Any lawyers here - re 2nd Baptism question.

AlphaOmega

Just a thought...

Does the 2nd Baptism question, " Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?" enter the candidates into a legally binding contract?

This is a verbal declaration to abide by the "corporation rules" (disfellowshipping etc) said infront of witnesses (no pun intended).

Could it be that this is why this question was added? So that no-one has any legal comeback if their lives are changed by the society?

AO

inbyathread

While I am not a lawyer IMO that is the reason the question is posed in that manner.

It all comes down to semantics. The words are defined by, you guessed it, the WTS. If is is legally binding in their eyes then it is binding. The R & F are told that it is a personal dedication to God (legal) (let your yes mean yes). They are also told what to do if this personal decision is broken by failing to live up to that dedication or choosing to leave. These are issues that are kept within the guise of their religion and therefore cannot have any input from the secular courts. The separation of church and state (U.S. Law) allows this group from continuing their sham as they are prevented from interfering.

Deputy Dog

AO

I'm no lawyer, but, I would love to see a court define "God’s spirit-directed organization".

AlphaOmega

I was wondering whether anyone has ever true to take the WTBTS to court over defaming their name (ie after a disfellowshipping), or other restrictions due to WT dogma?

By answering "yes" to this question, I would imagine that they have waived their right to complain.

Defining "God's Spirit Directed Organisation" - hadn't thought of that. Maybe the WTBTS have it listed as a registered company ?? Paranoia abound now

diamondblue1974

They make this declaration sound so official that the baptismal candidate believes they are committing themselves to something legally.

Those that have even basic legal knowledge however will understand that no such legal obligation exists; firstly the components of a contract are not there.

There is no offer and acceptance and even if they were, there is no consideration or payment for that offered and accepted. The main issue however is that there is no intention to create legal business relations between the two parties and this is an absolute prerequisite for a contract to be in place. In such relationship between a church and its followers it is impossible for a legal contract to exist because the arrangement between the two is social and not economic.

This applies certainly applies in UK law and I believe the US is no different either.

There is no contract legally enforcible at law and nor can you be held legally accountable to them.

Hope this helps.

Gary

gymbob

Just something else to add...

Years ago when I was a baptism attendant, we were instructed to watch and make sure everyone answered out loud to both of the baptism questions. If you didn't answer, you didn't get dunked.

DJK

It is my understanding that a verbal contract is legally binding if there are witnesses to it just as in the case of signing an X on the dotted line. Violating the contract with a religious organization would mean excommunication. Excommunication or disfellowshipping to each individual may differ in it's effects. Some hurt and some don't, and what bothers you today may not tommorrow.

Sunspot

It is too bad that a JW can't sue for fraud when the WTS-end of the verbal contract is proven NOT to be what it said it was, or represented itself to be prior to the verbal assertions made by the baptism candidates. I am POSITIVE the men of the Watchtower Society have covered their behinds backwards and forwards on this issue.

purplesofa

If you didn't answer, you didn't get dunked.

Did that ever happen?

purps

Any lawyers here - re 2nd Baptism question.

Share this