiven (if I have forgiven anything) has been for your sake in Christ’s sight, 11 so that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs. The interesting point here in 2 Cor 2:5-11 is that the context is about how Paul says that "we [Paul and fellow apostles, we could assume] are not masters [governors] over your faith." (1:23-2:4) Paul says that he expects that most would agree with him in the matter of forgiveness, and that this is why he mentioned the word "obedience" (see verse 9). I think this should remind us that there would be certain situations where Paul might expect everyone to agree but that this might also mean that everyone was NOT always expected to agree. In fact Paul had already dealt with this same idea of how not everyone would be in agreement with direction that came from letters from Paul: (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) 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. In 2 Thessalonians, the issue was withdrawing from those who were walking disorderly (3:6) and not in agreement with the instructions given by Paul in this same letter which we now know is inspired Scripture (and by extension, any apostles with the same authority to instruct). 
There is never any talk about the specific amount of time that goes by between giving a rebuke for an offense by withdrawing our hospitality and when the person is received back. A rebuke has nothing to do with trying to judge whether the person is repentant, or how much time had gone by. A rebuke can be a one-time thing. Perhaps it was never up to the elders to judge repentance. Perhaps it was not up to the elders at all, but was a matter of every individual's conscience, after hearing the instruction and guidance that Paul gave. (And no doubt the elders would provide good guidance based on showing the same spirit Paul was showing and which he made clear in his letters.) But these things give us the idea that it was still up to each individual as to whether they might agree with the need to withdraw their hospitality. That's the most likely reason, I'd think, that Paul would speak of the "rebuke of the majority." It could also mean that by the time that a majority of people in the congregation had heard about it and had an opportunity to indicate to the wrongdoer that they were now aware of his or her wrongdoing. If either case, this could just as well be something that was over and done with in a matter of a week or so, or however long it took for a majority of the members to learn of the problem. Also on this matter of timing, some were evidently too willing to continue their withdrawal of hospitality without considering the sadness of the person affected. So Paul had to remind them.
And Paul wasn't all that concerned with the fact that not every conscience would be in agreement, even when Paul knew he was right, and that he was giving the correct counsel for the situation. Paul was writing a letter that was inspired scripture (2 Thess) and he said to continue admonishing someone as a brother if they decided not to follow those instructions. How often do we hear anything like that from any of the governing authorities of religions today?  And they aren't even apostles, and are not even inspired.
It wasn't specifically about whether they were "repentant" but whether they were still practicing the wrongdoing:
(1 Corinthians 5:9, 10) 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.
 
And the other idea from the verse is that the persons they withdraw from are not entirely out of their lives, otherwise they would have to get out of the world, but that they would not mix with them in a friendly hospitable manner as if they were sharing with them in an approving way regarding their conduct.
The point from 2 John about not even saying a greeting is similar, but appears to be taking it even a bit farther because of a specific, dangerous teaching that there never was a real Jesus on the earth. What reason would Christians have to be friendly and hospitable with this person. It was the most insidious teaching that the entire religion was based on a lie. That all of this was being made up by liars and impostors. We might expect that after the apostles died out, but as long as the apostles were alive, they knew that this was the most dangerous of all teachings when all the eye-witnesses of Jesus were dead. The testimony of eye-witnesses and the writings of the literate associates of those eye-witnesses is the very basis for what would be accepted as Christian Scripture. That verse, according to 2 John applies only to that particular form of apostasy or falsehood where Jesus himself is being denied:
(1 John 2:22) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
(2 John 7-10) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 
 

"Breathtaking. I shall call him... Mini-Me".
 
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Me

"No. I am your Father!"
"No! That's not true! That's impossible!"

@AllenSmith Do you have any evidence for this connection between the word "Pagan" and "Dagan"?
As you probably know, probably 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars who have ever researched the topic of the chronology surrounding the reign of Nebuchadnezzar agree entirely with COJ's research. So it's not specifically COJ's research that I find credible; it's the research of 99% of all Neo-Babylonian scholars. If you have found someone in the 1% whose research you find credible, then by all means present it. It's just that you've had this opportunity several times, and have always, so far, ended up presenting evidence that went against your own claims. After that, you have often tried throwing an "ad hominem" tantrum instead of showing any evidence. Then, I notice that you wait a few weeks or months and either forget what happened, or try to pretend it didn't happen. In spite of these tactics, I'm willing to see you try again. If you think you have evidence this time, please start a new topic.

