Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DT

  When I got baptized, I was asked questions out of the back of the OM book. There were quite a few questions that made it explicitly clear that I was submitting myself to the Watchtower's demands and that the Watchtower had the right to disfellowship me if I stopped following their rules. I doubt there are very many people who have gotten baptized that don't realize they can be disfellowshipped and shunned if a committee of elders decides to dish out that sentence.

  I was pretty young when I got baptised. I don't remember the questions very well. I knew I could be disfellowshipped and shunned, but I was never made aware of all the offenses that could lead to this. There used to be an arrangement when unbaptised people could be announced as a disapproved associate and shunned. I didn't see baptism as being dangerous because I figured that I could be shunned either way. In my case, I disassociated. I didn't know at the time that just leaving the organisation would result in forced shunning.
• 

  neverendingjourney

  I was baptized in the mid 90s. I didn't think about folks who got baptized before then, but it was different back then. My dad says he thought he was supposed to see a vision immediately after he got baptized. Needless to say, he didn't have a firm grasp on the doctrine or what he was getting himself into. In fact, now that I think about it, there are some older folks I know who were baptized before shunning became widespread.
• 

  mustang

  but avoiding the issue doesn't work

  I'm good with that one: in a little more detail, these Lawyers SEEM TO ME, APPEAR TO BE hacks. They are deflecting: EA doesn't allow you to get to do the case on "merits". To some extent Freedom of Religion also deflects.

  Mustang
• 

  mustang

  I believe the church law shield failed in the recent pedophilia lawsuits,

  I have something like that in mind, but I haven't read it, so I can't comment.

  Mustang
• 

  DT

  A big question in this thread is when and if a JW agrees to be subject to Watchtower disciplinary practices.

  Why does this event have to be marked by baptism? Legally speaking, it seems to be an arbitrary event. Some, especially minors, are relatively unaware of what is involved while others are aware well before baptism.

  It could be argued that becoming a publisher implies acceptance of Watchtower rules. The future publisher has to meet with the elders, begins reporting time. He has a publisher card on file and is counted as a Jehovah's Witness in congregation and worldwide statistics. He probably comments at meetings and may even have limited parts at the meetings. He probably seeks advice from the elders and views them as spiritual leaders. I remember when I was young I was told to identify myself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses long before I was actually baptised.

  This could have some interesting consequences. Many apostates were never baptised. It could be announced that they are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be true in a sense. They were once counted as a Witness and now they aren't. The fact that they participated in the work of Jehovah's Witnesses could be viewed as accepting their terms.

  It would really get interesting in the case of a baptised individual who became inactive for a period of time. He could argue that his membership began when he became a publisher and ended when he stopped. It could be argued that the Watchtower society ratified this change in terms
  by no longer counting him in their statistics, or by failing to protest.

  If he is no longer a member, it would be unlawful for the Watchtower Society to discipline him. He could theoretically sue if they disfellowship him (provided he didn't imply agreement to their policies by attending the judicial meeting.) I wonder if any of these thoughts are behind
  the rumors of upcoming changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.
• 

  digderidoo

  Speaking as my new found status as a law student Under English law there would be no contract.

  Entering into a legally binding contract requires an 'intent to cause legal relations', or in other words an intention on the forming of the contract, that if there is a breach the courts would step in to rectify.

  Under domestic agreements of any kind, agreements with friends, family members, before the courts act they want to see that, there was an intention of it being legally binding before they step in.

  In the case of baptism, no person would say at the point of baptism that they intended the agreement to be legally binding. Therefore, an English court would not step in. Similarly as has been mentioned the American system requires an agreement to be legally binding before courts take action.

  Paul
• 

  WTWizard

  I think they should be forced to uphold their end of the agreement or the victim should be allowed to opt out without penalty. Just like what happens when you sign a lease--what if the apartment complex fails on their end of the agreement, perhaps failing to maintain the building to specs? Usually, the tenants have the right to sue the landlord or move out without penalty.

  Yet, the Washtowel Slaveholdery regularly fails to uphold their end of the agreement. And they penalize people for wanting out on that grounds. As such, even Jehovah Himself should be held up to His end of the deal, which needs to be more than existing. He failed me, so I revoked my dedication to Him permanently.