Wouldn't have so many converts huh.

by esther 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • esther
    esther

    OK, so I got my idea from BugEye's wife's thread. If the WTBTS decided to change its doctrine so that the age for baptism was 30 years, the same age as John and Jesus, would everyone who was baptised under that age have their baptism invalidated? If so, what would happen to any disfellowshipped ones whose baptism was invalid? Just idle speculation, because, of course, they could never admit to having been wrong to baptise people who did not meet the bible requirements.

    esther

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    Actually, this is a good idea in light of recent reports of dwindling baptismal numbers. If people under thirty have their baptisms invalidated (perhaps reclassified "provisional baptisms" or some such), then anyone who lasts until thirty will help swell the baptism figures. Could be an interesting way of fiddling the books when the numbers become really embarrassing.

  • Loki
    Loki

    Interesting thought Esther. Do you think that could make those of of df'ed who were dunked before we turned 30 could be reclassifed as the "nondisfellowshipped" (Can't be undf'ed - that ones taken)

    If they did do it, wonder what excuse they'd come up with????

    Keep thinking

  • esther
    esther

    Matthew 4:17 says that from that time on Jesus began preaching. This was after he had been baptised and been tempted by the devil. So should JWs under 30 be preaching? Should there be unbaptised publishers? If Jesus left a pattern to be followed by his disciples, first comes baptism, then preaching. Oh no, we all did it the wrong way round, even those of us who were old enough to qualify for baptism by bible standards (30 years old)

    esther

  • joelbear
    joelbear

    I would like to see someone sue the WTBS on the point that they make baptism a contract with the Watchtower Society. This can be evidenced by privileges that are extended only to those who are baptized. These priviledge or organizationally based.

    Minors cannot legally be held to any contract. Adding on top of this that the contract is a verbal one not a written one, that is, it is made by the answered of the 2 questions, not by signed a form, and it seems like those baptized under 18 had a good case as having this verbal contract nullified, thus eliminating all privileges and punishments.

    If the Watchtower were simply a religion, this would probably not be possible, but since they are set up as a corporation, I think it might be possible. I'll join the class action law suit if you will.

    hugs

    Joel

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    All this talk about undisfellowshipping and unbaptizing sparked my
    memory about a series of events that occurred back in the early 80's.

    The congregations in my area got the idea that if a person was an
    approved associate, and then took up an unclean lifestyle, then they
    could be disfellowshipped, even though they were never baptized.
    Numerous people that I knew or went to school with were tracked down
    and dfed. Of course, by this time, they were long gone and couldn't give
    a rat's ass. So, the actual event was rather anti climactic, but there was
    a regular stream of announcements for a while.

    The congregation really scraped the barrel out. They dug back to anyone
    who had been associated for decades. Then one day, it dawned on someone
    that you couldn't kick out a person who never really joined. So, the practice
    was dropped, and the involved persons were quietly un-df'd. I don't know if
    they were ever informed, but their families were told that they could once
    again associate with them.

    So, strange things happen when everyone follows the leader and no one thinks.
    There is probably nothing that would surprise me about them.

  • LovesDubs
    LovesDubs

    It seems to me that the Society came up with the rule about not eating with a disfellowshipped person AFTER Ray Franz ate with Gregerson...and they DFd him anyway did they not? How can this retroactive stuff be applicable only in some cases and not others? I dont think they went back to the sisters who were DFd for not screaming when they were raped and reinstated them every freakin time they changed THAT heinous rule either. Nor will they if it means having to admit they MADE A HUGE FREAKING MISTAKE.

    They always claim they ADMIT WHEN THEY WERE WRONG. What they do is what animals do...they start burying their shit to hide the evidence.

  • Francois
    Francois

    It strikes me that we all seem to gape in amazement at the proclivities of the Borg. But when a dysfunctional, unethical, immoral organization of men acts dysfunctional, unethically, and immorally, why should we be surprised?

    I know you all have heard it said, "what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive." The Borg has been practicing deception for over a hundred years, and now with the increasing role of the Internet and "apostates" willing to rip the cover from the lying, the tangled web of Watchtower deceit will result in their own undoing.

    Previously, when a person was DFed, the society was done with them. The DFed person could be counted upon to remain silent. In fact, what choice did they have?

    Now, however the Borg is creating an army of angry people determined not to allow it to get away with their criminal, immoral behaviors. And now we not only have the ammunition of facts, but we also have the weapon of the Internet with which to fire that ammunition. Talk about shooting yourself through the foot.

    It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the WTBTS had found a reason to end the shunning practice, and to welcome all but the most egregious apostates back with open arms - all in an attempt to silence us in one way or another. Wouldn't that be interesting?

    Francois

  • Skimmer
    Skimmer

    It is unlikely in the extreme that the WTBTS will ever welcome back disfellowshipped persons with open arms. The Brooklyn control addicts have two big sticks:

    1) The Big "A" due real soon now (loss of life)

    2) Shunning (loss of associations)

    Stick #1 has been looking rather limp lately, so you can count on stick #2 being used to take up the slack.

  • seven006
    seven006

    Esther,

    Please don't give the JW's any ideas. If they start changing things and revoke the disfellowshipped status for those who were baptized under the age of 30, that might mean I would wind up being a JW in their eyes again. I don't think I could handle that. I like being disfellowshipped. Iv gotten really good at it. Please be careful.

    Dave

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit