Baptismal vows.

by hornetsnest 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • hornetsnest
    hornetsnest

    Hi, all,

    I don't post here very often, as there has been no time. However, I do drop in occasionally to see what is going on.

    Another of the posters and I have frequent correspondance and this subject came up. I know that there have been numerous threads on those vows and the various wordings the WTBTS has given them, but have never really added my "2 cents". However, his questions spurred me on and I figured that I'd post my answer here to see where it bounced. (Grin)

    This is the part of his email that intrigued me:

    " I mentioned e that I was of a special classification: I bailed in ?74, before the change of the Vows in ?82-?85."

    Later, he expresses it this way:

    " . . . that is why I cannot go back to meetings, FS, commenting etc. By doing so, I would ratify the Baptism" (new vows) "and come under Brooklyn."

    He then ends it this way:

    " Think about it? Comments???"

    In my mind, this whole question is immaterial and is of no concern --- and a bit surprising. It has never bothered me, but perhaps I should put forth the effort to figure out why. My answer to him covers that and I thought it would be interesting to post it here for your comments too. Here it is:

    Hmmmm. Dunno.

    I remember back in '55 when I was baptized that they had a phrase in there that revolted me at the time and --- legitimate or not --- I made a reservation in my heart concerning that point. I felt that the phrase was illegimate from Jehovah's standpoint and had no validity nor business being in there in the first place. I just simply rejected that phrase and adopted the rest, which I felt was okay, as this vow was between Jehovah and myself and for anyone else to shoulder their way in was trespassing. I simply didn't care whether that attitude would outrage the stuffed shirts. (Not bad for a kid of 15, eh, what? LOL!!)

    This was long before I started questioning the Society's teachings, so I think it's a telling point if we are to consider the question about why the GB's apostacy hasn't affected my faith. These men were merely tools that reflected what Jehovah wanted them to reflect --- poorly and sometimes --- and any time they departed from that they could be disregarded or even discarded like a used Kleenex. I understood that from the beginning and had no difficulty with it at all.

    Oh, yes, that phrase: It was something to this affect: "That you dedicate yourself to the service of Jehovah God and his teachings AS PUT FORTH BY THE WATCHTOWER, BIBLE, AND TRACT SOCIETY."

    When I heard that, the passage came to mind where it says of the disciples, "I tell you, If these remained silent, the stones would cry out." So, it wasn't particularly difficult to see through the Society's BS on this matter. If they didn't toe the mark, they were disposable and Jehovah would use something else. All the endless malarky about how important and holy they were simply went in one ear and out the other. That was man's ego talking, not the Holy Spirit. I welcomed such talks, as I could get some sleep then.

    Even at that young age, I was jealous of the relationship I had with my creator and would vigorously guard it against human interlopers. For instance, for decades I have stated openly that Pioneering is not the sort of "privilage" that one man can bestow upon another. It is a privilage, yes, but it is also a state of mind and heart that you either have or don't have. Any elder or group of elders who would attempt to force their way into that arrangement can kiss my ass. It is between Jehovah and myself

  • hornetsnest
    hornetsnest

    ???????? I don't know why, but the site is allowing me to post only one paragraph at a time. Here's the rest:

    Another example would be the "oversight" work. I will serve Jehovah because I want to, not because some group of men force it on me by watching for any small mistake and forcing me to do the right thing. To have it any other way is to nullify the very purpose of Christianity in the first place.

    One thing that helped tremendously in this matter was that in a way, the "stones" did "cry out" to me, so that the meetings were by no means my sole source of information about Jehovah and his ways.

    This came about because I lived on the edge of a wilderness, and I was surrounded by Jehovah's creations every day. As you know, a great deal can be told about an artist by studying his art, so it was in this case. I saw an incredible beauty and intelligence in the natural world, and it didn't take any particular talent to distinguish those teachings that violated the spirit of the Creator as manifested in those creations.

    I guess the upshot of all of this is that I don't think "nullification" of our vows has any bearing on anything. I made a vow to Jehovah, not men. I've done all I know how to live up to that vow and wouldn't want to "nullify" it if I could. I love that God.

    These men don't have the authority to enforce that vow or even call me on it. They are, quite simply, extraneous. Their relevance is in direct proportion to their faithfulness to the spirit of the word, and that has been non-existant for decades now.

