Baptismal Questions - why the change?

by teejay 18 Replies latest jw friends

teejay

I was baptized on March 17, 1974. On that day, I answered "Yes" to both of the following questions...
1 Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation precedes from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ?
2 On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit? -- May 1, 1973 Watchtower, pg 280
-----------
Some twelve years later, the questions that baptismal candidates are required to answer in the affirmative on the date of their baptism -- what comprises a fundamental component of the public declaration of their faith (according to the WTS) -- were altered. As you can see, the first question remained basically unchanged in its meaning and scope. There was a radical change in the second...
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? – June 1, 1985 Watchtower, p30
In a meaningless (but still fun!!) dialog, my very inactive but JW-minded sister was shocked to read (for the first time and more than twenty years later) what questions she answered "Yes" to when she was baptized before 1985. After reading the New Question 2 it was such a shock to her that she didn't hesitate to comment -- loudly and in the presence of our regular pioneer mother who was reading along with her -- "WOW!! That's not right!" I didn't say a word... just let them both stew in their own juice. Mama was extremely irritated but non-plussed. What could she SAY?
It's my opinion that few Christians the governing body today considers "apostate" would have a problem answering "Yes" to the 1973 Question #2 even now regardless of the level of their dissension with the WTS. Saying "yes" to the 1985 Question #2 would be a whole 'nuther matter, as unholy as that question is seen to be on its surface.
I was wondering... did the Society make the humongous change in order to cover its butt when dealing with future wayward/dissenting members?
Does one's answering "yes" on their baptismal date free the Society to take whatever action it chooses toward those who later disagree with some policy, leaving he member little (if no) legal/moral recourse?
Was that the reason for the change in Question #2?
Erich

That's no problem at all.

... >as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization..<

If there would come proof that the org is not "God's-spirit-directed", this point is out of validity.
Easy.
cellomould

Perhaps the answer lies here:
Many people who were never baptized claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses. This can be bad or good depending upon what next comes out of their mouths.
The questions may be simply defining the person's status.
Or, as you imply, it may be more subtle....
Cellomould
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
MacHislopp

Hello Teejay,
a very good question indeed , which
will provoke, as you already related, many thoughts
and leave someone puzzled. Btw, this topic has been
discussed already on this board, and if you search
on " Baptism/ baptism questions/ " and similar
you'll find many interesting comments.
Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
logical

If there is ONE thing that people studying with JW's should be made fully aware of, it is this.
Most of the other lies they can come up with some sort of excuse and weasel their way out of, but not this one. This point convinced me the JW's did not have the truth.
refiners fire

Here is the REAL reason they changed the questions....
CONGRUENCE.
Remember all those nice German boys who swore a PERSONAL oath to ADOLF HITLER. Not to the German nation, but to Adolf ?
Later, when they realized Hitler was evil, their own oath came back to haunt them. "I promised Him" they all said. Convinced in their own minds they couldnt change their position,bound by their own pledge.
The impulse not to contradict oneself, to remain congruent, is one of the BIGGEST cult control mechanisms there is.
Just have a look at all the people on this site. All reproducing each others quotes in their argument postings . Why?
They are looking for contradictions. Seeking to create incongruence in the other persons mind. They learnt this trick from the BORG. Now they use it against each other.
The oath to the Org is the same thing, you cant (later) rationalize betraying the org (The org hopes)because you swore an oath of alleigance.You must remain loyal no matter what.
They are Bastards. Where bastards are concerned, oaths are invalid.
teejay

Thanks Mac.
I figured that there was a strong chance that this is a topic must have been discussed before her, or else should have been.
Still, the importance of the subject is one that never quite goes out of style and since so many are here now that weren't six or eight months ago, I thought I'd bring it up again.
peace,
tj
Perry

Good morning teejay!
Excellent subject. I remember when I first found out about the change. I remembered the deep feelings I experienced the few minutes before I took the dunk on January 17, 1987. I remember how vulnerable I felt before God and how all I really wanted to do was to live a selfless loving life like Christ did.....no hocus pocus, or special club membership, just good living skills.... maybe get that family I always wanted. I was in tears at the prospect.
Then I thought, "how insidous it was to choose this moment in my life to tag on an additional ownership label as if the WTBS invented the rite of baptism!" I felt throughly violated, and roundly duped. I've got news for them though. Christ is the owner of the cong.
As for the reason, one can only speculate. It's easy to see how they might argue that one's baptism would be invalid if you leave the org. by using your own words against you.
Or, this may give some sort of legal control over future, errant elders who try to turn an entire congregation away from the org. Whole bodies have been removed before. I always wondered how the org. could do that since the congregation owns its own propery and stuff.
Whatever the case, its just another example of the distrust the leadership has in its members and how they constantly equate themselves with God and Christ..... even if this one does take the cake so to speak.
Scully

The Society claims once again that "simplification" was the motive behind the change in the question.
As well, the following year in the April 1/86 Watchtower's Question From Readers it is written:
Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural [and even those unScriptural] beliefs unique to Jehovah's Witnesses
The change in the baptismal question, it appears,
a) simplified the ability of elders to disfellowship someone for the crime of apostasy (all you had to do with disagree with the WTS);
b) simplified the work of their legal department to keep the WTS from being sued for disfellowshipping people simply for having their own opinion or interpretation scriptures;
c) simplified the rite of baptism to include a non-commissioned sales position with a snake-oil publishing house and real estate conglomorate that masquerades as a religion.
Remember, this was not long after the huge "cleansing" that took place in 1980 when Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped. They were looking for a way to prevent that kind of thing from happening in the future.
When I was baptized, in 1980, I was dedicating my life to do God's will as he revealed it TO ME through Jesus Christ and God's Word and the Holy Spirit. Anyone baptized with the "new" questions was entering a legal contract with the WTS. Shame on them for cheapening a person's relationship with God that way!
Love, Scully
It is not persecution for an informed person to expose a certain religion as being false. - WT 11/15/63
Scully

Perry writes:
Or, this may give some sort of legal control over future, errant elders who try to turn an entire congregation away from the org. Whole bodies have been removed before. I always wondered how the org. could do that since the congregation owns its own propery and stuff.
Actually, I believe that has been "simplified" too. When the Quick-Build Kingdom Hall craze began in the early 80's there were certain criteria that had to be met before the WTS would lend money to the congregation to build new Kingdom Halls.
First of all they had to purchase the land upon which to build. The amount of the loan from the WTS apparently was not allowed to exceed the amount paid for the land. (In other words, if the land cost $50,000, the WTS would only lend $50,000).
Secondly, once the Hall was built, the congregation had to repay the loan to the WTS. Fair enough. However, it was "recommended" that the WTS be named the owner of the property (land and structure), with certain persons named as being "trustees" on behalf of the WTS. In other words, the WTS was recommending a $100,000-value donation of real estate to itself (using the example in the above paragraph).
Third, even though a congregation may have paid off the loan to the WTS in its entirety, the WTS, being the owner of the property, would now be entitled to collect "rent" from the congregations who used the Kingdom Hall.
Nice way to "simplify" things for themselves, don't you think?? I don't know how many congregations did and did not follow the WTS's recommendation to give ownership of their Kingdom Halls to the WTS, but knowing the sheeplike mentality of JWs, it would probably not be questioned.
Love, Scully
It is not persecution for an informed person to expose a certain religion as being false. - WT 11/15/63

Baptismal Questions - why the change?

Share this