Follow up ? to Baptism/ legalism

by Makena1 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Makena1

  I believe it was AlanF who started this thread back in June regarding the evolution of baptism vows.
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=6490&site=3#75845

  Also, ISOCF (Ray Franz) on pgs 117-120 discusses this also - detailing the right of the borg to disfellowship its members.

  From Alan's post it appears that IF you were a minor and baptized before 1985, you could legally state that you did NOT vow loyalty to the organization, and could rightly reject a JC's attempts to disassociate or disfellowship you. Is this correct?

  For instance, my wife and I were baptized in 1967 (me) and 1971 (her), I was 12 she was 14. We stopped attending 2 years ago, inactive, drifted, and have very little contact with any active JW's. Recently a former close friend came by to visit, encourage us to return etc., and we expressed several reasons why we would never go back. It felt "good" to come clean and explain why we had not accepted emails, calls, or visits from them. Our friend said that our friendship goes beyond the organization etc., which was a noble statement. However, I told him that if our views were generally known, it is very likely we would be d'fd for apostacy. He naively said he did not think this would happen.

  Bottom line question - has anyone successfully used this "defense" to avoid a JC - they were underage and their dedication and baptism took place under the pre 1985 "old vows" - OR like what happened to Ray Franz and others - can one be disfellowshipped IN RETRO?

  Thanks,
  Mak
• 

  TweetieBird

  Interesting point, Mak. I, too was baptized before 1985 and was 14 at the time. I have often thought of using that should the need ever arise. In the US, a contract is not legal and binding unless the person is over 18 years of age, but could one consider their baptism legal and binding? It is not something that was signed on paper. So I do not think that just because someone was under legal age at the time of their baptism would make any difference.

  However, someone baptized before 1985, now that's a different story when it comes to being disfellowshipped or disassociated. Pre-1985, a person publicly dedicated themselves to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus and repented of their sins based on the ransom sacrifice per the 2 questions. They did not dedicate themselves to the organization, therefore, you might have a case. If you were baptized after 1985 then you are screwed.

  "By doubting we come at truth" -Cicero
• 

  LovesDubs

  The witnesses believed in the Jewish law that a person couldnt serve in the temple until they were 30! And that included Jesus who had, shall we say, some insight into things. He still had to wait. So how in the world can they justify that someone who is a minor, who has been repeatedly told their whole life that all other religions are Satanic, can make an INFORMED decision regarding the REST of their lives by getting baptized? In essense, because they dont SIGN anything, a verbal agreement in front of thousands of onlookers? They cant justify anybody under the age of 18 signing a contract. And they cant quote the bible as a source for that either.
• 

  ashitaka

  I'll tell you what...If I get even one sign that I can resign without true repercussions, I would in a heartbeat...but even if we could "legally" do so, the elders would still encourage the other people in the congregation to shun others. I think it will always be an issue, even if the WTBTS even would comdemn it (though we all know that's not going to happen).
• 

  Makena1

  Thanks for your replies. It appears that those who were baptized pre - 1985 (especially minors) do have an edge in avoiding a JC.

  Here is a quote from Lovedubs on another related thread:

  Subject: Re: Watchtower Official Response to UN Scandal
  From: [email protected] (LovesMeNot)
  Date: 11/5/2001 4:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
  Message-id: < [email protected]>
  X-racer writes:
  So >The letter merely shows the WTS terminated its newly found status with the
  >UN. The
  >UN is the one who changed the "criteria of association" after the approval by
  >the
  >WTS was given in the first place. The WTS never knew about the changed
  >status
  >until it was just recently brought to their attention. The immediately ask
  >for
  >dis-association upon learning the "newly found facts." The WTS reason for
  >this
  >application was to get access to information resources the UN, not to be a
  >member.
  >When they filled out the application, no such "criteria of association" by
  >the UN
  >existed.
  >
  >X-racer
  >

  So according to Xracers thinking, if a person signs on to an organization for
  one purpose, and during that affiliation the organization CHANGES the basis for
  affiliation WITHOUT TELLING THE affiliate, the affiliate, without sanction, can
  declare himself no longer affiliated, and now can say he never WAS affiliated?

  In that case, all Jehovahs Witnesses who were BAPTIZED before 1985, who said
  YES to one set of baptismal questions, and then found out subsequently that the
  BAPTIZMAL questions had been changed to read that the individual now SWEARS
  ALLEGIANCE TO THE ORGANIZATION...the JW can now WALK AWAY without sanction,
  saying that now that the organization has CHANGED the rules of affiliation, and
  he didnt AGREE to such changes, he is no longer a member...and no one can TOUCH
  him for doing so.

  I like it.
  Loves
  *****************************
  Another fine example of whats good for the goose is NOT good for the gander or the sheep! END QUOTE

  We were visiting with some ex-JW friends last weekend who believe this may be one of the reasons they have not been hunted down by the locals.

  Back to my original question though - anyone have a personal experience to share using the "I did not dedicate myself to an organization" defense to forestall a committe meeting?

  Many thanks,
  Makena