willy, I was at a circuit assembly with no baptism. It was almost laughable when the baptism talk ended.
Time magazine-JW's high turnover
by Lunatic Faith 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
MrFreeze
I was reading an article from 1935 and Time had this quote:
"This organization now claims 2,500,000 followers who in 60 languages in 34 nations read its pamphlets and its journals, Watch Tower and Golden Age."
Did they really have 2.5 million members back then?
-
Lunatic Faith
I don't think so. Because I remember when it was only 3 million and I was born in 1972.
Okay, I checked the oldest yearbook I posess--1964-- and it says the grand total for 1962 was 920, 920. I wonder if the 2.5 million meant memorial attenders?
-
DanaBug
They mean 2.5 million magazine circulation. Clever wording there.
-
Snoozy
The Watchtower and Awake magazines are able to say that they are the most widely distributed magazines in the whole world and proudly do so! (
We all know what that really means...
Snoozy..
-
MrFreeze
Dana, clever wording by Time? Why would Time make that number up or was it misinformation given by Brooklyn?
-
satinka
Great article. Thanks for sharing, Lunatic Faith
I see DannyHazard made reference to the two-thirds turn-over of JWs in his comments to this article:
satinka
-
MrMonroe
One more morsel added to Wikipedia. Thanks Lunatic Faith.
-
slimboyfat
I don't believe the claim that JWs have high turnover rate compared with other faiths. Where is the evidence for this? If there is a difference it may be purely a matter of how different religions count their members. A Lutheran, Anglican or Mormon who no longer attends church may well still be counted as a member, whereas an inactive JW is no longer counted as a member. Thus the inactive JW increases the nominal JW turnover rate whereas the inactive Mormon/Anglican/Lutheran does not increase his church's turnover rate, thus giving an entirely false impression that people join and leave JWs at a faster rate than other religions.
-
Lunatic Faith
Satinka--That's where I saw the reference that made me look it up. I didn't realize who the poster was, though. Thanks for the insight!