No mischaracterization at all. I merely stated a fact. And it's a fact that several people on this forum have noticed. It might have been helpful for Aruana to understand that, because right after you posted a lot of research, she asked: "You believe this research?" I assumed you would explain yourself because it was not clear why you posted some of it, and I was pretty sure it was not all research that you believed in yourself. Or as I also said, you may have been using some of it and added some additional research "for context." But at any rate, you certainly haven't made clear what portions of it you believe in and what portions you do not.
If that were the case then they were not really a researcher (if they only read and accept what they want to accept). If a person really is a researcher they will be finding themselves constantly questioning things they have previously accepted. I have finally had to accept many things I didn't want to, but only if there was sufficient evidence against the ideas I had held, and for the idea that came to replace it. And it never means that any of my current ideas are absolutely defined either. Research is a continually humbling experience, because new evidence must always be weighed carefully apart from our preconceived notions. Pride makes us give to much weight to preconceived notions and traditions. But traditions can make the word of God invalid, as Jesus said.
I never saw you or anyone else provide evidence for this. The most likely information I found on the derivation of "Pagan" matches what I see in the Oxford English Dictionary:
pagan, n. and a.
(ˈpeɪgən)
Forms: 4 paygane, 5 pagayne, 5–6 pagane, 5– pagan.
[ad. L. pāgān-us, orig. ‘villager, rustic; civilian, non-militant’, opposed to mīlēs ‘soldier, one of the army’, in Christian L. (Tertullian, Augustine) ‘heathen’ as opposed to Christian or Jewish. The Christians called themselves mīlitēs ‘enrolled soldiers’ of Christ, members of his militant church, and applied to non-Christians the term applied by soldiers to all who were ‘not enrolled in the army’. Cf. Tertullian De Corona Militis xi, ‘Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis’. See also Gibbon xxi. note.
Cf. payen.
   The explanation of L. pāgānus in the sense ‘non-Christian, heathen’, as arising out of that of ‘villager, rustic’, (supposedly indicating the fact that the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and hamlets after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire: see Trench Study of Words 102, and cf. Orosius i Præf. ‘Ex locorum agrestium compitis et pagis pagani vocantur’) has been shown to be chronologically and historically untenable, for this use of the word goes back to Tertullian c 202, when paganism was still the public and dominant religion, and even appears, according to Lanciani, in an epitaph of the 2nd cent.]
If you actually have information on this connection to Dagan by "some scholars" or any scholar, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested. Do you have any?
Actually, as you can see, I didn't say anything about whose research is acceptable, and I have NEVER indicated that only my research is worthwhile and acceptable. Research is usually a process, anyway, not an end in itself. It usually involved comparing evidence with the research of others, which means that by definition, no one in their right mind would ever think that ONLY their own research was valid.
I only indicated that one of the persons who was very well-known for making use of Hislop, and who spent a lot of time trying to validate Hislop ended up seeing his research as "fake" and he also saw first-hand how people went into denial no matter what they saw with their own eyes. This was exactly what Aruana was talking about. I noticed that you didn't requote the part about the Watch Tower dropping their use of Hislop for all the Babylon connections we once used his research to prove. So far, everything I've seen shows that the Watch Tower was correct to "drop" him. I've seen several bits of so-called research from Hislop that is so easy to prove false.
This is another great example. I didn't accept any of Carl Olof Jonsson's research at first, and when I finally did see it I knew I had to check all the most relevant points for myself. So I ignored his points and conclusions and started on my own.  I spent many days at the NYPL requesting materials from the "stacks." I spent a lot of money in purchased books and photocopying at the library since most of these books were for reference only. I worked in NYC for 25 years, otherwise this would not have been possible. But after I did this for myself, only then could I respect the research he had done, even though, as I have always said, I am NOT a scholar in this area, and it certainly is NOT my specialty. (I only mention that, because I think I remember you claiming the opposite about me once.) 
 
