Given the potential shunning prblems in the future it's a crime for the JWs to baptise anyone under the age of 18 if not 21 since they can't understand the possible future problems in case they violate JW rules or just decide to leave.
As was the case with oompa and his son, they would have been better off without a JW baptism, to evade shunning.
Child Baptisims Really Pissing Me Off. Linked to DF's
by oompa 18 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
greendawn
-
nvrgnbk
Great topic, oompa!
I wont let my 13 year-old get baptized till he reads Crisis of Conscience and is a legal adult.
If he wants to then, that's his business.
I'm betting he passes.
-
WTWizard
I think the requirements for baptism should be as follows:
(1) The candidate must be at least 18, and I prefer 21, before even going through the questions. Mentally or emotionally impaired people would not be permitted to undergo baptism. There would be absolutely no exceptions, not even with parental consent, since the parents often are influenced by the cult to get children baptized at age 6 just to showcase them at the Grand Boasting Sessions.
(2) The candidate has to have completed the study book AND at least three independent reviews on the religion, at least one of which has to be against it. This will give the person ample opportunity to see both sides of the picture. After all, if the religion really was that sound, the apostate arguments and literature would look specious compared to the real thing.
(3) There shall be absolutely no hounding by parents or hounders for children or new studies to get baptized. Threats of getting destroyed if they do not get baptized soon count as initiatory coercion and are thus unacceptable.
If these rules were followed, there would be far fewer people getting baptized and then regretting it later. They would also not be forced to get baptized at age 6 to showcase them for yearbooks and Grand Boasting Sessions.
There should also be one final rule. Once a person is baptized, any consistent and continual breach of promises made by the congregation or study conductor that are part of the foundation upon which the person accepted the study or baptism will be grounds for the person to declare their baptism null and void, no matter what. This means that, if the hounders promise to help the student find a mate after baptism only to let them down willfully, the baptism can be annulled. This would force the religion to practice fully integrated honesty, not promising more than can be reasonably delivered and then letting them down. They would also have to refrain from hounding candidates to start pioneering or do Beth Hell or missionary work after they are baptized; continual hounding would also be grounds for revoking the baptism. After all, if the religion is really that great, there would be no need for all the hounding.
-
bluebell
My bro got baptised at 13 and DF at 15.
When people used to say to me - why aren't you baptised? - I used to say - look what happened to my brother. They soon stopped. Then i was dumb and got dipped once everyone had stopped hounding me!
-
Brigido
I was baptized at age 12 in 1957 because my parents told me I had to. The parents told me that at the start of puberty family merit ends and individual merit begins. Before puberty I was saved by the good deeds done by my parents, after puberty I was judged by Jehovah based solely on my own behavior and if I was not baptized I would be murdered by Jehovah at Armageddon soon.
That seemed like a compelling enough reason to me at the time.Much the same like Gary, I too was baptized at 12, 20 years later. I was told/threatened that if "I am in the "truth" and know it, then I should be baptized because if
I didn't, I would be destroyed at Armageddon". Then they said, since I was the last to get dunked in my family, "Do you really want to be the only one in the family that doesn't make it because you are not baptized"? Imagine what that would sound like to a 12 year old kid. So of course, with those kinds of threats, I did it.
Looking back at it, that is way too much of a decision for a child to make not knowing the complexities invloved with that decision and how it can effect your life from there. It is way too young and the expectations are too great. I would never allow a child of mine to do that much less, recommend it.
Like everyone else said, children and minors are not allowed to do many things but yet Crooklyn thinks they are smart enough to make that kind of a decision? In my opinion, as far as I'm concerned, Crooklyn is only concerned about their numbers and how great this would look for their stupid reports. Much like everyone does with their "service" time, I think the boys in Crooklyn flub their numbers too.
Brigido Free to be Me - Walking away, the best thing I ever did!
-
oompa
Anyone who hold someone ACCOUNTABLE as and ADULT for a decision they made as a CHILD has no credibility with me.
Pretty soon I expect a campaign in nursing homes to recruit and Baptize all Alheizers patients!
perfect canidates...oompa
-
AllTimeJeff
Great point. Having served on 3 judicial committees with teens less then 2 years after I sat in on their "baptism committee", I was struck by how unready these kids were. "Unready" isn't the right word. It's entrapment.
In the bible, only full grown men and women made the choice to be baptized. I would also add that baptism amounted to a decleration that you accepted Jesus, not that you were subjecting yourself to full time shunning for pissing off a group of angry men stuck in a board room.
The reasoning here is very sound. We don't encourage people to make "life long" decisions about who you can or can't get married to. In fact, there is even the remedy for divorce. But once you are in, you are in.
It's like what Michael Corleone said in Godfather III "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in" There is no exit strategy. And for those of you who made that life long decision as a teen, or worse, as a 8,9, or 10 year old, the grew up and found out the truth about "da troof", tough luck! Play the game the GB states for you too or else lose your family.
Chalk it up to the pile of ruined families the borg is responsible for...
-
ness
yeah, i was 13 when i took the plunge....silly me.
*edited to add* oh and oompa, im sorry to read about your situation. your poor son
-
tula
Some quotes concerning baptism:
Pointing out that Baptist doctrine rejected the necessity of baptism for salvation, but required baptism for acceptance into the Baptist church, the debaters would say, "Your doctrine makes it easier to go to heaven than to get into the Baptist church!"
No one within the body of shepherds ever suggested that "open membership" was an acceptable option, but there were some who felt that immersion for the remission of sins should be the litmus-test requirement for membership.
We practice open communion but not open membership. Every person who chooses to be a part of our faith journey is taught that immersion for the remission of sins, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a clear command of God, and is steadfastly urged to obey that command. Meanwhile, we continue to welcome them, share communion with them, accept money they may wish to contribute, even publish their name in our membership directory if they wish. We recognize that such a degree of acceptance may leave a wrong impression, or even give a false sense of security. http://www.disciples.org/ccu/Dialogues/dialoguedocuments/2000Morrison.html
The elders state that baptism is a contract, and that once joined there is “no nice way out”. They take no responsibility for any depression or suicides that occur because of the shunning that results from their decision.http://www.virushead.net/vhrandom/tag/baptism-as-contract
MINORS CANNOT LEGALLY ENTER INTO CONTRACT.
Because baptism is a contract, you are giving up your free will to the direction and enforcement of the church dictates. This is why no court will entertain lawsuits ...you have GIVEN UP your first amendment rights. This is what separation of church and state really means!!