Is there a new 'rule' about disfellowshipping which can make it null and void?

whitman

Firstly, if anyone involved in this situation is reading this I hope I haven't overstepped the boundaries by raising this question here. I'll try to keep it as anonymous as possible.

So folks this is the situation. It has just been brought to my attention that during some type of shepherding call to a a disfellowshipped person who is experiencing serious mental illness as a result of the situation and the shunning from his family (his father is an elder), an interesting twist of events occurred.

One of the 'shepherding' elders asked the D.F-d person whether they had prayed and dedicated his/her life fully to Jehovah before the baptism. The disfellowshipped person in question responded in the negative, stating that they just got baptised because it was the expected thing and felt pressure to be baptised.

This elder then told the disfellowshipped person that due to the DF-d person's attitude to his/her baptism at the time, the baptism itself was null and void and therefore the person in question cannot be treated as a disfellowshipped person.

On hearing this account, I asked whether this was just one elder's opinion or whether it now the accepted practice. I was advised that it is now the accepted practice.

Has anyone heard of this or had any experience with this scenario? Is this actually happening now? If so, the implications are wide ranging.

moshe

Obviously, JWs hate to believe that anyone would leave the Truth because something is wrong with their Org, so it makes more sense to them to believe that the DF'd JW never had a true dedication and that is why they ended up in the ditch.

Ding

I don't know anything about this, so what I say is just my speculation.

This reminds me of how Roman Catholics used to get liberal "annulments" in order to circumvent the religion's prohibition on divorce.

It seems strange, given all the questions a person has to answer at the time they get baptized as a JW.

I don't who is involved, so I'm not saying anything about them, but this sounds like a situation where someone has connections and the elders are trying to find a way out of the DF label.

If it's a new practice, it sounds like quite a loophole. Maybe the WTS is getting antsy about how a high DF rate looks.

You probably can't use this loophole if you've been in a long time, but it sounds like something a young born-in can use.

I wonder what they would do with, "If I had known then what I know now I never would have gotten baptized?"

I have to believe the WTS will tighten this up so this doesn't happen often.

The post-Russell WTS doesn't recognize any honorable way out of the religion.

Violia

They used to DF unbaptized people if they were accepted in the cong as associates or had gone in service ( actually some elders felt if you just came to the meetings that was enough). I believe they stopped that practice but they hurt a lot of people, mostly teens .

I think the rumor you heard is just that, a rumor. I have never heard of anyone getting their baptism nullified. I may be wrong, but if it is being done it is pure legalize, straight from the Groverning Lawyers.

Almost all the new rights jws have are just that, legalize.

I don't know of any graceful way to leave the org.

wantstoleave

It would be great if that was the case, as so many DF ones would not be DF any longer. But I suspect it may just be that one elders opinion. He may perhaps take it to the BOE but I would think they'd stick with the DF. It could also be an upcoming rule so that they can lessen their statistics for the annual report on DF ones, to make the numbers look better.

steve2

Even if the baptism were anulled, the end result would probably still be the same.

Witnesses have different categories for almost anyone who does not totally believe Watchtower teachings. Who can forget the "loving" articles in the Watchtower on 'marking certain brothers' and being careful about associating with them?

Bottom line: It ain't a new rule and even if it were, it would not be in the direction of greater compassion. There'd still be a disapproving loophole somewhere.

jwfacts

That was just the elder's opinion. The person would have to write to Bethel for a formal request to have the baptism annulled.

I have heard of a case where a person did have their baptism annulled for mental illness, but it was because they had mental illness prior to baptism and so it was considered they did not know what they were doing at the time of baptism.

Baptism from peer pressure would not normally be considered grounds for an annullment.

whitman

Thanks to everyone for their responses to this question.

I'm not sure that the 'shunning' would stop just because the baptism was considered null and void, but the possibility that this is actually a new approach does open up a number of issues. Both elders in the 'shepherding' call stated that in such a case the baptism doesn't stand and therefore nor does the DF'ing. It didn't sound as though it was just one elder's opinion. It seemed a united front on the issue.

I'm sure there has been nothing official published about this. However, when a lay-dub was advised of the situation they just said it made perfect sense and acted as though there was nothing unusual about it at all. (Of course, we know they smile and nod at everything they are fed whether they understand it or not, so that is hardly confirmation that this is a new practice). Perhaps there may be something new included in the secret elder hand book?

I was just wondering whether anyone had any similar experiences or insight into what seems like a new strategy. Is there any way we can confirm that this is happening? While this person's father is an elder, he is hardly sympathetic to his child's plight. If anything he is harder on this DF'd person than anyone else is, so I can't imagine it is a tactic to assist and elder and his family situation.

Any further thoughts?

Quillsky

My thoughts: either you're the elder or you're the son, but most likely the elder and father. Surely you can see that even by having to ask this question it's clear you're in a cult?

Grab this son and love him, don't hate him. God.

quietlyleaving

very interesting whitman.

I wonder if this has to do with elders being re-invented as independent agents. If this is the case and if the society has been issuing new guidlines then elders and their disfellowshipped family members will benefit first as such disfellowshipped ones have readymade advocates to speak for them.

I wonder if it is possible to test the waters to see if this really is the case. Disfellowshipped ones would need to have someone speak for them, or have some medical proof about the impact of disfellowshipping and together with this say they were pressured into getting baptized.

Is there a new 'rule' about disfellowshipping which can make it null and void?

Share this