 
 

This sounds like an excellent description of the "scholarship" of Alexander Hislop, and a lot of other sloppy scholars who rely on him and people like him. Recently I quoted a person who had based his books on Hislop's "scholarship" and was making money off of it (The Two Babylons). After years of additional research, he realized it was "fake news" and rejected it, even though it meant a loss of money and fame for himself. He received all kinds of accusations, almost the equivalent of death threats just because he could no longer use fake scholarship in good conscience.
The Watch Tower also stopped using his fake scholarship many years ago, but it is still popular on the Internet because it fits what a lot of people want to believe.
All I am saying is that we need to be very careful before accepting so-called research just because it fits preconceived ideas or appears to be partly true. If you are referring to research that Allen quoted, you should know that in the past he has quoted much research that he later claimed he did not believe in or which turned out not to be supportive of the idea he apparently thought it was defending. 
 
I don't think that Allen is really saying he believes that Yahweh as a name is associated with the Sun (Shemesh is sun in Hebrew and Shamash is the name of the Mesopotamian/Babylonian Sun god.) Nor is the name itself applied in order to embody both male and female traits, as Allen quoted above. Perhaps Allen was quoting this portion for additional context. But either way, it shows what I was saying before: that we need to be very careful in our acceptance of scholarship and research.
Almost every bit of "research" that has been claimed of Muslim religion has a similar scholarly corollary in the way research shows us that Hebrew religion was practiced. Monotheism was a difficult thing for ancient peoples. Egypt tried it for a while too, and reverted. Jehovah blessed Israel as a holy nation to the extent that they maintained monotheism in his name.
Linguistically, there appears to be more evidence that the Arabic "allah" is from "al-ilah" (the God) -- also see, Aramaic "ʼĔlāhā", and Hebrew "Eloah" (70 times in the Bible). "Eloah" is used the same as the same as Aramaic "Elah." And "ilah" (Arabic for god or God) is traceable, therefore, to the same word for God found in the Aramaic portions of Daniel. When Hebrew puts the word "the" in front of it, it implies "the only true God." (Psalm 18:32, for example) This is exactly the purpose of Arabic putting the word "the" in front of it so that "al-ilah" means the only true God. The contracting of "Al-ilah" to "Allah" is a very common form of contraction that happens with other similar words. Words, over time, are contracted very similarly in Hebrew and English, too, of course.
Christian Arabs today have no other word for God but Allah. What word does the Arabic Watchtower use for God? Before Islam even existed, Arab-speaking Christians used the word "Allah" as the word for God -- for 500 years before Muhammad was born.
 

Arauna.

I subscribe your commentaries. The Watchtower recommendations about helping refugees in material sense should be seen with balance. Yes, Jesus and apostles helped poor people even with money (Jn 13:29).

My experience in this field has to do with a “fight” with my wife. She is all heart. Any refugee, or newcomer to our country she tries to help them with forms, with social counsel and so. Yes, obviously these people react with appreciation, as I would do in similar circumstances. But let me be crystal clear. Only ONE of these persons consume an enormous quantity of time (for me, most valuable than money). I mean, helping with official papers, doctors, hospitals, social rights, understanding of local law… Believe me, ONE person, ONE family, consumes a lot of resources. Well, please, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying no help, or a merely testimonial help. But we’ve found more useful to address these people to social services. They have more skills, more time and more resources than us.

Even more, we avoid the situation (very common) that these people showing interest in our message only because need material help.

Please, again, I’m not saying that we should only preach them without provide material help. But I wish to point out the same as Arauna: balance

