Thanks Atlantis, much appreciated.
Here are some thoughts on some of the rulings found in the Shepherding Book. In many instances they continue to list a number of questions that the Elders should consider but don't even explain why they should consider those things. My guess is that examples are given at the special Elder schools and they list those in their books. This makes it seem like the organization is not so dogmatic.
Their appears to be a change in attitude about Elder's children living at home, this includes adult children.
If a brother’s wife or child, including an adult child living in
his home, is involved in serious wrongdoing, the body should seek
to determine whether the brother was negligent...Allows Disfellowshipped or Disassociated Family Member to
Move Into His Home:...Similar questions should be considered when an adult child living at home is disfellowshipped or disassociated and allowed to remain in the home.
No review is required as to why an Elder would continue to allow his son or daughter who is not yet an adult to live at home, it is only required when an child who is not an adult and wants to move back into the home. This is a big change and would suggest that there is no direction from the organization that a non adult child should be kicked out, even by an Elder.
31...Elders do not generally involve themselves in what an individual does with regard to petty gambling
solely for entertainment. However, if such petty gambling affects
his spirituality or becomes a cause of stumbling for others, counsel should be given.
It looks like this is new too. It's okay to gamble as long as it is for entertainment purposes. That weekly scratchie is a go, but you are not allowed to sell them, even as an employee.
Included is a new example of when two witnesses are not required in a situation.
An exception may be
made, however, if the unbeliever privately makes an unambiguous confession of adultery to the Christian mate. In such a case,
if the innocent Christian mate believes that the confession is true
and does not wish to reconcile, he can submit a letter to the elders outlining his situation...If there is no known reason to conclude otherwise, the innocent mate can be allowed to take responsibility before Jehovah for obtaining a Scriptural divorce; if
he remarries, no judicial action will be taken.
There also appears to be some new circumstances in which a adulterer can seek remarriage. The Elders can determine that the innocent mate demonstrates their rejection of the adulterer and includes -
76.2 The innocent mate signs a divorce decree or in
some other way indicates he does not object to a
divorce initiated by the guilty mate, either before or
after learning of the adultery.
76.3 Though verbally expressing forgiveness and not seeking
a divorce, the innocent mate refuses to resume sexual
relations for a very prolonged period of time, a year or
even years.
Both these rulings are interesting. In point No. 2 if the innocent party has indicated that they were agreeable to a divorce without even knowing their partner committed adultery the adulterer is free to remarry. This means that the adulterer is given a lot of power in the situation and does not allow for a change of mind from the innocent party.
Point No. 3 also hands over power to the adulterer.
There are many marriages where sex is withheld and for lesser reasons than the other mate having cheated, yet there is no freedom there for remarriage. This ruling is an injustice to them. The adulterer could continue to make life just that little bit unpleasant for the partner that desire for sexual relations is impossible to resume. I can imagine a situation that an innocent partner with children and very dependent on the adulterer is willing to forgive but is made to feel ugly/unwanted/undesirable and having sex can feel like a complete violation of their own body.