Since the Jehovah Witness baptism is more or less worded like a contract, when someone disassociates does that mean the baptism is considered voided?
Is baptism voided for those disassociated?
by sacolton 18 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
shopaholic
I don't think so. I know someone that DA'd but continued to attend meetings. When the person was reinstated, the elders asked if the person wanted to get baptized again. The person chose not to since it was optional. I worked the baptism pool several times and learn that DF'd folks have the same option.
Once a JW, always a JW...even if you're a ex-JW.
-
sacolton
Strange since they announce "(name) is no longer a Jehovah's Witness" when disassociated. If they feel the baptism isn't voided, then why call a person "apostate"? It makes no sense.
-
wobble
The way it was explained according to my memory was,that if you did not feel your baptism was valid you should be re-baptised,even if you had never been DF'd or DA'd.
We had one prominent Elder who was baptised in his teens,in the 1960's,and he was smoking at the time,so he got re-baptised in the1990's !
(I think the smoking was the reason,may have been something else)
So if you were ever mad enough to go back you could get baptised into an organization,not into the Father,Son and Holy Spirit as Christians do,you would have the choice.
But unfortunately,though there has been a de facto breaking of the contract,the Borg still holds you to it,even if you left decades ago.
Love
Wobble
-
Satanus
When i missed a few months of door knocking, the elder told me that my baptism was void. Didn't stop em from dffing me, though. It's kind of a unilateral arrangement.
S
-
AllTimeJeff
No. Baptism is not voided.
Disassociation seems to be a poorly understood JW concept, with good reason. This is a level of disfellowshipping that serves the interests of the Governing Body only. They mean to muddy the waters in order to protect themselves from legal consequences in certain judicial cases.
Disfellowshipping means "you were acted upon."
Disassociation means "you acted upon them."
(I prefer the term "resign" because to use their terminology is (imo) to accept the fact that you no longer want to associate with your friends. If that is the case for some, it certainly wasn't the case with me.)
Starting with 1981 and the disfellowshipping of Ray Franz, the GB "tweked" disassociation so that total shunning would take effect. A few years later, specifically because of lawsuits brought against the WTBTS, the Governing Body said that a person who took blood or "violated their neutraility" disassociated themselves by their actions.
Really? Wouldn't fornication cause a similar action? All such "sins" (from the JW point of view) can potentially announce that an individual leaves because of their actions.
What this type of JW legalese allows is for JW's to kick out and shun those who violate a GB law that isn't clearly stated in the bible, yet make it seem that the JW wanted to leave. For example, to fornicate is a sin all over the bible. To work at a military production plant? While offensive to JW's and the GB, it isn't stated in the bible. There are many who want to be JW's and yet work at a military plant. What to do? Lawsuits can be filed if the GB acted upon them. But if they can frame the debate and claim that the person left of their own accord, as demonstrated by working at a military plant, then it is easier to defend in the courts.
I know this wasn't the thrust of your question, sorry for the rant. It just angers me that the GB uses a term like disassociation, which implies that a person resigned, and use it as a disfellowshipping tool.
The only ones who really disassociate are the ones who resign by letter or verbally. Everyone else is kicked out by the cult. Disfellowshipped, even if they don't call it that.
-
blondie
No, a poster on JWD was da'd and was reinstated and did not have to get rebaptized.
*** w88 4/15 p. 31 par. 26 Discipline That Can Yield Peaceable Fruit ***So our God who requires that an unrepentant wrongdoer be expelled from the congregation also lovingly shows that a sinner can be reinstated in the congregation if he repents and turns around. (A disassociated person can similarly request to become part of the congregation again.)
So df'd and da'd follow the same WTS procedure to be reinstated...no need to be rebaptized.
*** w73 6/1 p. 341 par. 25 Keeping God’s Congregation Clean in the Time of His Judgment ***Would there be need for rebaptism on the part of those abandoning their addiction to tobacco or other harmful product? No, this does not seem necessary. Knowledge brings responsibility and educates the conscience. (1 Tim. 1:13) The congregation gave them to understand that their practice did not ‘prevent them,’ and they were baptized in accord with that understanding. (Acts 8:36) Of course, if an individual feels that he presented himself for baptism with a ‘bad conscience’ due to such practice, he may decide to be rebaptized. That would be his personal decision.
*** w56 12/15 p. 762 Questions From Readers ***Once a person has been baptized with understanding in token of his dedication there is no need or propriety for him to be rebaptized, even if for a time he falls away or becomes inactive, any more than a member of Christ’s body needs to be re-anointed. His baptism once performed stands forever as a testimony of his dedication to Jehovah and as an irremovable sign of his obligations toward God.
It has never been the policy of the WTS to require da'd or df' members who are reinstated to be rebaptized. I think they base that on the fact that the 1 Corinthian account of a "df'd" person shows that it wasn't necessary for him to be rebaptized or reannointed.
Blondie
-
WuzLovesDubs
I never heard of anybody having to get re-baptised when they were reinstated even from the most heinous "sins". The baptism is a public display of a commitment to give your life to God...or in their case...to the Watchtower Society as a REP. I dont recall reading anywhere in the bible where the disciples, even PETER who denounced Jesus himself...was required to be re-baptized after they screwed up.
-
oompa
just an aside....did you know persons with aids are not allowed to be baptised with the rest of the group....cant even go last in the same pool...we had to take a poor guy to a lake.....and the water has to have some "flow" to it....i kid you not.....rules for EVERYTHING!!!......oompa
-
sacolton
I'm not worried about being "re-baptised", but the wording of the baptismal questioning seems to indicate that it is a contract or oath to the organization. When you disassociate, aren't you breaking that oath and making the baptism void in the eyes of the Watchtower?
(1) On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?
(2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?
The Watchtower obviously considers disassociation as being God's enemy, so do they still think we are dedicated to do God's will? The second question clearly identifies you as a Jehovah's Witness in association with the Watchtower. Now, would a Jehovah's Witness consider a DA still a brother? Of course not! Even though the baptism is still valid?