Sometimes I have felt sorry for the majority of the population of the world, who (over the centuries) have never even heard of Christianity, not to mention that, even today, it's possible that most of the people on the earth have still really never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, we still trust that Jehovah and Christ have taken all this into consideration for the time of judgment and, perhaps more importantly, throughout the time of resurrection. So this is not about who will survive Armageddon, and who won't; it's merely about the wonderful advantages of knowing about the teachings of Jesus and the freedom to make changes in your life based on taking these teachings to heart. Most of the world may not have the freedom to take advantage of true Christianity even if they have heard of it. Another large portion of the earth has heard about historical Christianity, and wouldn't go anywhere near it because of its terrible reputation for violence, deception and theft of resources. They won't give it the benefit of the doubt.
But even for persons who fall into that last category, there is hope that many more will benefit from exposure to Christian ideas and ideals -- even under the worst of circumstances. The latest study edition of the Watchtower (May 2017) nailed it in the timely article "Helping 'Foreign Residents' to 'Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing.'" Note:
*** w17 May p. 3 par. 2 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
Worldwide, refugees who have fled their homes because of war or persecution now number over 65,000,000—the highest ever recorded.
The footnote expands on that idea:
*** w17 May p. 3 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
In this article, we use the term “refugees” to denote those who have been displaced—whether across national borders or within their own country—by armed conflict, persecution, or disaster. According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), today “1 in every 113 people” worldwide is “forcibly displaced.”
Nearly 1% of the world's population!
Granted that this article is primarily about how we treat our spiritual brothers and sisters who are refugees. And I know that some have criticized us for focusing almost exclusively on other Witnesses, instead of ALL persons. (Even though I'd guess that non-JWs don't criticize each other for choosing their favorite charities.) Scripturally, there is nothing wrong with primarily taking care (materially) of our family, and after that those "related to us in the faith." And I think it's also true that even giving primarily to Witness refugees, will still give a good witness that some groups are much better than others at 'taking care of their own.'
(1 Timothy 5:7, 8) . . .. 8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.
(Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
One thing I like about the article is the balance. The bulk of the article is about ways in which we as JWs can help out refugees in material practical ways. Of course, there are a few paragraphs on spiritual support, too. In the past we've seen the same basic idea presented, but often with only a generic statement about material support and very few practical ideas for what we can do materially. This article talks about helping persons not just with providing food, clothes, shelter, but also with transportation, government paperwork, learning the language, applying for jobs, driver licenses, etc.
I think a lot of persons will also appreciate that the paragraphs on "spiritual support" included emotional support with spiritual support. I thought these two paragraphs were especially useful:
*** w17 May pp. 6-7 pars. 15-16 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
15 More than material assistance, refugees need spiritual and emotional support. (Matt. 4:4) Elders can help by obtaining literature in the language of the refugees and by helping them contact brothers who speak their language. Many refugees have been torn away from their tight-knit extended families, communities, and congregations. They need to sense Jehovah’s love and compassion among their fellow Christians. Otherwise, they may be drawn to unbelieving relatives or compatriots who can relate to their culture and experiences. (1 Cor. 15:33) By making them feel fully accepted in the congregation, we have the privilege to share with Jehovah in “protecting the foreign residents.”—Ps. 146:9.
16 As with young Jesus and his family, refugees may not have the option of returning to their homeland as long as their oppressors remain in power. Further, as notes Lije, “many parents who saw family members raped and murdered cannot bear to bring their children back to where those tragedies occurred.” To help those who have experienced such trauma, brothers in lands receiving refugees need to have “fellow feeling, brotherly affection, tender compassion, and humility.” (1 Pet. 3:8) Persecution has caused some refugees to become withdrawn, and they may feel ashamed to talk about their suffering, especially in the presence of their children. Ask yourself, ‘If I were in their position, how would I like to be treated?’—Matt. 7:12
The article reminds us that we should be known for being concerned with good works, not just the preaching work. This fits a lot of ideas that have been mentioned in the recent past showing how sometimes doing good for persons in a material way, really is a spiritual work, and can be related to our sacred service. 

I don't have a problem with "morons" either, but only if we are fair and balanced and willing to refer to the Bible Students and early JWs as "morons" for following the instructions to do the same thing with loudspeakers, amplified phonographs, and sound cars in the area of churches. (In Russell's day they targeted churches, but only with tracts, not loud preaching.)
My parents and their fathers (my grandfathers) did this, but the closest I ever got to that old-time preaching style, was wearing sandwich signs at the 1963 Peace on Earth convention in Pasadena. Sandwich signs had already lost their popularity by then, but the city servant or assembly servant had made a few for some reason. I was only 6 and I vaguely remember it dragged on the ground in front of me and I think I might have even tripped a time or two. I've seen the picture, and will ask my parents for a copy to post.

