Hi Sunspot: The June 1, 1985 Watchtower, page 30, gives this two question formula:
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?"
This question does not really involve being 'baptized in the name of the Father and Son' ... rather it is a statement of belief and action. The Bible never really states that the Apostles applied any specific 'formula' when people got baptized ... as there is no required formula. They early Christians did use similar expressions as Jesus put forth. The above question is somewhat religious legalism, but it also is fundamentally okay, sort of, yet has little to do with being saved by Grace due to faith alone in Jesus Christ.
The second question is:
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?"
This is legalism par excellence! The Holy Spirit is never really mentioned, at least not directly. Rather the organization is placed into an important position. JWs are brought into a legal arrangement, and here are the important implications:
1. Identification as a JW: The individual is combining an act of faith in Christ's sacrifice with taking on a religious label. This recognition has legal implications with respect to their obligations to the organization that directs the JWs.
2. Association "with" the organization: While JWs use to say they were members of the Watchtower Society, they generally recognized that there were no Church membership roles. The Society does not now, nor has it ever, considered any JW a member of the Watch Tower corporations, except for the approximate 500 stock-holders of its corporations. The term 'association with' has its basis in the law of agency. If a person gets an insurance sales license, they join up with an insurance company as a agent. They are not an employee or member of the corporation, but their license is under the General or Managing Agent, and they work in 'association with' that General Agent. The salesperson is legally self-employed, but to remain in 'association with' the General Agent, they must abide by her/his rules and office policies.
This also has important legal features with respect to Church Government. Because of the 'separation' between Church and State doctrine in our nation, religions can have whatever rules and government they want. And if a person joins a religion, and accepts its rules, and understands that their 'identification' and 'association with' means abiding by its rules, then they have 'no legal recourse' should the religion decide to boot them out for some infraction against their policies and rules; whether written, oral, expressed, or implied. The religious organization holds all power, authority, and is final judge in how it carries out its procedures.
The reason the WTS created the 1985 Baptism Formula?: Because as the 1970s ended, there were many who left regarding the failed prophecy of Armageddon in 1975. Along with this, there was the major shake up at Bethel in 1980-81 with the resignation of Ray Franz, and disfellowshipping of many other Bethelites, including their Gilead Registrar, Ed Dunlap. There was a drop in overall attendance at meetings, time reported in Service, attendance at Conventions, and a rise in JWs who walked away, becomeing inactive, but not Disfellowshipped ... leaving the possibility open for them to influence active JWs remaining in the religion.
Additionally, I have no doubt that there were some lawsuits, or at least "manuevering" by some inactive JWs to prevent the Elders from taking official DF action These former JWs may have contended that because the Society always said that there were "no membership" roles, that there was no corresponding method to DF someone who was in fact not a member or had no "legal" association with the Watch Tower Society.
So, the Society lawyers and leaders had to come up with a new formula that closed this 'loop-hole' so that they could terminate the association of any JW, yet not consider them a member of the Watch Tower corporations. The term 'in association with' was the way out for them ... gave them the same rights and benefits as a General or Managing Agent has with licensed sales people: No direct legal membership, yet the legal means to terminate association.
This is the reason for their formula ... it forces the new JWs to accept the Watch Tower system of Church Government, lock, stock, and barrel.
What about JWs baptized prior to 1985?: These JWs could still make headaches for the Society by claiming that they never recognized God's spirit-directed organization. The Society would have to then cite earlier District COnventions where the new formula was presented as a "Resolution" to be adopted ... all saying "YES" passed the Resolution. Even if one said nothing or even said "NO", if the majority said "YES" then the new rule went into effect.
Could a JW still make an argument against the new rule?: Yes, if they could force the Society, through the courts to "prove" that a "majority" of all JWs said "yes" all aournd the worlkd at all the District Conventions in the year that the "Resolution" was supposedly passed. If they could not produced such results, then the JW could argue to have any affiliation with the Society annulled, and be treated as thogh such a rule never existed.
The problem is getting such a case into the civilian courts ... because the courts are reluctant to hear cases involving matters of church government. A jw, or former JW ouwld have to show cause, that there was some harm brought to them in ways that transcended the wall of separation between Church and State, and resulted in actual damages as a matter of law. This would be in cases of liable and slander, defamation, etc. These cases can stand on their own anyway, without challenging the rules of Church Government ... so a lawyer might advise an aggrieved former JW to not make an issue of Church government and muddy the complaint in court, and instead focus on the actual damages as the law allows.
So the primary benefit to the Society is: Not to protect themselves against liabling former members ... but to have a more solid basis on which to terminate association with any JW, for any reason, at anytime, and not have the former JW be able to manuever the Elders, and delay matters for months or years ... since 1985, the Watch Tower Society and it's appointed agents, the Elders, have absolute power to terminate the association of any JW ... and there is nothing that any JW can do about it.
In my own case: In 1993, I wrote to the Society and essentially barred any action toward me ... and threatened a lawsuit. They held off ... and it would have remained that way, except that the local Elders were able to generate a false basis that I started my own religion, and then determined that I had "Disassociated" myself. I could have beaten them in court on this one, but the costs would have been too great compared to the benefits.
Why didn't they simply boot me according to the new rules? Well, they could have! They could have simply written and said that my association was terminated ... and there would be nothing I could do about it. But they made the error of making a charge, a basis on which they made their determination ... and they also feared me taking them to court ... so, had the local Elders left me alone, I would have simply faded away without any Disassociation or Disfellowshipping. But once they chose to take action, they simply should have terminated my assoication without any notice or reason.
Is any of this Christian: No! None of it has anything to do with Jesus words at matthew 28:19,20. None of it fits within the Christian spirit or message of Christ. It is all about power, control, and protection from legal action and civil suits. The Watch Tower Society is nothing more than a human publishing corporation that became full of themselves, mostly due to their second President, Joseph F. Rutherford. He, in my opinion, is almost singularly responsible for ruining what otherwise wasa small friendly little cult.
Sorry for the long post, but this question comes up from time to time, and I thought that maybe a more detailed discussion would prove helpful.
