Changes in Baptism vows again?????

Jang

Is paragraph 11 on page 12 of the April 1 Watchtower an indication that candidates will no longer be baptised in the name of the organization any longer?

JanG
CAIC Website: http://caic.org.au/
Personal Webpage: http://uq.net.au/~zzjgroen/

Angharad

Hi Jan (good to see you!)

Is there anyway of getting a scan of the article up?, we dont get to see the mags often anymore!

Thanks

Seeker4

Hi Jan.

Just looked at the mag, and I don't think it gives enough info to come to that conclusion. You'd have to see the baptism talk outline to see if the questions changed again. I doubt that they have.

S4

blondie

Jang, no change. Just went to a baptism talk because a friend that was getting baptized asked me to. They asked the same questions as in the 1985 WT.

LDH

(((JAN)))

Hey girl--hope everything in your little corner of the world is ok.

Pls. post a copy of the scan.....

Lisa

Nemesis

I have read the article and don’t think they are changing their requirements.

But I did find some blatant contradictions in regard to baptism. (Watchtower 1 April, 2002 pp. 13, 15) They say here in regard to those avoiding being baptised:

Sounds relatively reasonable, have faith in Jesus, get baptised! Now look at what they say in the same article just two pages before!

See the difference? One man [the eunuch] has a few hours at most learning about Jesus, and immediately gets baptised! The same for the jailer in Acts 16:31–33 “They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved—you and your household.’ Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that very hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and his household were baptised.”

See the contrast between the scriptures and the Watch Tower? The scriptures say an hour listening about Jesus, and then baptism. The Watch Tower, months of propaganda study, door to door preaching, over 100 questions, and still you might not be “good” enough to be allowed a relationship with Jesus! They are the gatekeepers! Hypocrites, they are exposed by their contradictions in the same article!

Bona Dea

Great observation, Nemesis! ...And here I was thinking that the elder with whom I've been studying (the past several years) was just genuinely concerned with my making such a serious commitment (I've never been baptized but had seriously considered it at one point)...when in reality he was probably thinking that I didn't meet society "qualifications". Thank God for that !!!

"Half the world is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever enough to take indecent advantage of them."
-Walter Kerr

apostate man

:be baptised in the name of the organization

Are you serious? They baptize in WTs name?

Break the chains that bind you,
unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing.

crownboy

Good points, Nemesis.
When I read the magazine a couple weeks ago, I thought the same thing. I actually laughed at the blatant contradiction. I said to myself "I must have missed the scripture that said the Eunich had to answer questions from the Organization scroll" . The worst thing about the article, though, is the way they try to guilt people into baptism. They try to imply that one can only have neferious reasons for not wanting to get baptized (or maybe feelings of inadiquacy). No doubt, many JW parents will be "pushing their kids into the pool" after this article. And they have the nerve to say that they don't pressure people to join?

blondie

The first question is:
On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?

The second is:
Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization?

Changes in Baptism vows again?????

Share this