Sometimes I have felt sorry for the majority of the population of the world, who (over the centuries) have never even heard of Christianity, not to mention that, even today, it's possible that most of the people on the earth have still really never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, we still trust that Jehovah and Christ have taken all this into consideration for the time of judgment and, perhaps more importantly, throughout the time of resurrection. So this is not about who will survive Armageddon, and who won't; it's merely about the wonderful advantages of knowing about the teachings of Jesus and the freedom to make changes in your life based on taking these teachings to heart. Most of the world may not have the freedom to take advantage of true Christianity even if they have heard of it. Another large portion of the earth has heard about historical Christianity, and wouldn't go anywhere near it because of its terrible reputation for violence, deception and theft of resources. They won't give it the benefit of the doubt.
But even for persons who fall into that last category, there is hope that many more will benefit from exposure to Christian ideas and ideals -- even under the worst of circumstances. The latest study edition of the Watchtower (May 2017) nailed it in the timely article "Helping 'Foreign Residents' to 'Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing.'" Note:
*** w17 May p. 3 par. 2 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
Worldwide, refugees who have fled their homes because of war or persecution now number over 65,000,000—the highest ever recorded.
The footnote expands on that idea:
*** w17 May p. 3 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
In this article, we use the term “refugees” to denote those who have been displaced—whether across national borders or within their own country—by armed conflict, persecution, or disaster. According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), today “1 in every 113 people” worldwide is “forcibly displaced.”
Nearly 1% of the world's population!
Granted that this article is primarily about how we treat our spiritual brothers and sisters who are refugees. And I know that some have criticized us for focusing almost exclusively on other Witnesses, instead of ALL persons. (Even though I'd guess that non-JWs don't criticize each other for choosing their favorite charities.) Scripturally, there is nothing wrong with primarily taking care (materially) of our family, and after that those "related to us in the faith." And I think it's also true that even giving primarily to Witness refugees, will still give a good witness that some groups are much better than others at 'taking care of their own.'
(1 Timothy 5:7, 8) . . .. 8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.
(Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
One thing I like about the article is the balance. The bulk of the article is about ways in which we as JWs can help out refugees in material practical ways. Of course, there are a few paragraphs on spiritual support, too. In the past we've seen the same basic idea presented, but often with only a generic statement about material support and very few practical ideas for what we can do materially. This article talks about helping persons not just with providing food, clothes, shelter, but also with transportation, government paperwork, learning the language, applying for jobs, driver licenses, etc.
I think a lot of persons will also appreciate that the paragraphs on "spiritual support" included emotional support with spiritual support. I thought these two paragraphs were especially useful:
*** w17 May pp. 6-7 pars. 15-16 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
15 More than material assistance, refugees need spiritual and emotional support. (Matt. 4:4) Elders can help by obtaining literature in the language of the refugees and by helping them contact brothers who speak their language. Many refugees have been torn away from their tight-knit extended families, communities, and congregations. They need to sense Jehovah’s love and compassion among their fellow Christians. Otherwise, they may be drawn to unbelieving relatives or compatriots who can relate to their culture and experiences. (1 Cor. 15:33) By making them feel fully accepted in the congregation, we have the privilege to share with Jehovah in “protecting the foreign residents.”—Ps. 146:9.
16 As with young Jesus and his family, refugees may not have the option of returning to their homeland as long as their oppressors remain in power. Further, as notes Lije, “many parents who saw family members raped and murdered cannot bear to bring their children back to where those tragedies occurred.” To help those who have experienced such trauma, brothers in lands receiving refugees need to have “fellow feeling, brotherly affection, tender compassion, and humility.” (1 Pet. 3:8) Persecution has caused some refugees to become withdrawn, and they may feel ashamed to talk about their suffering, especially in the presence of their children. Ask yourself, ‘If I were in their position, how would I like to be treated?’—Matt. 7:12
The article reminds us that we should be known for being concerned with good works, not just the preaching work. This fits a lot of ideas that have been mentioned in the recent past showing how sometimes doing good for persons in a material way, really is a spiritual work, and can be related to our sacred service. 

There has been an assumption that the US President will reduce regulations on companies that pollute which will make them more profitable. Similarly it is assumed that he will reduce the regulations that keep banks more honest, and that they will therefore become more profitable, too. Same for drug/pharma companies. Companies that make money from privatizing the education system are expected to be more profitable. But the most outstanding rise in stock prices from the time that our current US President became electable was in the area of privatized prisons.
Perhaps it was the promise of new detention centers for immigrants, both legal and illegal, and a new crackdown on crime, or a realization that less money spent on health, education and welfare has always been a perfect formula for locking up more people.
What's curious about most Americans and much of the rest of the world, too, is that they have long believed that great rises in stock prices ("Wall Street") is a good thing. The types of rises that are seen in the stock market however are mostly a reflection of the ability of companies in general to make more money --profit-- off the backs of people who can't afford to participate profitably in that same market. The stock market is more of a signal of economic greed by the top 1% to 5%  than it is of healthy economic growth with benefits that might trickle down to the rest of the population.

I saw an article recently which talked about the 'abuse' and lack of staff in these prisons because there are too few wardens and no investment in prison infrastructure.  The prisons have become a place for open drug smuggling and the vilest of practices - in comparison to the time that government managed it.  Private companies do not care about the level of service / humanitarian issues because they are enriching themselves off the money from the government for providing a "service." 
No chance of anyone being reformed in places like those!

A scarcity of money, time, and education is generally a major obstacle to quality Bible translation, as has been observed. But I think the organization, largely because it is organized (and dedicated, and stresses self-sacrifice) has gotten around all three of them.
On education, when we find an expert, he trains 100 others. When the world finds an expert, he competes with other experts. If he trains them, it is at a significant fee which works, along with other factors, such as a for-profit distribution channel, to price the final product out of reach of the common people it is hoped to benefit. Our people produce a straight-forward master text in English. All the translators are schooled in translation techniques. They are all encouraged to ask questions about specific problems or verses, and when they do, the answers become part of a database accessible to all.
Regarding 'free,' it isn't really free, since our people may get room and board. If they're in full-time service, as I think most/all of them are, they receive a small monthly stipend. It's not as though they must log their regular workday at the factory, and then translate an hour or two after dinner. 'Generous' or 'Efficient' or 'Whole-souled' are better descriptive words than free.
Regarding time, I'm not sure that is a factor. There are no deadlines that I am aware of. They get to it when they get to it. If they find  they need more time, they are granted it.
However, I don't want to quibble over these things. Maybe there is a better way to do it. But what is typical is the remark heard at the weekly meetings this week - the Nepalese man expressing appreciation for the NWT in his language. In English there are many readable translations, the NWT is not the only one. But nobody cares about the Nepalese because they do not have any money. Thus they are stuck with some 200 year old turkey of a translation that they can't understand, until the NWT comes along. That situation is repeated in many lands.

The best help - gift -  we can give anyone is to teach them about Jehovah!   It lifts them out of despair and gives them hope  for a future - something to look forward to!   Many live in poverty (with its associated crime and ignorance) and realize there is no way they will ever get out of their circumstances - they do not have the education or money or opportunities..to get out of their country or circumstances...  Some fathers start to drink/use drugs with the little money they earn and increase the suffering of their families because they are desperate and do not know the way out.  (I lived 48 years in Africa before moving to Europe and later in America - now in Sweden).  I saw such extreme poverty that I was stunned by it... and realized that only the message of Jehovah can give hope for a future life.
We are very materialistic in the West!  Jehovah promises us to come out of Armageddon only with our "life" - no other things.  What is the most precious gift we have - it is our life!  I think the very poor and deprived sometimes understand this more than affluent people do!  (This is why affluent people make issues of very small things because they are not wondering where their next meal is coming from for their family!) When I see the smiles of our brothers in Africa, and know that many of them only have the minimum to survive, and yet they have such joy! ... my heart is happy to know that someone took the time to teach them the truth!
I  worked amongst Arab speaking refugees in America - sometimes more than 100 hours and spent some 30 to 40 additional hours helping them with translations and filling out forms etc. ... and I have come to the conclusion that some just want "social help"  and focus more on material things.  They are not really searching for the "truth".  Some have a spiritual need but they are not prepared to let go of their "wants"  to reach out for the promises that Jehovah can give them. They are not spiritual people  but "fleshly".  They evaluate everything in only fleshly terms.  Of course we must teach them this but sometimes they just want to  "take" more than "give".  Because witnesses are so 'giving' these people can become predators.   So we must be careful to keep the right focus - first on spiritual help.   This is why it is wise to look after our own brothers and sisters first - and then reach out to others with "social works."
To be a truly Christian person we will not hold back kindness when it is possible to give it - but the most precious gift is the truth!  Of course (if it is in your power to do something do it).  I wrote letters for people who could not speak the language to get better housing or helped them to reduce bills ... I gave some help which does not involve money... and this giving spirit demonstrated to them the Christian way of thinking - to help others at sacrifice to self.  To give 'time' to help others.  But the focus of our time should be spent on teaching others the truth.  Our time is the most precious commodity we have!
Oh, I wanted to add another thought:   The witnesses are preaching in so many languages now that most people on earth can be reached in their own language!  Those who are living in "closed" societies - such as muslim countries where a bible is not allowed - these nations are now being shaken!  So these refugees are now coming out and being contacted with the truth!
I preach here in the streets giving out tracts.  Some come to me - and ask questions!   I make sure I show them how different we are to other Christians so they have a solid basis to go and think about... and later talk to the Witnesses again.  I feel about it this way - they are getting a Witness - very few are going to listen - but all need to get an opportunity!
Jehovah will resurrect those who are asleep in death - those who never had contact with the truth.  Many were good people and had a good conscience!  Jehovah is just and will not pass anyone by that may be a good future citizen of his Government. We must now focus on getting the "precious things of the nations"  out of the vicious world which will soon collapse!

