Ratification by association is a very paper thin argument.
On the contrary, check the precedents. The Credit Card business is well established for both formal and informal Ratification's. It is a matter both de facto and de jure that reinforcement of verbal, abstention or even ignorance is being accepted as Ratification.
And WTS is relying on the ignorance of the rank and file to set and spring the trap. They never wanted any open discussion of such options.
Just try suing them for DF'ing: you will find the unadvertised special of "Ecclesiastical Abstention" in a Lawyers Letter from Phillip Brumbly (sp?) or his like. It will include citations such as the Paul case and others.
"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" holds up in court: it is up to the user (both parties for that matter) to be fully educated and make informed decisions.
Reversing such a matter is difficult at best; that is what time limitations and Statutes of Limitations are about. You have a period or window of time to "get up to speed", then the doors close.
Unless the WTS had it's returning members sign or verbalize a statement of acknowlegmetn
The discussion here is not entirely or even about returning members. It is held that CONTINUING MEMBERS are Ratifying the position. If you stayed in through 1985, you "signed the articles" in effect, just by staying in and active. You would have never seen a piece of paper to sign about it.
For further reinforcement, research the discussions of being "re-baptized" and the practices of accepting non-JW "Christian baptisms" in lieu of a JW baptism. Thais was done at one time and that is written up in the Watchtower.
JW's are noted for insisting on participation. The noted trend to ask lagging members if they believe in the "organization" (and other such questions) is sufficient to establish this.
For that reason, if you definitely refrained from any activity from about 1980 ((or earlier) onward, and this is noted, then you have "exercised the option" and this can be established.
Just the treatment that I would receive from a JC or shepherding calls about 35 years of inactivity and the tendency to DF/DA in absentia and if in doubt is enough to establish that written acknowledgements are optional.
BTW, JW SOP/general practice is to check a person out when they try coming back in the door/fold. That reinforces the entire non-written/informal activity issue.
Verbal efforts are also sufficient, here; physical signing is not required, considering the SOP/general practice of JW's.
WTS Legal knows all about this and does want it known that some could have opted out. And the time to do this was about 28 years ago. The door is closed. Your option now is to not get baptized.
Mustang
