Shirley said-
"...Brother Russell wrote, in 1896: "As we have been to some extent, by the grace of God, used in the ministry of the gospel, it may not be out of place to say here what we have frequently said in private, and previously in these columns,—namely, that while we appreciate the love, sympathy, confidence and fellowship of fellow-servants and of the entire household of faith, we want no homage, no reverence, for ourselves or our writings..."
So which is it?
Is CT Russell to be denounced as an egomanical leader of the WTBTS (as found in many other threads on JWN), or is he the gentle and kind soul who humbly founded a group of meek Christians, demonstrating how evul and authoritarian the current GB is? As Metatron pointed out, shunning was just as utilized in Rutherford's day as ever (although not as explicitly defined).
Like I said before, it's not whatever happy clap-trap they WRITE for public consumption in the mags that matters (such passages are subjective, thanks to WT's consistent use of weasel words), but what choices the policies permit or prohibit the members to make (which in order to provide direction by elders, MUST be written in a more-objective manner, as unambiguously as possible).
Policies talk, and WT/Awake fluff BS walks.
That said, your example shows the pit-fall of cherry-picking excerpts from the WT pubs, using an example you provided as a comparison demonstrates: they have to be similar topics.
(Watchtower April 1, 1920, pp.100-101)
"We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord's channel. If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience.".
That excerpt proves only the WTBTS has been masters of writing deceptively for almost a century now, and are able to masterfully use 'weasel words'.
The first sentence says if a brother doesn't believe the WTBTS is the true religion (i.e. Lord's channel), there is no congregational-wide mandate (or announcement) to shun him. HOWEVER, the next sentence says if others DO decide to shun him, that is their privilege, since there SHOULD be liberty of conscience.
Note the weasel word 'should': it's NOT an imperative (like the word MUST would be) but merely a suggestion, a desirable outcome or goal to shoot for, but not required to attain. So it allows for the possibility of failing to meet the goal, and still attaining a satisfactory result: it's a 'weasel word', and lets the WTBTS off the hook if full unrestricted liberty of conscience is not guaranteed for all.
Of course, the catch-22 (which they fail to mention) is that while someone may decide NOT to shun anyone who doesn't believe the JWs are not the true religion, all the OTHERS members of the congregation in turn ALSO have the privilege to sever THEIR relationship with the person who refuses to shun the other, by exercising their 'liberty of conscience' to shun the person who refuses to shun the other.
It's the same ol' game, only an early version of it, since the shunning policy was officially defined as a practice later (in 1952).
In fact, your excerpt seems to be the inspiration for another recent use of the same weasel-worditry, found in the Awake! July, 2009 article entitled "Is it wrong to leave your religion?":
Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family.
The phrase "freedom to choose" implies the decision to abandon "true teachings" WILL have consequences, but God allows each person to "pick their poison".
Also note the presence of the same weasel-word (should), and the unstated message that every JW knows is implied:
while the PERSON isn't forced to choose between the WTBTS and their family, his FAMILY enjoys the right to shun HIM for HIS decision.
IN other words, DFed individuals are not forced to choose to shun their JW families, since their family will likely shun them (or in turn risk being DFed for not playing the shun game).