Yes. This started late in 1981, a little before the GB member was disfellowshipped, but after he had been asked to resign from the Governing Body. These kinds of things were not typical, as far as I could tell, except around the epicenter of Brooklyn Bethel.
You're welcome. As I mentioned to Anna, I thought that this kind of thing was much more rare outside of the headquarters area. I appreciate getting a better picture from some of the anecdotes you have included on the topic.
Percy's case was the most extreme that I took personally, and which made my blood boil. There was another, but I won't tell it again now in any detail (about my sister being asked to put up with her violently abusive husband and to try more meekness, field service and prayer, because they didn't want to remove his privileges as a ministerial servant).
But please remember that these are told in the context of the time that they happened. We are nowhere near perfect, and we don't really claim to be, but we have all seen many improvements, especially in the last decade or two. And I think that all of us continue to expect more big improvements, some of which are likely to surprise us.
In fact, I was pleased that @Eoin Joyce didn't think this was the whole story (about Percy) and that @TrueTomimplied that such stories might be only partially true. When something that happened is extremely difficult to believe, then it should be that much less likely to ever happen again.
I notice that the question of dirty laundry and motive also comes up, which shouldn't be surprising. The question should be welcomed. If we are concerned about truth and justice and improvements and error and tradition and 'strongly entrenched things' then the common "refrain" will be the request to refrain. Accusations of pride and apostasy are expected too. Love for the brotherhood should override these minor obstacles, however, and we should do our best to imitate Biblical examples of faith and courage.
I appreciate the discussion. If we see error we should spotlight it. In the long run, this makes the light of truth shine more brightly.
(Mark 4:21, 22) 21 He also said to them: “A lamp is not brought out to be put under a basket or under a bed, is it? Is it not brought out to be put on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.
 

I kind of understand this to mean that obviously a neck tie doesn't take precedent over necessary things (food, medicine, shelter etc.) but I feel it is more of a sentimental gesture, perhaps making a brother feel "dressed" for the meeting....more of a dignity thing perhaps, and given after, and not instead of all the other necessary things that were taken care of. first...just my opinion

