SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT re: Riley Trust Tobacco Compan Stock & WTS

by Oroborus21 78 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • AuldSoul

    I mentioned the same argument Oroborus is using here in some previous threads. I am certainly no WT apologist, nor am I a reformer, nor do I expect them to reform.

    On this particular point, Oro is exactly correct. The WTS does not own the stock, they are beneficiaries of the Trust that owns the stock. They do not have control over which stocks the Trustees purchase or sell, the management of the portfolio is in someone else's control.

    There are ample areas of direct hypocrisy that they are responsible for that I see no need to chase this one where their culpability is questionable at best and at worst only involves their accepting an annual or quarterly contribution as proceeds from a Trust.

    The fact of the matter is, they will accept donations from prostitutes, drug dealers, clergy, Mafia bosses (which don't exist ), transvestites, dendrophiles, pedophiles, zoophiles, philatelists (who brazenly engage in casual philately, right out there in public), or small children who sell cookies while dressed in green, brown, tan, or blue uniforms (the color of the uniform is unimportant).

    The Society and its agent corporations are equal opportunity collectors of donated funds, and always have been. There is nothing illegal or hypocritical about them accepting funds from whatever source they may be donated, they state publicly that they will happily do that. They call them "unrighteous riches" and apparently figured out that the "unrighteous riches" spend just as well as any other variety of riches.

    So, IMO, looking for hypocrisy up the tree of where donations come from (which, by policy, they have excluded from the possibility of hypocrisy) is diverting energy from looking at actual hypocrisy that is reaching out and collectively b****-slapping all of us across the face.


  • candidlynuts

    i've not seen this laid out so coherently before.. i suggest this thread be archived in the BEST OF section for future reference by newbies researching this issue.

  • Hellrider
    You keep harping that they should have rejected the donation without proof that they had any knowledge whatsoever that the money was derived (in a tiny fraction) from shares in PM. Such an argument is only valid if we know for a certainty that they did know the stocks were in the trust. And I agree if they did know, the morally superior thing to do would be to either reject the whole donation or reject that portion of it derived from profits of the 350 PM shares

    Any religious organisation, or any organisation that sets high moral standards and demands from their members, should themselves make sure that they themselves are not trespassing these very same moral standards. That they "might not have known" that they had stocks in Philip Morris is not an acceptable excuse. If they knew, then yes, that is morally disgusting (by their own standards, not mine). And if they didn`t know, then that still doesn`t excuse them, because they are (morally) obligated to have control over things like that. My God, what if they had stocks in the armament industry? Or had received donations from a political party!? As an organisation that sails under the flag of being "no part of this world" and "neutral", that would have been extremely hypocritical. The same thing with the PM-stocks. