All This Baptism Talk.......

MidwichCuckoo

......really gets to me. Sorry - I know there's been a few postings on it lately. I personally was shocked to read of Baptisms at such tender ages, and when I mentioned this to a JW, they maintained I was talking rubbish........

Anyway. We've already discussed annulment (a brilliant idea as it HAS to be null and void due to there being no valid contract with minors (unless in case of NECESSITY), duress and undue influence etc), and they DO treat it as a CONTRACT as there are PENALTIES if the Baptised person breaches it.

So - if a 7 - 16 year old (whose parent(s) were NOT dubs) wanted to get Baptised, I think they'd have a bit of an obstacle. Also, it would/could NEVER happen. As a minor the parents are RESPONSIBLE.

So HERE is my point. If a 7 - 16 year old wanted to get Baptised and the parents WERE dubs, then those parents should take responsibility for their minor child - ie, if the child transgresses, the PARENT who has given consent gets disfellowshipped!

I think they'd suddenly realise their child isn't capable of making a decision if they had to bear the consequences.

Legolas

Good point!

MidwichCuckoo

The (thanks The) jogged my memory about a JW who got re-Baptised (without ever leaving the Org) as they felt too young at the Original Baptism so wanted to 'reinforce' it. I've heard of this happening a few times.

Now if the Society PERMIT it, what is the SOCIETY saying about the ORIGINAL Baptism?

ArtfulDodger

I agree that the parents are responsible for many of their childrens' activities ... but I'm not sure that this extends to their religious activities. Seems a bit like saying the child can't think for him/her self. Not sure about the age range either .. seems that at age 10 the "child" becomes criminally responsible for actions . .(or personally responsible for criminal actions, whichever way you want to put it) so one assumes that he/she could be responsible for religious ones too. But younger that 10 .. yes, you have a point.

MidwichCuckoo

Ok - if my child 'mixed' with JW and suddenly declared he wanted to be Baptised, I would FORBID IT, the situation would never arise, it's ridiculous, as he is a minor. The only minors who SAY they want to be Baptised are those who are made to (have JW parents).

lowden

Hey MC

Good thread. I think The Dodger has a point though about the age range. The 10 yr old kids who killed Jamie Bulger were 'banged up' for their appalling crime. They were culpable, not their parents, but it's a topic that could run and run. Another angle is that teenagers who go to university very often don't end up doing what they got their degree for. I went to catering college when i left school and qualified as a chef but didn't pursue it. The minds of young people are a fertile ground for other seeds to be planted and so they very often change.

MidwichCuckoo

I really DO see your points lowden and Artful... But what if a 10 year old decided on a dub Baptism? Firstly (this child's parents are not dubs), this MINOR would be having clandestine studies behind parents' backs. Secondly, would dubs secretly take minor to Assembly to be Baptised? PARENTS would be able to charge them with ASSAULT if they did. Therefore, the only minors to be Baptised are those with Dub parents.

lowden

Yep, it's a tangled one MC. I honestly think it's all to do with building up the numbers so that the 'card' looks good, i really do think it's that simple. If they followed Jesus' example of being baptised at 30 then i'm sure the 'card' would change quite significantly. When a young person is dipped, the psycological hold is soooo much stronger.

Peace

Lowden

All This Baptism Talk.......

Share this