JW Baptism Misrepresentation/Ilegal for under 18's

by Pleasuredome 24 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Curious Mind
    Curious Mind

    interesting topic....

    The part of this discussion that is of interest to me, if this is a contract.... ie say you were baptised in 1994 and then in 1995 they change a fundamental doctrine ie generation doctrine, the terms of the intitial contract have varied in such a fundamental way that it could be said that the contract is no longer in force as this new teaching has not been part and parcel of the "consent" of the intial contract. Is this making sense?? So therefore if you then leave the WT in 1995 because of the doctrine change, I would doubt that legally you are still bound to the contract. So in theory you couldnt be DF'ed.

    But in essence any legal challenge against a DF'ing would be pointless, as you would still be shunned by everyone... and then there's the issue of not being able to take another brother or the WT to court

    Curious Mind

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman
    you were baptised in 1994 and then in 1995 they change a fundamental doctrine ie generation doctrine, the terms of the intitial contract have varied in such a fundamental way that it could be said that the contract is no longer in force as this new teaching has not been part and parcel of the "consent" of the intial contract.

    Remember that what we're discussing is highly speculative, and we have no evidence to prove that it would work at all. But within the framework of the discussion we're having...

    I think their answer to that assertion - particularly with reference to those baptized under the post-1985 questions - would be that part of the "contract" was your acceptance of the "faithful and discreet slave" class as God's channel of communication. You also accepted the doctrine of "new light" - that there would be revisions in doctrine from time to time at the whim of the slave. Therefore, any given change in doctrine could have been anticipated under the terms of the original agreement, and is therefore not a reason to negate that agreement.

    In other words, even under the conditions set forth in this thread, I don't think it would work.

  • rocketman
    rocketman

    My wife has just completed. Buisness Law courses, and we have recently discussed this topic. Good points made here.

  • Pleasuredome
    Pleasuredome

    is there a case for misrepresentation (not knowing that you was entering into a legally binding contract/through deception and without explanation not making it known it is a contract). i dont know whether that would be true in the US, but i think in england it would stand up in court.

  • mommy1
    mommy1

    I am one of those kids who was baptized at 15 in 1981 and df at 17 in 1983.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Please email me, mommy1.

    AlanF

  • Curious Mind
    Curious Mind

    Quoting Neon Madman: think their answer to that assertion - particularly with reference to those baptized under the post-1985 questions - would be that part of the "contract" was your acceptance of the "faithful and discreet slave" class as God's channel of communication. You also accepted the doctrine of "new light" - that there would be revisions in doctrine from time to time at the whim of the slave. Therefore, any given change in doctrine could have been anticipated under the terms of the original agreement, and is therefore not a reason to negate that agreement.


    Good Point however your point is based on the accepting of 'new light' and the differences in post and pre 1985 baptism, however you must remember that the information that you are dealing with is somewhat different from the situation outside the USA, which appears to be ahead of the 'outposts'. I was baptised in 1987, my baptisimal questions fit more in the catergory of those pre 1985, as they did not make any reference of the faithful and discrete slave etc etc. Also the argument is based on every cong doing the same thing and every baptisimal canidate having a complete knowledge, or the cong ensuring the canidate has a complete knowledge. Which is accepted as not being possible before baptism as baptism is only the beginning!!! (whatever that means)

    Now all of us out there realises that to be bound to a contract, i diosyncrasies of the contract, especially conditions of termination need to be brought to the attention of the joining party. So I think that pleasuredomes's point about misrepresentaion and possibliy misleading and deceptive conduct (australian legislation in the TPA Act) would be an intersting challenge.

    Finally I did realise that the topic was spectulative but my point about being shunned anyway was me being pragmatic.....

    Curious MInd

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman
    however you must remember that the information that you are dealing with is somewhat different from the situation outside the USA,

    Well, sure. I have no familiarity with the laws of any other countries, so anything I say is predicated on American law. I believe that is the context within which Alan wrote the original article under discussion, too. To consider the possible ramifications of the situation under the laws of every other country would be a massive study.

    Also the argument is based on every cong doing the same thing and every baptisimal canidate having a complete knowledge, or the cong ensuring the canidate has a complete knowledge.

    Again, I'm talking US laws here, but a person entering into a contract is presumed to have considered whatever information is available to him/her about the transaction. As a salesman, I am not required to act as my customer's lawyer, and point out every facet of the contract that he might find objectionable. It is his responsibility to read the entire contract and to know what he is signing. He can't go into court later and claim that a certain part of the contract isn't applicable because he didn't know about it when he signed. In a similar way, under our questionable premise, the congregation might argue that all of the information about what the baptismal candidate was getting into was available in the various publications made available to him/her prior to baptism. Additionally, he or she also likely attended meetings for a time, and participated in the field service prior to baptism, so there was ample opportunity to observe first hand how the congregation functions. Are there really that many of us who didn't know what disfellowshipping was and how it worked before we got baptized?

    Now all of us out there realises that to be bound to a contract, i diosyncrasies of the contract, especially conditions of termination need to be brought to the attention of the joining party.

    Not true, at least in the USA. As I pointed out above, it is the responsibility of the person entering into the contract to familiarize himself with its terms. Really, that only makes common sense. Without such a provision, we'd have no contract law at all. How could any contract ever be legally binding if all a person had to do to escape conforming to a certain term of the contract was to claim that he didn't read that part before he signed it? Now, as far as Pleasuredome's point:

    is there a case for misrepresentation (not knowing that you was entering into a legally binding contract/through deception and without explanation not making it known it is a contract).

    If fraud is provable, that's a different matter. If it can be shown definitively that I, as a salesman, deliberately misrepresented the nature of the transaction and led the buyer to believe that the terms of the agreement were something other than what they were, OR if I asked the buyer to sign a contract while claiming that it was not a contract, then the contract could likely be broken on the basis of fraud. The trick is proving it, since in most courts, the terms of the written contract will usually take precedence over alleged conversations between the salesman and the customer. In our hypothetical situation with the JW's, of course, there is no written contract, but the public demonstration of baptism before witnesses would be just about as legally binding as agreement to the "terms". The people who witnessed the baptism could always be brought into court to testify that the "agreement" had been made. I guess if you could demonstrate that the nature of the organization was actually, deliberately misrepresented to you (for example, if you were told that people who are disfellowshipped are not shunned), then you might have a basis for breaking the agreement based on fraud.

    And we are getting WAY off into speculation here...but it's fun, isn't it?

  • Maverick
    Maverick

    This is a good point. Along with this line of reasoning; Are there only two ways out of the WatchTower world? Just because they say there are doen't make it so. Check out the Baptism Nullification letter posted by Blackguard under friends. This letter was carefully worded using the approach that the WatchTower is a corporation and inserts loyalty to it as loyalty to God and that this invalidates the baptism.

  • setfreefinally
    setfreefinally

    AlanF

    You make it sound like it would not work if you were disfellowshipped after the age of 18 even if you were baptized before the age of 18?

    Could you clarifly please?

    thx

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit