So Are Baptisms Before The FDS Change Valid Or Not?

DT

The Baptism questions since 1985 involve agreeing to be associated with God's spirit directed organization. It was taught that God directed the organization through the anointed remnant on Earth who were know as the Faithful And Discreet Slave. It was claimed that getting baptized involved agreeing to follow the direction of this anointed group.

Now, the Governing Body claims the be the Faithful And Discreet Slave. This contradicts the baptism vows of millions of people. Shouldn't these people be rebaptized to reflect their loyalty to the Governing Body? Of course, if the previous baptism isn't valid, they should have the option of walking away without repercussions.

If their previous baptisms are valid, how can they be asked to violate their baptism vows by switching their loyalties from the anointed remnant to the Governing Body? It would seem that they have the right to reject this change without any repercussions.

So which is it?

It would be amusing if people started to request rebaptisms to reflect loyalty to the new arrangement. It would force the organization to make a decision on whether the previous baptisms are valid or not. Either way, it would set a dangerous precedent for the Watchtower Society.

slimboyfat

Valid in what sense?

Ultimately it's their game, they make the rules.

Yan Bibiyan

I see no contradiction.

The pledge was to the Org, not to the FDS. Internal workings are irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for it to be an issue, but as I see it, it is not......

DT

"The pledge was to the Org, not to the FDS. Internal workings are irrelevant."

It was to God's spirit directed organization. It was taught that it was spirit directed through the anointed remnant. This implied acceptance of the anointed as the group that God was using. In my opinion, changing this changes everything.

OnTheWayOut

I have seen other similar threads. If one wants to view their baptism as invalid or wants WTS to even prove that they were actually baptized, "they" will simply have it announced that such a person "is no longer [considered] one of Jehovah's Witnesses." It will imply shunning but not directly order it. Members that openly associate with such a person will be called for brazen conduct and family members that keep association quiet will be ignored.

Ultimately it's their game, they make the rules.

Indeed!

Scully

I don't think any Baptisms™ into the JWs are valid as they use unethical methods to procure them.

sir82

In my opinion, changing this changes everything.

Well there you go.

Are you a member of the "faithful and discreet slave"?

No? Then your opinion means doodly-squat to 7 million + JWs, and even less than doodly-squat to the governing body.

DT

"Valid in what sense?

Ultimately it's their game, they make the rules."

Good question. I guess the important factor is whether they consider it valid. They reject baptisms in other churches, so why not reject baptisms from when the entire organization was following a group that is now rejected as having no authority. If they feel there is a difference, I would like to hear what it is.

It's true that they make the rules, I just think they should have to explain what the rules are.

Yan Bibiyan

This implied acceptance of the anointed as the group that God was using.

Correct. Anointed as a group. Group size undefined. Varying through the years, even anticipated to dwindle after 1975 as a sure sign that the end is nearing.

Well, it just dwindled down to 8. Isn't the end even closer?

Look, we can play sematics all day, the fact is they don't give 2 $hits what we think. And please don't try using logic or solid reasoning here

clarity

On that note ... the 144,000 claim that the bible was written

for them ...only! Not domestics.

>

Does that mean now .... the bible was written only for 8 people???

clarity

So Are Baptisms Before The FDS Change Valid Or Not?

Share this