This is a "perennial" question, in that it comes up often and over and over.
The usual start of it is the "underage baptism" question. I am a victim of this myself, @ approximately the same age as you.
The basic "Underage Baptism" question is usually framed against minors (those not having achieved the "age of majority" as defined by law of the land) since they generally cannot enter into a legal contract.
This is countered by the opinion that Baptism is NOT a contractual obligation. I cannot explain this, but a forum participant who is in law school @ the moment and deals daily with contract law maintains this. I will defer to his informed opinion.
The next thing that happens is the issue of RATIFICATION. If you don't renounce the wrong Baptismal decision BEFORE YOU ATTAIN THE "AGE OF MAJORITY", you are AFFIRMING or Ratifying the Baptism by your first meeting attendances, Field Service or other participation in the JW rituals AFTER you "come of age".
This is similar to being informed that your credit card APR will increase by
10% after the 1 st of the year. You can turn in the card or not use it after the first and continue to pay it off. Your balance will stay the same APR; but if you use it after the 1 st of the year, the new charges will accrue at the increased rate. This is automatic and most people don't notice anything until the bill goes up. The credit card company will have sent you a notice of the increase. In contrast, JW's will never tell you that you have an option. Actually, most of them don't know anything about this.
So, most people "blow" the legal opportunity to push this issue by ignorance. And of course, the Elders/WTS will NOT inform you of these matters. They are never discussed. You would have to know the questions to ask. Since most JW's have no legal training, this simply doesn't happen.
More goes on that one thinks w/ the Baptism: you give away rights and cede authority to the Church by the Baptismal act. This is not ever discovered until one is Disfellowshipped and attempts to sue the WTS. Then the Legal Office trots out a bunch of laws and precedents that shows that you have no "standing to sue".
You mentioned the Catholic belief of Infant Baptism, which is decried by JW's as unscriptural. Well, I note two things on this subject:
The first is that the JW's don't explain the Catholic reasoning here to the fullest extent. I only recently discovered, through my own research (looking up
20 or 30 Baptismal Vows from various Churches) that the Catholic scheme of things is a "temporary holding action", so to speak.
The infant is baptized and some adult "stands for them". The child is later expected to learn what the Church is about and "CONFIRM" the Baptism when they can comprehend it's meaning.
The second matter is that, in this regard, the Catholics are no different from the JW's. The JW's hold something called the "Family Merit" doctrine. This states that the adults in the life of the child (parents or guardians of the youth) are responsible for the Salvation of the child, including infants. So, the infant or young JW child comes under the same type of "umbrella" that the "infant baptized Catholic" does. You might want to research this.
When you combine what WE WEREN'T TOLD ABOUT THE CATHOLICS and the little publicized method of JW's explaining the same action, you find very little difference, except prejudice against others.
The Annulment thing is likewise practically never discussed. That is because it is practically non-existent. I have only heard of it 3 or 4 times. A poster here started a campaign about this a couple of years ago. It is an interesting idea, but it fairly well fell on deaf ears.
I would take back my Baptism in a heartbeat. I wasn't ready and did it as the typical kids thing to do, like "keeping up with the Jones's". I am very certain now that I wouldn't do it the same if I could do things over.
However, I have an interesting side note on that:
My Baptism was BEFORE the '82-'85 changes in the Baptismal Vows. As my brother noted, it is essentially the same as any of a number of other Christian Churches. IT DOES NOT PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE WTS ORGANIZATION. It only refers to Jehovah, Christ and the Ransom!!!
AND I left the JW's BEFORE the '82-'85 changes in the Baptismal Vows; so I have never RATIFIED the pure JW scheme of things.
My Baptism is and remains one of CHRISTIAN principles, unsullied by Brooklyn-ism.
BTW, there was no pre-study or exam when I got dunked
I am very certain that I would never pass the exam if I took it.
Mustang
