I had to go to the Halloween store and buy 50% off costumes ....
But you'll be there next Sunday, right Mustang
...It` Sunday!...Why are`nt You at the Kingdom hall?!!...
by OUTLAW 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
mustang
-
cameo-d
"Ratification means that when they made the changeover and no longer accepted the "generic Christian Baptism" and required the new Vows, then any new JW's were Baptized under the new Vows. But the older memberships were transferred over to the newer format after some point of the older members 'going along with the program'. At that point, the older member Ratifies the changes. The older member has the option of suspending activity and by never continuing, he rejects the new rulings."
"You mean that I haven't Ratified the early 80's changes? I quit going, no meetings, Field Service, talks, regular or irregular association, nothing".
"Essentially, yes. Any future return to association will do the Ratification automatically. They have no requirement to inform you of these technicalities; you are expected to be cognizant of such matters without external coaching. So, many people have been caught up in this and never knew that they could 'opt out'; you successfully opted out".
This is important information.
-
-
gymbob
Because it's my freakin' birthday!!
I worshipped at the golf coarse, and tonight i'm going out to dinner and maybe get lucky!
I love being a pagan...Gymbob
-
-
mustang
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
-
mustang
Ratification by association is a very paper thin argument.
Associaton is so important to JW's that it can be held to be an "Article of Faith". If you have read any of the legal proceedsings involing JW's you will realize that the opposite is the case.
Mustang
-
-
mustang
Ratification by association is a very paper thin argument.
Have you ever been arrested in Field Service?
I have, three times.
Have you ever had to prove that you were a Jehovahs witness in Federal court?
I have: twice in Selective Service System Hearings and an additional twice in the preliminary Applications and Interviews. I prepared my case and acted as my own Counsel, that is to say Pro Se.
Have you ever read any internal WTS Legal documents?
I was given a "secret" internal manual from WTS on SSS procedures and regulations.
Have you ever been investigated by the FBI for being a Jehovah's' Witness?
I have: this was/is part of the SSS procedure for those on Appeal. I once went into my cousin's (the congo PO) office, at his place of work, on congo business. He quipped 'you just missed the FBI Agent here inquiring about you. He asked if you were pIONEERING': "Yes, I replied that I went out in service with you regularly and that I expected to see you on business today", my cousin said.
My cousin was there once when I got arrested.
I assure you that JW association is not a "thin" subject: it was key in my Defense and is dealt with extensively in JW Legal proceedings, both internal (Judicial Committees, generally known in Secular Law as Religious Tribunals dealing with Church Law) and those that have gone to external or Secular Courts.
Mustang
-
mustang
ROFL!!!
Did I get a little intense? I had a deja vu moment reliving that $hit. People that didn't have the help I had went to prison.
Funny thing: years later, I met with a bunch of veterans at parties from aerospace contacts. I told them that I didn't protest but that I was a preacher on Ministerial status (SSS Class IV-D) in those days. They said that I served just as much as they did; in fact, a guy was writing a book and wanted to incldue me, but I decided against that. Probably one of those 'should done-its'
Mustang