Srecko Sostar

I took the story at face value, based on my experience.
What REALLY might have happened is too variable for me to consider without a MUCH larger head.

I remember my ex-wife telling me about a Brother from the United States who was baptized in Peru, and later married a local Sister. A fine Brother in every way, so I hear, but he had forgotten that years before,, in the United States, he was still married.
He was believed by the Peruvian Elders, and the only solution they could find was to "Unbaptize" him by declaring his baptism null and void.  It was either that, or disfellowship him.
Having worked on a Bethel construction project down there, I found that story entirely believable, as they are a much simpler people in many respects.
I am inclined to believe that, all things considered,  what the Elders did was the correct thing to do ... under very odd circumstances.
Of course, I am only guessing.
... and, I am many thousands of miles away, and now about a quarter-century away, and I don't give a hoot, and try not to pollute.

If you don't mind for connecting this two comments.
"Baptism" of this man is done because he want to "dedicate" (guess) himself to God - spiritually , not to WT Society. 
But - factually, he made sort of "Contract, in corporative language, with WT Society through WT Representative who immersed him in water. 
Well, if God accepted his dedication, despite fact he has two wife's (perhaps he was repentant all the time, but he chooses second wife) than his baptism, spiritually is valid. But second (hidden) part of his "dedication" - to WT Society -  is in question, and that sort of "dedication" has been possible to delete in Administrative manner, because he also was hiding some important information.      

Thanks for the insight.  I never thought of it that way.
The Baptism is an outward symbol of a dedication ALREADY MADE IN IT'S TOTALITY.
Whatever you dedicated to Jehovah God is between you and God, alone ... and what the GB has done is try an "control the narrative", and add to that.
I wonder what would happen if after Baptism at an Assembly, where you stood up with many baptismal candidates that said "YES", and you did not affirm the questions asked you.  I doubt they examine the videos to make sure you did, or have someone watch to see if you did, taking notes.  Then, after perhaps several years of faithful life, casually mention that your immersion was as public as you needed, and that you never said "Yes" like all the others did.
What you had resolved in your heart to do was sufficient, and nothing needed to be added.
It's obvious that you were not there to soap up and bathe.
Or ... let's say you were on a camping trip beside a lake, and you turned to your Bible Teacher and said "What's to prevent me from being baptized ..." quoting the Ethiopian Eunuch, and you both went down to the lake, and your teacher baptized you.
As far as I know, it only takes ONE other person present to be a public expression of your dedication, and it would in actual fact be quite valid.
That brings up the next consideration .....
When you got back to your home congregations, relating the events of the camping trip, how much crap would you have to put up with from the Elders ... or would it be none at all?
 

All under your "inspired" topics and threads.

Does not matter a jot. The baptism is a symbol of the candidate's dedication, not that of the baptiser. 
If any words are spoken at all, they should be spoken by the one submitting to baptism, and directed to the one receiving their dedication. And, of course, such words, as evidence of a totally private and personal act of worship on the part of the individual, can, appropriately, be silently expressed.

I believe the last major change was in 1985.
Any Baptisms before that you did not swear legal fealty to the Organization.
After 1985, having subordinated yourself to the Corporation, you had no legal standing to sue them in Court if they screwed up your life.
I do not think this matters to Jehovah, because this is NEVER mentioned before you stand up and say "YES" moments before you are baptized, and the language is couched in such language as to be deliberately misleading in intent, if not actually stated.
They take advantage of the passion and happiness of the moment to "microchip" you for future control, but Jehovah knows a person's heart, and He also understands trickery, and hypnosis.
Currently, there is NO ONE on Earth who can fire the Governing Body .... and they know it!
No matter what they do .... the money just keeps rolling in.
day, after day, after day.
... even on the Weekends.
 
 
 
 

Leaving the idolatry of the watchtower and going to God.

