by AlanF 41 Replies latest jw friends
I think a lot of this perversion is based on an original perversion, and that is based on a deliberate mistranslation of the scripture that says, "The means everlasting life, knowing God..."
Mistranslated as, "The means everlasting life, taking in knowledge ABOUT God..."
Big, big, big difference.
$0.02
Francois
Fred look! A body of water. What prevents you from straping 100 lbs of society literature to your body and diving in?
Six,
Fred look! A body of water. What prevents you from straping
100 lbs of society literature to your body and diving in?
it's still early, but that's my laugh of the day. the mental image
was/is delightful.
thanks!
To esther:
You're right. In its intent, the 2nd question is blasphemy, since it makes the proselyte view the Watchtower organization with the reverence that should be accorded only to God.
To Emyrose:
The point of my essay was that we most certainly were not "aware that we were pledging alligance
to the organization". A prospective convert is taught over and over that the Bible is the basis for all Christian practice. He or she is then gradually introduced to the concept of the "faithful slave" as a channel of information that the student must evaluate as did the Beroeans: Does what they are saying conform to the Bible? The student is told that the "slave" is not inspired, and thus is fallible. No one in his right mind, after being taught these things, would understand that his dedication was to be to anyone but God, or that the ceremony of baptism which is said to be in symbol of one's dedication to God is in fact an induction ceremony into a particular religion, and a pledge of allegiance to its leaders. When I was baptized at age 15 in 1967, I understood all of this, since it was all laid out carefully in WTS literature, as shown below:
w59 10/1 580
Baptism is a symbol of one's having dedicated himself to do God's will and therefore associates itself with one's ordination as a minister of Jehovah's Word.w59 1/1 31
When a Bible-instructed believer makes an intelligent, prayerful dedication of himself to Jehovah God through Jesus Christ, he does not die to this faculty of will. In the very act of dedicating himself he had to exercise his will power with great strength and resoluteness in order to make this decision for all eternity. In order to take the step of baptism in water he had to exercise his faculty of will in obedience to the command of God through Christ. After his baptism, which symbolizes his dedication to God, he has continued need of the faculty of will. He does not become a machine without will, an automaton or robot or puppet moved or operated solely by the will of someone else. He has to use his will more consciously than ever before, to make his future decisions in harmony with the written Word of God and oftentimes in agreement with the instructions that come through God's visible organization. He has to determine what God has willed and then to will in harmony with what God desires. He has to decide in favor of what is to the best interests of God's kingdom and of God's organized people and of himself as a Christian.w60 1/1 7
Dedication to Jehovah's service and symbolizing that dedication by water baptism is not a joining of some earthly religious organization. It is not such a minor step as that. It is the biggest thing that one has ever done in his life. His being immersed in water is a declaration to all fellow Christians and peoples of the world that henceforth he is dedicated to God, to serve as his minister. This is his vocation, and from then on the whole word of God as it is set forth in the Bible must be his guide.
Indeed, the Society made a big deal out of the notion that "Jehovah's witnesses" (note the lowercase "w") were not so much a specific religion, but more of a general grouping of "witnesses for Jehovah" which included ancient worthies such as Abel, Noah and Jesus. These ancient "witnesses" certainly were not "Jehovah's witnesses" or "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the sense of being members of a religious denomination by that name.
It was only in the late 1960s that the Society gradually began viewing baptism as a joining to itself as a religion. And even then it took nearly another two decades to completely pervert the idea of baptism.
My essay demonstrates that the Society gradually introduces the idea that baptism is a ceremony of induction into the JW religion and that it constitutes a "pledge of allegiance" to JW leaders, where the full import is only introduced at the very last second, when it's too late to back out without major social embarrassment, and when the proselyte is far too emotionally tense to think so clearly as to understand the subtle but crucial difference between the vow that has just been orally given, and the notions to which he had already been introduced. In short, the Society tricks new converts into taking a loyalty oath. That is indeed blatantly underhanded.
There is nothing wrong with imposing an oath of loyalty on anyone who wants to join an organization, or imposing an oath to obey all sorts of rules -- as long as the rules and the penalties for breaking them are laid out clearly before the person joins up. If I started United Public Nose Pickers of America and told prospective members that they would have to publicly display their boogers, and that if they failed to do so to my satisfaction they'd be disfellowshipped from UPNPA, and that I would then go around to their friends and relatives and try to convince them to shun the apostate nose picker, and all this was spelled out in written form and without misrepresentative "legal language", and the person still decided to join, then that would be just fine. But if I started United Private Nose Pickers of America and got people to join, and then I began disfellowshipping and slandering those who refused to engage in the ceremony of Public Nose Picking, then I would have gone too far. And if I started United Face Brushers of America and then gradually introduced the requirement that Face Brushers had to become public nose pickers, and enforced that by disfellowshipping and shunning those who refused to go along, I'd have gone way too far. Do you get my point?
