Posts by mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

I believe the church law shield failed in the recent pedophilia lawsuits,

I have something like that in mind, but I haven't read it, so I can't comment.

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

I'm good with that one: in a little more detail, these Lawyers SEEM TO ME, APPEAR TO BE hacks. They are deflecting: EA doesn't allow you to get to do the case on "merits". To some extent Freedom of Religion also deflects.

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

I doubt there are very many people who have gotten baptized that don't realize they can be disfellowshipped and shunned if a committee of elders decides to dish out that sentence.

I got baptized very young and figured things out later. I went to an assembly, walked around outside a few times and decided to get Baptized on the spur of the moment.

Of course I knew about DF'ing pretty soon. That was even though we didn't have many for some time, being a small congregation. It happened in other congo's and the word got around.

But, not only did I NOT RATIFY the Baptismal Vow changes, but I never took the "Oral Exams"/"100 Questions". Things were a lot more loose back then. I wouldn't pass muster today.

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

I have an issue with a corporation forcing people to shun.

BTW: in the Paul decision, the Justices held that DF'ing was not "malum in se" [evil, in and of itself]. I disagree; and I'm wondering if this was an academic thought, noted in passing or if "malum in se" would have make a difference in interpretation and dispensation. I believe that there has been a case since then interpreted along the lines of "malum in se" and perhaps overlooking the principles of EA and First Amendment Free Exercise. This bears looking further.

I have an issue with a corporation forcing people to shun.

Quoted twice on purpose; going away from Legal views, the more I think about it, this isn't Christian, interpreted properly or done with biblical Christian love.

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

DT: U R asking the tough and good 's

Now here is 1 4 U: I have shown that the WTS (and other churches: I'm betting Scientology's Lawyers R BETTER!!!) use the Church Law shield. Now, do U know why we won't get good answers to the tough 's

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

For starters, under American law, a contract requires mutual obligations that are legally enforceable.

Quite so. A highly respected non-current poster here has maintained that Baptism is not a contract. And Contract Law was his specialty in the management role of his career for many years.

"legally enforceable mutual obligations": OK, WTS would seem to "promise" to deliver PARADISE and EVERLASTING LIFE. You won't find a Judge that will admit this into consideration or an attorney that will try to defend this one. This is one reason why the Contract expert always maintained that Baptism was not a Contract.

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

A quote gives the Ratification story:

I am currently a very peculiar and extinct form of Jehovah's Witness. I quit attending meetings, doing Field Service and so forth in 1974; in fact, my last meeting was the last meeting of 1974. I resolved to never go back.

Further, beyond that simple resolution of not going back, it occurred that WTS took an evolutionary step in the 1980's. they changed the Baptismal Vows.

You can look up any one of several essays that enumerate 5 or more different years of baptismal Vows. The purpose of all of these its to illustrate that WTS cut out the loopholes of the old practice of accepting a "generic Christian Baptism" as being acceptable.

And further, the questions asked in the Baptismal Vows changed from essentially the same as those "generic Christian Baptisms" to being PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE to WTS. Consequently, my Baptism was not such a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to WTS.

All fine and good: so what's the problem with going to a few meetings?

A male relative of mine and I are having this discussion. He was involved in the legal "industry" at one time, before shifting to another career. He commented that 'our Baptisms were essentially the a "generic Christian Baptisms"'.

So, I returned, 'we're not JW's?, not having been baptized as such'?

He returned, 'the problem with that is the legal doctrine of Ratification'. (Yes, Law has "doctrines", just like a Religion).

'And that means ...', I responded.

"Ratification means that when they made the changeover and no longer accepted the "generic Christian Baptism" and required the new Vows, then any new JW's were Baptized under the new Vows. But the older memberships were transferred over to the newer format after some point of the older members 'going along with the program'. At that point, the older member Ratifies the changes. The older member has the option of suspending activity and by never continuing, he rejects the new rulings."

"You mean that I haven't Ratified the early 80's changes? I quit going, no meetings, Field Service, talks, regular or irregular association, nothing".

"Essentially, yes. Any future return to association will do the Ratification automatically. They have no requirement to inform you of these technicalities; you are expected to be cognizant of such matters without external coaching. So, many people have been caught up in this and never knew that they could 'opt out'; you successfully opted out".

"Look it up in the Law Library or books; all it takes is a Law Dictionary; you will get the gist of it by the definitions. Some hunting through textbooks will get you an example. But the best example is either the passing of a new Law by a Legislative Body, or simply your latest Credit Card change of APR. The Law changes can be found in History books or Political Commentaries, as well."

"The Credit Card example is simple: you are paying 15%, but your November statement tells you that the rate will change to 18% on the first of January, next. You have a number of options: formally accept the change in writing, do nothing and accept the change without acknowledgment or continue paying off the old balance at the old rate and pay off the balance and quit altogether. The first two options accept the new rate, the second two do not accept the new rate. One of those is complicated by continuing to use the service, without a clean break."
"Any use will invoke or Ratify the change?, I queried.
"Yes, that is the principle of the Legal doctrine", was the reply.
Well, inadvertently, I 'opted out' of the changeover. This makes me either a non-JW (a generic Christian, perhaps, a la my generic Christian Baptism) or some sort of "trapped in time" 1950's JW that doesn't exist any more.
So, long story - long, you can see that I do not wish to endanger my unique status.

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

OK: a short break, large bunch of grapes and a small brandy

This is a quote on the Ratification theme:

And I hit Submit instead of Paste

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

Using JW's own precedent cases, you could argue that the WTS Motions were not admissable, based on YOUR Freedom of Religion.

I hasten to add that EA is the more powerful argument to exclude the Secular Court from entering a Religious squabble. In fact, the Secular Courts LOVE TO INVOKE EA TO STAY OUT OF RELIGIOUS SQUABBLES

EA is a SWORD THAT CUTS BOTH WAYS.

This needs to be considered in DT's ?, Sammie's last ? and my ?. WTS is likely to get burned by their own device, one of these days: How do you say 'hoist on your own petard'?

I suspect that the Secular Court would run for cover on these issues and leave the opposing parties hanging.

I've been waiting a long time to make this point

Mustang

36

Why isn't disfellowshipping a breach of contract?

by DT in

i had some thoughts that might be relevant to the recent rumors and discussion about possible changes to the disfellowshipping arrangement.

(see this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/9/168468/1.ashx).

most jehovah's witnesses think their baptism represents some kind of lifelong dedication to god.

mustang

In the end, I will agree with ESTEE.

This is exhausting; I am taking a break for some "sacraments". I will post on tieing in the Ratification to Baptism, but it will likely be tomorrow

Mustang