Wrong Question:
Was this INSTITUTIONAL disfellowshipping against as it is practiced today ... destroying whole family relationships, up and down generational lines, and across extended families?
NO!   .... That would be as the Russians view it ... an EXTREME view ... on a slippery slope to  societal ruin.
There may be mitigating circumstances that Elders cannot even comprehend ... or wrap their minds around.
If I unrepentedly shot my mother to death , I should be disfellowshipped forever .. but by WHO?
If I unrepentedly  shot her because she was burning to death in a car fire, and there was no way to get her out ... all sane people would exonerate me ... except Pharisee types divorced from reality.
The world is full of INFINITE VARIETY, and NO ONE can evaluate it all correctly.
Justice we get from Jehovah God ... all else is due process .... ONLY!
Institutionally, we should get out of the judge, jury, and "execution" business, leaving punishment to Jehovah, and the properly trained consciences of those professing True Christianity, as individuals.
OR WHY HAVE A TRAINED CONSCIENCE AT ALL! ?
Institutional disfellowishipping only has one REAL purpose ... the way it is handled today ... to inspire fear of rebellion against the authority that has self-appointed themselves into as much ultimate power as the State will allow ... for NOW.

Too true!

To bring this blood discussion more directly in line with the topic, one should consider that almost the exact same thing was done by WT lawyers in the Bulgaria case, where the WTS legal team came up with a way to appease the officials who were determining the status of our work in Bulgaria (by publicly denying that there would be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion). Then, to clarify, internal communications from the WTS to the congregations stated that nothing had changed, and that there would definitely continue to be religious repercussions for accepting a blood transfusion.
https://www.watchman.org/articles/jehovahs-witnesses/new-watchtower-blood-transfusion-policy/

I abstain from blood in every way possible but, like many of us have stated in the past, it's not possible to get every bit of blood out of slaughtered meat. It's a matter of doing what we can within reason. You don't have to be a vegetarian to abstain from blood. You seem to agree with this point, and I agree with most of the points you made here, too.
I absolutely agree that the red liquid juice is the protein called myoglobin which is "distantly" related to hemoglobin, as it handles the same purpose in muscle tissue (oxygenation) that hemoglobin handles for many parts of the body by carrying oxygen through the bloodstream.
The only thing you say here, which I think could be misleading is when you say that "Any meat still contains a small amount of blood by product (Fraction)." In actuality, just as was pointed out in previous conversations, any meat still contains a small amount of whole blood, not so much any "fractionated" blood. By the way, your wording here is almost the precise wording that Allen Smith had used when I pointed this out, right down to the misspelling of "by product" followed by the word "Fraction." Coincidentally, my own response in the previous conversation used the word "ironically" too, but I had chosen the word for less serious reasons, because I was talking about how hemoglobin carries oxygen and iron, too. Deja vu!
I think everyone would agree with that, as stated above.
The rest of your points are more related to health considerations and the medical dangers of blood transfusions, including the historical development of understanding dangers, limitations, and transfusing blood types (which were figured out by 1901). This is all interesting information but likely has very little to do with the reasons that Christians were told to abstain from blood in Acts 17, etc.
I cannot claim that it was about money or lawsuits, but there are some historical indications about the timing of various statements the WTS made with respect to doctors, patient rights, our use of term "martyr," the JW Bulgaria blood transfusion announcements, medical articles for journal publication from M. Gene Smalley and J. Lowell Dixon, MD (Bethel Doctor). I have looked over these developments from 1989 to 1994 especially, and compared them to later discussions since 1998. Our "public" language about the topic became quite different in 1998, and updates came quickly between 1998 and 2000, which was the same year (rumored) that the number of attorneys at Bethel apparently doubled (no verification on this) and the same year that the Governing Body changed their roles and stepped away from their roles as WTS corporate directors (verified).
For anyone interested in a challenge from an obviously apostate source on the topic of changes to our blood policy, they can look at this page, written in the year 2000:
https://www.watchman.org/articles/jehovahs-witnesses/new-watchtower-blood-transfusion-policy/
 

I am sure you've heard the illustration using alcohol. If the doc tells us do not drink alcohol, would he have to be specific and say do not transfuse it into your veins either?
Yes, I agree, it gets very complicated...I think what JWI and I were talking about is babies and very small children with similar decision making capabilities as a dog (sorry if it sounds weird . I did read somewhere though that a dog's intelligence is comparable to a 3 year old child) but also those who might be older but considered 'immature' by worldly courts.

both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are,
If you allow me to say, I see a little problem here. WT Society looking with happiness when 7 - 17 years old children making "informed decision" to be baptized.
Also, Organization are proud when Court making decision to allow minor children to make own "informed decision" on medical treatment (refuse blood).
This two sort of examples making issue more complicated. Because, will you allow or not allow - that children making own "informed decisions"? And should that be general rule for all children? Or  you put final decision on adult (Judicial Committee .... Worldly  Court) does  children  enough "mature" to make own "informed decision" or not? Etc.  
 
