Why has the BAPTISM Q changed? (page 2)

sass_my_frass

Gee wouldn't it be great if there was some kind of international computer system that held all sorts of legal databases and information that you could search on...

In his book "In Search of Christian Freedom" [pgs 118-121] Ray Franz explores this very problem. In the April 15 1987 WT pg 12, the rationale for altering the baptismal questions was stated as a need to "simplify" matters with respect to the baptism procedure. "Simplify"? what could be simpler than the questions hitherto in use? How could you simplify a matter that was already simple enough even for a moron like me to understand and I took the plunge in ' 57.

The point was that in that WT article, the writers did not mention who the matter was simplified for, and there, my dear Brutus, is the rub. It was'nt simplified for the likes of me and thee, oh no, the WT had a more sinister agenda in mind.

As has been mentioned above, the WTS faced an increasing number of legal suits brought against them by disgruntled former members. They won some of these cases but lost a lot more. Something had to be done to reverse this adverse trend. Enter the Legal Eagles.

The legal brains behind the WTS, probably paid a lot of dough to come up with a solution, found a loophole they could exploit. The US Supreme Court defined the parameters from which a religion had the right to exercise its authority over its adherents. It said that every religion had the "right to create tribunals for the enacting of decisions concerning controversial questions" and that this religious function acted as an "ecclesiastical government for all individual members within the general association" and their adherence connoted an "implied consent to this government"

If, on entering this association, the convert was forced to acknowledge this "implied consent" then any future act of dissent could be viewed as rebellion against a "government" The religion then had the right to dispose of these ones just as any secular government dealt with traitors who had taken a pledge of alliegance to that government. The baptismal questions, since they did not make any reference to any religious authority left the matter open for a dissenter to voice an opposing opinion.

So, now, like a pledge of allegiance to an authority, that is subscribed to as being binding as an oath, the revised baptismal questions make it clear to the new convert that he vows allegiance, not just incidently to jehover and jezzzuz, but to the ORGANISATION. If he sues, or threatens to, the WTS attorneys mail the malefactor a bulky package in the form of a legal brief wherin they cite the above Supreme Court quote, which permits the WTS to act as a "government" and "ecclesiastical court" They then remind the potential dissenter of his "oath" in baptism. So rather than face a potentially damaging court procedure, they invite the person to formally disassociate themselves.

This has indeed stanched the hemorrhage of legal defeats and certaintly "simplified" matters for the legal dept !!!

Cheers

purplesofa

moggy lover

thanks for explaining .......I have always wondered why it was done.

purps

artcritic

Mog

Thanks for that. Keep up the good work.

AC

mouthy

Thanks for that Mog...I know it is true !!!Wish I could remember the case I knew & heard about, but unfortunatly at my age it is hard to remember what happened in my own home yesterday

elatwra

So, now, like a pledge of allegiance to an authority, that is subscribed to as being binding as an oath, the revised baptismal questions make it clear to the new convert that he vows allegiance, not just incidently to jehover and jezzzuz, but to the ORGANISATION. If he sues, or threatens to, the WTS attorneys mail the malefactor a bulky package in the form of a legal brief wherin they cite the above Supreme Court quote, which permits the WTS to act as a "government" and "ecclesiastical court" They then remind the potential dissenter of his "oath" in baptism. So rather than face a potentially damaging court procedure, they invite the person to formally disassociate themselves

Then somebody should sue them for not making clear how binding the baptism "oath" is. Also they should not be allowed to baptize people under the age of 18 since they cannot making such a legaly binding decision yet.

AuldSoul

elatwra,

The contract is not binding upon minors unless they continue to accept the authority of the ecclesiastic government upon attaining the age of majority.

If someone states by letter that their agreement is voided by virtue of never having been legally eligible to make the commitment before they reach their 19th birthday, there is little the WTS can do to hold them bound to their agreement. Fortunately for the WTS, this is not widely known. MANY young ones who were baptized at age 12, 13, and 14 regret the decision before age 19.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

toreador

Excellent question to ask Blondie!

ronin1

Can this legally apply to those who were baptized before the Baptism questions were amended?

I was baptized in 1974 when the original wording was used?

Anyone have a legal answer for this?

Ronin1

blondie

I would say if you were a JW in good standing in 1985 and baptized before then and did not question the change in the questions asked at the assembly/convention, that you would be considered responsible under the new questions. I didn't even notice they changed until I got on the internet and read someone's comment on it.

It is similar to when a person was baptized as a JW when they were under 18 and a minor but at age 18 continued as a JW....

As to suing the WTS over this, it is a case of possibly winning the battle but losing the war. The WTS has already had people sue over being disfellowshipped/disassociated and the WTS won. Can you sue each and every individual JW who chooses to mark and shun you? Can you legally force your family to love and accept you? Do you know what the cost will be in dollars assuming you can get an attorney to take your case?

I know that the US tends to be a litigious society thinking that suing in court will rectify all life's inequities and injustices. It does not work that way. After more than 20 years working in the legal system, I can tell you that it does not.

Living a productive and loving life; be as kind as you can to your family; make a new family if necessary, finding people who are like true mothers and fathers, siblings, children, grandparents, etc.

Blondie

Why has the BAPTISM Q changed?

Share this