by truthlover123 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
Blondie:
I have the same question... what happens to those who were "baptised" under the old questioning? What happens to all that "spirt guided" study information and who put elders into their position? This opens up a huge disparity in the belief system of all if they sit up and listen...
I have no real direct answer to share from the WTS regarding that question. The WTS would not put that in print. I was told by several GB members, that the only official stance of the WTS is found in the printed official publications; not even what is said from the platform is necessarily from the WTS.
Note the change over time: First, in 1973 and 1970
25. Do those congregation members who now abandon harmful addiction need to be rebaptized?
25 Would there be need for rebaptism on the part of those abandoning their addiction to tobacco or other harmful product? No, this does not seem necessary. Knowledge brings responsibility and educates the conscience. (1 Tim. 1:13) The congregation gave them to understand that their practice did not ‘prevent them,’ and they were baptized in accord with that understanding. (Acts 8:36) Of course, if an individual feels that he presented himself for baptism with a ‘bad conscience’ due to such practice, he may decide to be rebaptized.
Some may have been immersed in association with the theocratic Christian congregation but without having studied the book “Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot” and without an understanding and appreciation of dedication. Such persons may have wondered if they should now be baptized or perhaps be baptized again. Yes, they should, if they had not truly made a dedication before they were baptized but now are disciples, having come to a knowledge of the truth of God’s Word and having made a dedication to do Jehovah’s will.
In 2010
Under what circumstances might rebaptism be considered?
What about an individual who was not practicing sin at the time of his baptism but whose subsequent wrongdoing required the formation of a judicial committee? Suppose he then claimed that he did not fully understand what he was doing at the time of his baptism and said that his baptism was not truly a valid one. When meeting with a wrongdoer, the elders should not raise questions about his baptism and ask whether he feels that his dedication and baptism were valid. After all, he heard a Scriptural discourse about the significance of baptism. He answered affirmatively questions regarding dedication and baptism. Then he changed his clothing and was physically immersed in water. It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that he fully understood the seriousness of what he was doing. The elders would thus treat him as a baptized person.
If the individual raises the issue of the validity of his baptism, the elders may direct his attention to The Watchtower of March 1, 1960, pages 159 and 160, and February 15, 1964, pages 123 to 126, where the matter of rebaptism is discussed in detail. Eventual rebaptism under certain circumstances (such as a lack of sufficient Bible understanding when one was baptized) is a personal matter.
Cases of rebaptism in the Bible:
Acts 19:1-7
In the course of events, while A·polʹlos+ was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came down to Ephʹe·sus.+ There he found some disciples 2 and said to them: “Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?”+ They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.” 3 So he said: “In what, then, were you baptized?” They said: “In John’s baptism.”+ 4 Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance,+ telling the people to believe in the one coming after him,+ that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them,+ and they began speaking in foreign languages and prophesying.+ 7 There were about 12 men in all.
I recently attended the RC in Long Beach, CA with my pimi wife and super jw MIL. I paid particular attention to the baptism questions.
Yep---jehober's organization is no more spirit directed. "Spirit directed" has been removed. lol
That's the good news.
The better news is that only 19 out of 5980 attending got baptized into jehober's "non spirit directed" organization.
A whooping .3%
just saying!
eyeuse2badub:
Did ur wife and mil recognize the change and were they questioning it at all? If there is no spirt directed baptism, what about elders baptized previously? What about in future?
Blondie; you mentioned some of the GB indicated even what may be said from the platform may not be "official" - wow! Then how do we know what was real in the first place...if elders/ms are inserting things not on the talk, where does that leave the congregation?
I knew there were the three baptisms previously, John, Jesus, holy spirit....we know these were from Jah/Jesus... but this organization has flipped so much and now to remove "spirit directed" is a scary time. In this new instance, they are receiving only water baptism, no Father, Son and holy spirit as biblically directed. I can take a bath and do the Same.
Does anyone know why they removed 'spirit directed'?
I have a theory on that...
In testifying before the Australian Committee, Governing Body member Jackson was asked:
"Do you [the GB] see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?"
his answer was:
"Ah, that I think would seem to be quite presumptuous, to say that we [the GB] are the only spokesperson that God is using."
You know the JW lawyers were all over that testimony. They know full well that these child abuse cases can bring them to their knees financially and they want to anticipate and limit that future liability.
No one plays with words more than the "artful dodger JWs". So I think there must be some connection (in their minds at least) between needing to appear as though everything is coming straight from God to them as leaders of the religion while simultaneously being able to distance themselves from elders and others in positions of authority within the religion who abuse children.
They realize its too hard to defend a direct line between God -->Holy Spirit--->Governing Body----> local appointed men.
So they are breaking it up and waffling around the perceived libelous connections by statements like Jackson made above.
Other steps they have taken since then are
- Appointing elders locally under the direction of a Circuit Overseer rather than the headquarters
- Changing the wording about the Holy Spirit in the baptism questions.
So that is my theory on why we see such attention to "wordage" about the Holy Spirit by the JW leadership.
Millie:
Thanks for reminding me about Jacksons :"truthful" answer... He dodged that question.. Wordage is hopefully going to awaken publishers up.. they are pulling funds out from congregations again-- those who have built up the funds since the directive to send all monies except funds for sustaining halls expenses....
I watch reactions now more than ever and shake my head
The Co has authority to approve the elders however, they surely don't realize that they will be on the hook if a child abuse case comes up - along with those elders... they need insurance
Youre so right truthlover. It is almost as if the elders and C.O.s are so "flattered at the modicum of power to appoint that they haven't even thought about themselves being the ones hung out to dry in the end.
The "spirit" has not only been removed from the Baptism question but even from the talk. Anyone else heard this too? it was all "jesus". so:
Since "The Spirit" was definitely in His original baptismal instruction, the Bible, It appears that there is less and less "Bible" in the WTb&Tract Society, but more and more Tract.
Not being any more spirit directed, with new members without the "spirit", does wt think they are going to get more traction?
What can you get if you take the middle "b" out of the bible?
P.S. the moral?: The bible is bad enough, changing it makes it worse.
