Watchtower Annulled My Baptism
Richt: The Watchtower of 1964 page 126 first paragraph clearly states that anyone that was committing a gross sin before, during and after their baptism is void. In order to get right with the lord you would need to be re-baptised.
Was it the 1964 Watchtower? I thought that it was a 1962 Watchtower that prompted the surge of re-baptism in that year. (was there another article again in '64?)
The 1963 Yearbook, page 51, says this about the re-baptism that occurred in '62:
It also took courage for a number of others who were
not counted in with those above who were rebaptized,
evidently due to the information appearing in the article
in The Watchtower shortly before this series of conventions
on the matter of baptism, wherein it was pointed
out that, if people were not living a proper kind of life
morally and were baptized while not appreciating their
dedication to God, nor knowing fully what it meant,
they should be rebaptized. Quite a few were rebaptized
in some countries. In fact, in-one country the percentage
of those rebaptized went as high as 9 percent. Of course,
these were not counted in the numbers baptized for the
first time, as listed above. This brings home very forcefully
the responsibility that comes upon those already
dedicated to God and who are teaching newly interested
ones, namely, that, when holding Bible studies with
persons in their homes, we should not try to hurry them
into baptism, but we should give them a full understanding
of Jehovah's purposes, what requirements and responsibilities
go with dedication and baptism and be
sure that they know their lives must be morally clean
and in proper order for this important step in their
lives. Dedication and baptism are steps that everyone
must take if he is going to gain everlasting life. However,
it is not a formalism. Therefore there is no reason
to be baptized if one is unclean or does not understand
fully what he is doing.
Watchtower February 15th 1964
Did you make an acceptable dedication to God?
Page 126 First paragraph.
Voiding baptisms can be done it's just very rare because most don't know it can even be done. It not like it's ever going to be broadcasted as an option. But might be of use to someone trying to leave that's all.
submitted 18 days ago * by NeonMadman01
The WTS is clamping down on people trying to claim that their baptism was invalid because of youth or other factors. Here's a paragraph from the new April 2017 Study Watchtower:
There is no way to undo a dedication vow, taking back what we promised God. If a person tires of serving Jehovah or of living a Christian way of life, he cannot claim that he was never really dedicated and that his baptism was invalid. To all intents and purposes, he presented himself as one who was wholly dedicated to God. He will be accountable before Jehovah and the congregation for any serious sins that he may commit. (Rom. 14:12)
I think this recent article nullified the one written in 1967
Its New Light
You play by are rules and regulations and we say your baptized for life.
If your DFed and you don't return under are guidelines and stipulations then your DFed for life.
I came close to having my baptism nullified by clerical error. When I moved congregations, the elderly secretary called me and went over my card details. At some point he said, "so you've been an unbaptized publisher since..", and I stopped him and said, "No, no I'm baptized! I was baptized on X date at this location". So he fixed it on the card before sending it off to the new congregation. I think back about that day and think, man I should have said, "yep, I'm not baptized! Send the card away!".
I wonder if the edits he made are in pen or pencil. Does anyone know if I can ask to see what my card says? Maybe I can claim he made the error.
I can see this been the new trend of fading.
You'd think that everything would be brought over to digital format at
Wouldn't cards be getting old and lost
Another thought is I remember the Secretary asking ME when I was
baptized at some point
Gee, I DON'T REMEMBER, I WAS SO YOUNG
I doubt this would work for most people these days. Especially with a recent WT saying you can't claim your baptism was invalid. Maybe it was a loophole they recently clamped down on.
But I don't doubt the story, or that people successfully annulled baptisms in the past. We too often think of JWs as uniform and monolithic. Which admittedly they are to some degree, and by comparison with other groups. But there is also variety of practice among JWs. Sometimes it comes down to personalities. If your local elders like you and your family are well liked you can expect different treatment than someone the elders don't care for. There are egos, ambitions, grudges, guilt and all sorts going on in elders' behaviour too.
Plus we also tend to accept the JW notion that the WT has a fixed teaching on most things. In fact there are so many statements in the WT on most subjects that in many cases you can pick and choose and emphasize a liberal or a hardline position as you wish for the circumstance. JW elders do this all the time without acknowledging it. They pretend that WT statements are clear cut or they are following the latest instructions. It's rarely as black and white as that. Like any complex rule system elders can manipulate the ambiguities to get the outdone they want, even if they don't acknowledge or even realise that's what they are doing.
RICHT - thank you. When was this in your case?
I remember having this highlighted at a CO visit when I was an elder in the UK - I would say about 2003/4? It was used to remind us of the "very rare" possibility. BUT we were told not to "offer it" but contact the branch if someone "claimed their baptism was invalid". Also that if anyone had "progressed" to being a pioneer (even AUX) MS or Elder that it could not be "undone" for any reason as that showed that the holy spirit had obviously approved them for further service. (BARF!)
It COULD certainly be used if someone was baptised before the age of maturity (18 in UK) AND that they confess or it was proven they were sinning (DF level of sinning) all the way from before to after baptism.
But the 2017 WT article above may have changed that - perhaps it's in the 2015? (not sure of the year) Branch manual on the ARC website?
I could envisage the Borg using it to their advantage - you know Brother "Molester" has his sins come out and it transpires he was doing it at time of baptism so the Borg nullify it to claim he was "never really a jw" especially if he was inactive and a jw in name only - but that could be me being cynical!
Don't forget back in the 60's, you didn't have to go through all the questions with an elder before baptism. Basically all you had to do was show up. A person could have claimed ignorance.