Sometimes I have felt sorry for the majority of the population of the world, who (over the centuries) have never even heard of Christianity, not to mention that, even today, it's possible that most of the people on the earth have still really never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, we still trust that Jehovah and Christ have taken all this into consideration for the time of judgment and, perhaps more importantly, throughout the time of resurrection. So this is not about who will survive Armageddon, and who won't; it's merely about the wonderful advantages of knowing about the teachings of Jesus and the freedom to make changes in your life based on taking these teachings to heart. Most of the world may not have the freedom to take advantage of true Christianity even if they have heard of it. Another large portion of the earth has heard about historical Christianity, and wouldn't go anywhere near it because of its terrible reputation for violence, deception and theft of resources. They won't give it the benefit of the doubt.
But even for persons who fall into that last category, there is hope that many more will benefit from exposure to Christian ideas and ideals -- even under the worst of circumstances. The latest study edition of the Watchtower (May 2017) nailed it in the timely article "Helping 'Foreign Residents' to 'Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing.'" Note:
*** w17 May p. 3 par. 2 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
Worldwide, refugees who have fled their homes because of war or persecution now number over 65,000,000—the highest ever recorded.
The footnote expands on that idea:
*** w17 May p. 3 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
In this article, we use the term “refugees” to denote those who have been displaced—whether across national borders or within their own country—by armed conflict, persecution, or disaster. According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), today “1 in every 113 people” worldwide is “forcibly displaced.”
Nearly 1% of the world's population!
Granted that this article is primarily about how we treat our spiritual brothers and sisters who are refugees. And I know that some have criticized us for focusing almost exclusively on other Witnesses, instead of ALL persons. (Even though I'd guess that non-JWs don't criticize each other for choosing their favorite charities.) Scripturally, there is nothing wrong with primarily taking care (materially) of our family, and after that those "related to us in the faith." And I think it's also true that even giving primarily to Witness refugees, will still give a good witness that some groups are much better than others at 'taking care of their own.'
(1 Timothy 5:7, 8) . . .. 8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.
(Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
One thing I like about the article is the balance. The bulk of the article is about ways in which we as JWs can help out refugees in material practical ways. Of course, there are a few paragraphs on spiritual support, too. In the past we've seen the same basic idea presented, but often with only a generic statement about material support and very few practical ideas for what we can do materially. This article talks about helping persons not just with providing food, clothes, shelter, but also with transportation, government paperwork, learning the language, applying for jobs, driver licenses, etc.
I think a lot of persons will also appreciate that the paragraphs on "spiritual support" included emotional support with spiritual support. I thought these two paragraphs were especially useful:
*** w17 May pp. 6-7 pars. 15-16 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
15 More than material assistance, refugees need spiritual and emotional support. (Matt. 4:4) Elders can help by obtaining literature in the language of the refugees and by helping them contact brothers who speak their language. Many refugees have been torn away from their tight-knit extended families, communities, and congregations. They need to sense Jehovah’s love and compassion among their fellow Christians. Otherwise, they may be drawn to unbelieving relatives or compatriots who can relate to their culture and experiences. (1 Cor. 15:33) By making them feel fully accepted in the congregation, we have the privilege to share with Jehovah in “protecting the foreign residents.”—Ps. 146:9.
16 As with young Jesus and his family, refugees may not have the option of returning to their homeland as long as their oppressors remain in power. Further, as notes Lije, “many parents who saw family members raped and murdered cannot bear to bring their children back to where those tragedies occurred.” To help those who have experienced such trauma, brothers in lands receiving refugees need to have “fellow feeling, brotherly affection, tender compassion, and humility.” (1 Pet. 3:8) Persecution has caused some refugees to become withdrawn, and they may feel ashamed to talk about their suffering, especially in the presence of their children. Ask yourself, ‘If I were in their position, how would I like to be treated?’—Matt. 7:12
The article reminds us that we should be known for being concerned with good works, not just the preaching work. This fits a lot of ideas that have been mentioned in the recent past showing how sometimes doing good for persons in a material way, really is a spiritual work, and can be related to our sacred service. 

I agree, but I didn't think you would go there on this particular article. Based on the history of "new light" we obviously have had a mix of valid and invalid teachings. We would be foolish to think that this track record somehow disappears after each and every correction. Yet we sometimes act as if our doctrines are unquestionable, or at least that we should treat them as if they are.
The one thing I saw in the article that reminded me of you was this statement:
*** w17 May p. 5 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
GIVING REFUGEES PRACTICAL HELP
11 At first, we may need to supplement our brothers’ food, clothing, or other basic needs. Even small gestures, like giving a brother a necktie, mean a lot.
I was thinking, "a necktie"? Really? That's on par with supplementing their food, clothing  and other basic needs? It reminded me of a satirical post you made once and something similar I saw once in "The Onion."

I agree, but I didn't think you would go there on this particular article. Based on the history of "new light" we obviously have had a mix of valid and invalid teachings. We would be foolish to think that this track record somehow disappears after each and every correction. Yet we sometimes act as if our doctrines are unquestionable, or at least that we should treat them as if they are.
The one thing I saw in the article that reminded me of you was this statement:
*** w17 May p. 5 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” ***
GIVING REFUGEES PRACTICAL HELP
11 At first, we may need to supplement our brothers’ food, clothing, or other basic needs. Even small gestures, like giving a brother a necktie, mean a lot.
I was thinking, "a necktie"? Really? That's on par with supplementing their food, clothing  and other basic needs? It reminded me of a satirical post you made once and something similar I saw once in "The Onion."

It's a "congregation" where any one of us can pick up a 12-pt or a 14-pt "megaphone" in a professional looking font. We can even shout in a bolder and larger font if we wish.