1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today (page 3)

Smiles

Because WT cannot materially prove the claim of "spirit directed organisation"

Plus, the GB want to exclusively control all the 'directing', and that proof cannot be avoided.

TonusOH

DJW: though no one had asked me if I wanted to be a ministerial servant.

When I was named an MS in 1995, they took me to a small room before they made the announcement, and asked if there was anything that would prevent me from serving in that capacity. I wonder if I could have refused the role at that moment? I guess I could have, although I was very happy to be granted the 'privilege' at the time. But that meeting, just a few minutes before the announcement, was all the notice that they gave me.

I guess they want it to be secretive; they didn't want anyone telling people that they were going to be named. Why that would be an issue, I don't understand. Wasn't everyone excited about having more 'capable men' in the congregation?

Disillusioned JW

When were the words "spirit directed" taken out of the oath of baptism and is such reflected in a revision of the book called Organized To Do Jehovah's Will? I have the first edition (from 2005) of that book.

Earnest

FedUpJW : Whom do Jehovah's Witnesses bow down to? To Jehovah, or to the governing body?

The excerpt that you quote from the Revelation book where it says the great crowd "bow down" to the anointed slave should be read in context. At the beginning of the section "They Will Bow Down to You", page 60 para.11, it reads:

Hence, Jesus promises [the congregation in Philadelphia] fruitage: "Look! I will give those from the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews, and yet they are not but are lying - look! I will make them come and do obeisance before your feet [bow down before your feet, ESV, NASB] and make them know I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9) ... Their 'doing obeisance' will likely be in the manner described by Paul at 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25, so that they actually repent and become Christians, fully appreciating Jesus' great love in surrendering even his soul in behalf of his disciples. - John 15:12, 13.

So, references to bowing down are echoing what the scripture says at Revelation 3:9, and refer to the congregation of anointed Christians, not just the governing body. Remember that at the time the Revelation book was written, the "slave" was understood to be all anointed Christians remaining on earth.

Earnest

Disillusioned JW : When were the words "spirit directed" taken out of the oath of baptism

The September 2017 edition of Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (p.209) still has the second baptism question referring to God's spirit-directed organization. In the August 2019 edition (p.206) the second question refers to Jehovah's organization instead.

Disillusioned JW

Thanks Earnest for the update of what the Organized book says.

blondie

Here is a post I made some time ago which in the Opening Comments it lists several changes in the baptism questions: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/112946/comments-you-will-hear-5-7-06-wt-study

LongHairGal

I was baptized before they changed these questions.

If I’m not mistaken, and somebody correct me if I’m wrong, aren’t these questions asked just before the person is dunked in the water?

If so, it’s a little late don’t you think? A person who even notices this sneaky thing because of being nervous and with all the fanfare would be less likely to say “Hey, what the hell is this? I’m not getting baptized”.

Foolednomore

Longhairgal- I was baptized at 15. Not even old enough for a legal contract. I say it's voided out.

dropoffyourkeylee

Here is my two cents, for what it is worth:

The WT has always had (at least post-1919) a fixation on the criteria which defines who is a member of their faith. In Russell days they didn't worry too much about it, in fact they were proud to say they didn't have a creed or clergy, but were just Bible Students. Then when WW1 came along, Rutherford et al were giving out signed affidavits to 'members' to the effect that they belonged to a pacifist religion and thus exempt. In their trial, Rutherford was challenged to prove these persons were 'members', and couldn't do so. The boys had subscriptions to the WT and their fathers were often elected elders of an ecclesia, but that was just about all the documentation they had. Rutherford and the associates went to jail for violations of the Espionage Act. They were later released and their retrial never happened because the war ended and the prosecution dropped it.

Ever since then they have introduced things which were created or invented primarily in response to US draft laws. It was all about the US draft and keeping the WT leaders out of jail. The Espionage Act is still US law even to this day.

Recording field service time = documentation that someone is a 'minister'

Doctrine that 'all Jehovah's witnesses are ministers', even young boys = a way to get young boys of draft age to qualify for a ministerial exemption

Invention of 'publisher' = documentation that a person preaches, thus is a 'minister'

Invention of 'pioneer' = documentation of 'full time minister' status

Central organization of control/appointment of elders, rather than local 'elected' elders = documentation of who has qualification to be a minister

Ministry School = documentation that a boy has 'ministerial training'

Books such as 'Qualified to be Ministers' = shows their fixation on documentated qualifications

Publisher record cards = written documentation preserved so as to give the boys something to present to the draft board

Baptism candidate, 80 questions pre-baptism and 2 questions at baptism = Despite claims that they didn't have a 'creed', the questions served as documention that the candidate had completed some course of ministerial study.

There's probably more I can't think of right now. Although over time most of these things have become part of the religion and have morphed into something else, when they were first conceived and introduced to the JWs, it was all about the US draft.

I came to these conclusions some years ago after reading the court transcripts of the 1918 Rutherford trial and the 1954 Walsh case.

1985 and baptism...I wish I had read this before today

Share this