Here i see some theological issue. If God who see things in advance not gave clear command to his people about blood and say - do not eat, do not drink, do not transfuse blood, how is possible that people interpret blood ban as ban about blood transfusion or some other medical treatment that will come in the future?
If we try to explain how his people (or people in general) didn't know nothing  about transfusion, so God didn't want to made his command  unclear or incomprehensible to them, than i see another proof how GB explanation about need to obey their command and instructions despite the fact how such "Life Saving" instructions are not reasonable or understandable from "human standpoint" is just human interpretations and manipulation. 
If God not want to burden people more than it is needed, and he was done that with clear and sound commandants, readable in Law - ......
Why would He allow and be agreeable, with GB ideas .... who  giving obscure and questionable instructions, to His people about way of worshiping?    

More like will the dog's conscience allow him to associate with US

I really didn't notice anything like that. So there's nothing to worry about or defend.
Yes. You understood me. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not worried about whether anyone agrees, but I'm glad you understand.
Yes. You are seeing the issues. The article that said no blood transfusions for pets was written at a time when we were still being told that our conscience doesn't allow certain fractions, which our consciences are now allowed to allow. So where does this leave our pets? Can we get a medical therapy for a dog that allows hemoglobin as long as it is not in the form of full red blood cells, but just the portions of that cell from which someone squished out the hemoglobin? And if we do allow it, can we still associate with the dog, if we are disfellowshipped for giving unsanctioned blood to our pets? 😉

In that case, I think how JW layer had enough time to explain before Court ALL and EVERY SMALL DETAILS on SHUNNING POLICY.
But he didn't. WHY? Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.
:))

Expect noting from anybody, and you will seldom be disappointed.
"Murphy's Laws" have many variants .... Murphy's Laws for Combat, Murphy's Laws for Table Manners, Murphy's  Laws for Babies with Poopy Diapers, Murphy's Laws for Business, Murphy's Laws for Engineers, etc.
Learning many of these as might apply to your lifestyle is a way to have realistic expectations.
Fortunately, Mr. Google can help you with that.
Good mental health BEGINS with seeing the world, and the things in it, as they REALLY are ...... not how we WISH they would be.
 
 

Perhaps it can be said in this way.
When JW members defending "the truth", in such or similar issue, inside own private or congregational circle than they are proud on temporary doctrines.
But when JW member have to defend some sorts of practice before "worldly people" (for example, not pick up the  phone to dfd daughter or let baby to die because of blood and fraction policy)  caused by accepting official doctrines and interpretations of Bible verses, then i can be sure how some shadow of shame is possible to come on face of some (maybe not all) JW's. Perhaps some very good observer and reader of micro facial expressions, mimics and gestures, would be able to see that. And even that same JW member would feel some sort of short term discomfort.

Perhaps it can be said in this way.
When JW members defending "the truth", in such or similar issue, inside own private or congregational circle than they are proud on temporary doctrines.
But when JW member have to defend some sorts of practice before "worldly people" (for example, not pick up the  phone to dfd daughter or let baby to die because of blood and fraction policy)  caused by accepting official doctrines and interpretations of Bible verses, then i can be sure how some shadow of shame is possible to come on face of some (maybe not all) JW's. Perhaps some very good observer and reader of micro facial expressions, mimics and gestures, would be able to see that. And even that same JW member would feel some sort of short term discomfort.

The Bible clearly states that not everyone should be teachers ....

Like when you flush a dead goldfish?

...
Oh, I dunno, Billy.
Sometimes when my mind wanders to evil things, I think about Adolph Hitler, sometimes to Donald Trump, sometimes even to how you are doing ... and sometimes even to that spawn of Earthly Evil, Watchtower Lawyers, who pervert Justice in order to win their cases, as documented in many court transcripts.
Think of those court transcripts as scripts for the diabolically challenged.
Of course, with the  posting of your devil emoticon, and how you process logic and reasoning skills, it's clear you don't need them.
However, you could probably use a self-help book for the satirically challenged.
You might enjoy this video of a Watchtower Lawyer explaining how we DO NOT SHUN disfellowshipped members, which ( and this is a VERY important point ...) because he truly believes this HE IS NOT A LIAR, but what he is saying itself ... is a bald faced lie, distorted by WDS.

1161273524_JehovahsWitnessOrganizationRedefinesShunningtoFalsely.mp4.85f4c020c9531a829adfda4cd5d6d92f.mp4

Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age
As GB member and in a special position as one who Take a Lead of God's People on Earth, Br. Herd obviously, in that particular moment when gave this speech, was not Led by Spirit or  Guide by Bible and Angels .... but he was Led by his Age. :))
Another thing. While reading comments, one think, one thing, came on my mind. About not going to army service and "learning to fight". I made parallels with another sort of "weapon, gun". That is words. It looks to me, because people can "learn" good and bad things, it is not always good to send people in school to learn how to read and write and giving talk. :))) Because sometimes, when some of such people wrote and/or said something from position of Teacher (spiritual in our example) then he can make more "killings"(spiritual stoning) than some soldier on battle field.   

If we believe that Christianity fully calls for what appears to be a loveless stance, then we should be proud of it, and express it clearly to the highest courts in every land. Yes, we think we are being cautious as serpents, but to ALSO be innocent as doves we can have no dishonesty and no guile. If we think this is part of Christianity in the method we practice then we are denying Christ if we hold back from telling out all that is profitable.
I'm using "shame" in the sense of having something to hide. When I pass up a gas station that doesn't have its prices on display, I also assume that they are "ashamed" of them.
Yes. I don't expect that shame was the only factor. There are and were definitely other factors, too. I don't think these other factors discount what I meant by the part that shame has played. And I think it is much stronger than you think, especially in the way all of us wish we didn't have deal with such a topic. The best and most critical point in the recent articles on the topic correctly move the shame to its proper targets, but there are still several potential pitfalls related to shame. A full warning to elders about the importance of the updated processes should include the ARC hearings, for example. The elders will understand the importance of such shame as a motivation to do the right thing. Some of those elders should have been "shamed" at the time when they thought more about reputation than protection of children.
Yes. A provocative stretch. I'm using the term disfellowship with the sometimes ambiguous idea that comes from Leviticus in the expression "he should be cut off from the congregation." Sometimes you can't help but see this as a euphemism for the death penalty, especially when the full punishment is stoning.
I think you are already aware of older Watchtower articles that also say, effectively, that it is a good thing we don't live in the time of the Israelite law, when one would be stoned to death. And of course the more infamous one about disfellowshipping children in a household that says, effectively, that it is too bad that we don't live under the Israelite law when we would have been able to stone our disfellowshipped children.
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.
On the issue of the range of acceptable and unacceptable medical therapies involving blood, this is probably too touchy a subject to get into right now. I'll make it a bit easier by going back to our position with respect to pets:
*** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers ***
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?
 . . .
How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. . . .
In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God. . . .
What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. . . .
But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? . . .  Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. . . . It would be a violation of God’s Word.
If I buy butcher's bones for a large dog that still have bloody bits of meat on them, and of course, the marrow filled with whole blood cells, I can't feed them to my dog. I'm told that my conscience won't allow it. And if my cat or pet snake loves live mice, can I buy them and feed them to the cat or snake, without first draining the blood from them? Can I use live minnows on a hook while fishing without first draining the blood from those minnows? Do we keep a country dog from picking at roadkill, or snapping at mosquitoes or ticks?
And since the blood (and fat, and even remaining portions of a carcass) of an animal had to be poured out upon the ground during the time of the Mosaic Law, then what if an olive tree grew over that spot some day? Was that spot fertilized by blood, and becomes forbidden?
Should we be told what our conscience can and can't allow in all these cases? Should we impose our conscience on children, or on their pets? And if a circumstance comes up where a one-year-old child will most likely die without an available white cell, plasma or red cell hemoglobin treatment, and will most likely live if she receives one, then must our "conscience" be imposed on that child?