As for elongating the process of getting ready for baptism, the Society teaches that anyone who adds to God's Word is perverting God's Word. The process of coming to know God, and learning enough about basic Christian requirements, is simple enough and has been laid out clearly enough in the Bible that there is no reason to think it would change simply because society has changed. It would take a great deal of justification from the Bible -- which the Society has never done -- to justify going beyond what is already written.
As for your point about miracles and the possibility of having to learn about second-coming prophecies and such, the Ethiopian eunuch did not witness any such miracles. Phillip simply expounded upon the scriptures he had, and convinced the eunuch that Jesus was the Messiah, and that was all that was needed. The Bible gives no evidence that that simplicity would ever need to change.
Your mistake with the forum codes was that you reversed the 2nd bracketed code: should be "/b" not "b/" within the brackets.
To Amazing:
Your points are well taken. It was precisely the kind of legal argument you describe that led the Society to turn the baptismal questions into a loyalty oath and a joining of the JW religion.
To Fredhall:
If I were a Christian, and I decided to form a religion and to baptize people as Christians, I would not go beyond what the Bible says. So yes, I could do a much better job than the Society.
At least, I would hope so. But being a religious leader tends to give one absolute power, and as we know, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So I would never form a religion, nor would I ever want anyone to follow me.
To Seeker:
You're right about the speaker not usually understanding the full import of the baptismal vows he reads. I have found hardly any JWs who understand it, including elders. When I explain it to them, they're usually very surprised or even shocked. A small number I've talked to understand exactly what the Society is demanding, and they're almost always quite bothered by it. But because to act on their being bothered would require them to protest or to leave the JW religion, they usually just ignore the problem.
To Francoise:
You're absolutely right about the Society's deliberate mistranslation of John 17:3. They consciously use the notion of "taking in knowledge" to promote selling and accumulating Watchtower literature. They forget that the real meaning of the scripture -- "coming to know God" -- while certainly entailing "taking in knowledge of God", encompasses far more. I have taken in knowledge of you but I don't know you. This is yet another perversion of the Christian message for the self-aggrandizement of Watchtower leaders.
AlanF
In short, the Society tricks new converts into taking a loyalty oath. That is indeed blatantly underhanded.
Yes Alan, it most definitely is tricky but I still disagree
that the oath is sprung on students as a complete surprise. I can't
speak for everyone of course, but I knew that I was joining
an exacting and strict organization, which was being led by
men that were appointed by Jah's Holy Spirit. That is one of
the primary reasons why I decided to join, I believed it was
Jah's organization on earth. And I was also aware that they
were not infallible just as the apostles were not perfect.
They never claimed to write holy scripture but rather just
interpret it with Jah's Holy Spirit, which they said would
be slowly revealed to a perfection. Thus, they admitted that
mistakes were going to be made. Now all this sounds illogical
but by then we are already intellectually and psychologically manipulated, in other words brainwashed enough to swallow this
garbage. As for the disfellowshipment rule, I was aware of it
and knew a brother who was disfellowshiped and shunned before
getting baptized. SO I was well aware of the fact that not following the rules would result in being removed as a member.
I think the perversion of the baptismal vows comes from the long-term manipulation and lying on the part of the org. rather than simply a
last minute explicit request for loyalty. Loyalty is already demanded
from you in areas of meeting attendance, field service, participation at meetings and therefore diligent study of their publications, social association and attire.
No court anywhere should allow such a contract to be binding,however,
because the student is never really of a sound mind, which is an essential requirement for a legal contract. But religious freedom
and the tremendous difficulty of proving insanity is a court of law
will mean that this loyalty oath will be ruled as binding.
BTW, thanks, for your reply and presentation of your research and tech. tip.
So Alan, what did you do this weekend?
If you come and visit this summer and you spend all day typing exJW stuff on the computer I'm going to superglue your butt cheeks together and force feed you prunes.
Dave
Amazing, you said
The benefit of that teaching at the time, if I were to employ it now, would be to legally argue that I was never part of the organization, and therefore cannot be disassociated or disfellowshipped. It would be very difficult for the Society to do much about those of us who were baptized before 1985, and have since left the Big-O. We could perhaps fight being shunned.
I was baptized well before 1985, so that is a really useful tip for me. Thank you.
I suppose that I just expected the same questions to be asked at every baptism, so I never took any further notice of the questions. I wonder how many do actually take notice of them, even now?
esther
.Below is a paragraph of a letter I sent 10 weeks ago, registered mail, to 20+ elders in our area:
" I insist that the judicial committee immediately cease, and in the future desist from any actions toward or against me in behalf of any corporation or organization of which I am not a member. Upon my baptism in 1980 the questions asked of me differ from the format now enacted and accepted. Such format included a question dealing with loyalty and devotion to Jehovah. Please be aware that this decision and my agreement with this statement still stand; however, the new version of the question regarding loyalty to this organization was not asked of me. "
This may be helpful to others in this situation. At least it may inspire some honest-hearted ones to do a little research into the policies they are enforcing.
.
Compare the newest baptismal vows to what they said in this 1955 Watchtower Magazine:
w55 7/1 p. 411 Christian Baptism for the New World Society
15 A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.
nice catch ABM.