    (Here's an additional thought: John the Baptist was used as a tool in Jesus' baptism and dedication. If he had violated those, would he have answered to Jehovah or to John the Baptist?)

    I think I'll post this on the board and see where it bounces. (Grin)

    Tom

    Comments, anyone?

    Now as an aside to the Society's spies ---

    You have a pompous ass there by the name of Ted Jaracz who has elected himself as a committee of one to cram a pile of heresy down everyone else's throats. Tell him I think he's a wimp and WAY out of his league and I want to know what he's going to do about it. Sadly, the rest of the Governing Body are apparently too old, too senile, or too cowardly to rein in this fool and his excesses.

    You already know who I am and where I am, however, in case you've lost it, here it is again:

    Tom Howell

  • hornetsnest
    hornetsnest

    What on earth!!! Is there a new limit as to the number of words that can be posted?

    You already know who I am and where I am, however, in case you've lost it, here it is again:

    Tom Howell

    (Now it won't let me post my own address!) Let's see if I can pull an end run:

    My rural route box is 36929

    My route is Row River Road

    Cottage Grove is the postoffice I use.

    Oregon is my state.

    My telephone number is (541) 946-1231

    Tom

    "LoneWolf" (now masquerading as "hornetsnest") (Grin)

  • LittleToe
  • Balsam
    Balsam

    Sorry perhaps I am a bit dense, not sure the point of your posting? Is it that you are still or consider yourself still a Jehovah's Witnesses but don't attend meetings? I had been baptized in 1972 before it changed. I didn't even know it had changed until it was pointed out to me after I left the witnesses. Loyality to a money making organization is just silly and has nothing to do with God what so ever as far as I'm concerned. But I am not a JW any longer because I don't agree with what they teach on various subjects.

    Balsam

  • hornetsnest
    hornetsnest

    Hi, Little Toe and Balsam ---

    My apologies to you both. For some reason I was having considerable trouble posting the entire thing. It's up now, so perhaps a review would answer any questions you may have.

    As to where I'm coming from, it's a specific: i. e.: What business does anyone have in inserting themselves into a dedication of a human to his creator as a third party in any capacity? Notice my comment about John the Baptist towards the end there.

    Also, Little Toe, the vows that I took predate the ones you mention considerably. It would be interesting to know the exact wording and find out how accurate that 50 year-old memory is. (Grin)

    Balsam --- I've been DF'ed for more than 15 years. Actually, I've lost count. If there is a point here, it is that I feel that faith should not be based on the words of any organization. Some individuals are faithful, and many if not most aren't, particularly when they get in positions of responsibility and their egos kick in. Faith should be based on logic and reason, not somebody's say-so. In addition, each individual has the God-given responsibility to weigh the value of any and all information submitted regardless of it's source, and accept or reject it accordingly. As to loyalty, that should be in direct proportion to the loyalty that the "authorities" themselves show towards their own creator.

  • JW Ben
    JW Ben

    JWs do not have any baptisimal vows. They have 2 baptism questions. The vow that is made is made in your heart between the individual and God. This is thewhen a person dedicates themself to do Gods will.

    Baptism is the outward sign to all onlookers that the individual has made that vow. The 2 questons that are asked are...

    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?

    These questions just let all onlookers know that the individual has made a dedication vow and are prepared to be known as JWs. They are not vows.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    So Ben, when people get married, and they they promise to take thier spouse "as long as they both shall live" when they answer "I do", you're saying this is not a vow. OOOK

    D Dog

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    Not sure if it's a great idea to post your address and phone number, namely because you never know who's reading. Could be a radical JW looking for an apostate to harm, you just never know!

    I do understand where you are coming from Hornet. No organization has the right to assimilate itself into a person's personal relationship with their God. The outward showing of a dedication to God should be apparent enough through actions, personality changes and words.

    CG

  • JW Ben
    JW Ben

    The wedding vows are different. People are aware that the are making a vow/ The answer is "I do" . in other vow of alligence the answer is "I swear"

    The questions for baptism are qustiins with an answer of yes. eg

    the first question is asking is the candidate has alread made a dedication. Lets use a similar non religous non vow question about what some has done.

    Q Have you turned on you computer and gone on the internet today

    A Yes

    This is not a vow.

    Second question is asking if the candidate is willing to be know as a JW. Lets use a similar non religous non vow question about what some is about to do .

    Q Do you agree that by getting on this bus you will end up in the next state?

    A Yes

    This is not a vow.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit