Watchtower Lawyer Fills in the Baptism Blank

by Marvin Shilmer 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Watchtower Lawyer Fills in the Baptism Blank

  Today I uploaded a new article to my blog addressing something important that Watchtower does not disclose to baptismal candidates, yet on the other hand is ever ready to point out to persons after baptism if they do something silly like ask for correspondence written about their own person.

  My article contains a letter from a Watchtower staff attorney informing just such an individual.

  My article is titled Watchtower Lawyer Fills in the Baptism Blank and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/08/watchtower-lawyer-fills-in-baptism.html

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  FatFreek 2005

  Very interesting. More CYA kinda stuff.

  As a matter of more interest I see that you've blacked out the names. That's good. However, those exact dates can easily allow WT officials to track exactly which member this correspondence was about.

  Len
• 

  sizemik

  Hang on Marvin! . . . this asshole bleats on about confidentiality and how that "protects him personally" . . . and then proceeds to send a copy of a personal letter to his BOE (without his consent), when it's none of their business! Talking out of both sides of their mouth is nothing new . . . but at the same time? . . . that takes the cake!
• 

  Hortensia

  Well, just because the lawyer says so, doesn't make it so. It would be interesting if anyone cared enough to challenge it in court.
• 

  AwareBeing

  Thanks Marvin; that explains the creepy guy back near the bathing suit area!

  He was asking all our names as our wet bodies past him. I ask one of the attendants

  who this stranger writing on a pad was. He said: "It's 'the secretaries inkhorn',

  he's recording all those who are in line for survival." Now we see that the man

  was less than angelic, he was a black suite lawyer from NY!
• 

  VM44

  The Changing Baptismal questions of The Watchtower

  from: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/aspect-of-legalism-of-jehovahs.html

  Baptismal questions from the August 1, 1966 Watchtower, p. 465:

  (1) Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?

  (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?

  Baptismal questions from the May 15, 1970 Watchtower, p. 309:

  (1) Have you recognized yourself as a sinner and needing salvation from Jehovah God? And have you acknowledged that this salvation proceeds from him and through his ransomer, Christ Jesus?

  (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for redemption have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to Jehovah God, to do his will henceforth as that will is revealed to you through Christ Jesus and through God's Word as his holy spirit makes it plain?

  Baptismal questions from the May 1, 1973 Watchtower, p. 280:

  (1) Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?

  (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit?

  The newest baptismal questions, from the June 1, 1985 Watchtower:

  On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

  Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?
• 

  VM44

  Legalistic Cult!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hortensia writes:

  “Well, just because the lawyer says so, doesn't make it so.”

  I have another letter by a different Watchtower attorney citing the case law on this specific issue. This additional letter is about 13-14 pages. Soon I’ll put this information on my blog to provide readers more depth on the subject.

  Bottom line, though, is that Watchtower knows in advance it will leverage the legal circumstance into which baptism places a person but it fails to inform baptismal candidates of this in advance.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  AnneB

  There's an "and" between "from the date of your baptism" and "your joining the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses". "And" can be construed in several ways including the mention of two separate items without necessarily linking them in the way WT would have you believe. Baptism does not necessarily mean the admission of the baptized person to a specific "religion", nor does "the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses" mean WT or any of it's subgroups (i.e., JW's as a specific legal entity). Of course, if a person is led to believe it does, so much the better for The Organization! But think, haven't several WT publications indicated that "men of old" were "Jehovah's Witnesses"? Isn't that very phrase found in the Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures? There wasn't even a legal Organization back then! Legal is one thing, spiritual is another. The two don't unite just because somebody got dunked!

  Can WT and it's legal representatives get away with the things they do which make people uncomfortable? Sure....as long as you give them permission. How do you withdraw that "permission"? Walk away. It's that simple. There's no need to officially disassociate, in fact, to do so only validates the WT perspective and the power you personally believe it holds over you.

  Are there social issues connected with claiming or disclaiming association with the religion commonly known as Jehovah's Witnesses? Yes, there are, but that's a separate discussion.

  P.S. Regarding the 1985 baptismal question: "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?" WT would have a difficult time proving to a court of law that it's them! If you believe it is, then you're obligating yourself. The minute you realize that the question can be understood in a different way, you're free.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I would not agree with the WT lawyer. It would take much research. Of course, how many soon to be members have their law firm call the Witnesses legal department to negotiate every detail. A contract is a bargained-for exchange that is legally enforceable. Contracts are analyzed by lawyers at their simplest level: Offer + Acceptance + Consideration = Contract. There are hundreds of little rules governing these large concepts. My specialty is not contact law. Notice and meeting of the minds is also a concept. If two people are talking to each other, looking at farm animals, and one person believes they are talking about a cow in the field but the other person thinks they are talking about the pig. No sales contract exists.

  Since I've been reading these informative posts, I see something that bothers me greatly. The Roman Catholic Church lawyers had a duty to represent the Catholic Church's interest in the pedophile interests. They had to zealously represent their client. The lawyers feelings don't matter. Perhaps b/c of Catholic culture, the Catholic lawyers were utterly ruthless and despicable, far behind the duty to zealously represent. There are in-house lawyers and outside lawyers. The culture is very different. The problem with lawyers who are employees is that they become too enmeshed with their client/employer. In order to protect your client in the best manner, you have to acknowledge your client's weaknesses, public relations, and business interests. Many times the black and white legal right is not in the client's interests. TV needs drama. No one could stand such drama in normal life.

  Once the pedophilia victims became organized and the press starting covering the stories with great interest, it became clear that the Catholic lawyers were fools. The cost to the Catholic Church in monetary terms and prestige is far, far more than a quick, quiet, equitable settlement. The WTBTS never struck me as the CIA or military with essential security. Secrets are necessary for the US to function in the world. What is so important that they are hiding? Normally, I would not imagine a rank and file JW dossier would be so interesting to need secrecy. Their adamant denial makes me wonder what is in the files.

  Also, they manipulate their First Amendment rights in a way I never realized. It is their right. I note that other minority religions adequately protect their rights, too, but the Witnesses are vicious to the extreme. Believing you are under siege can cause the siege to happen.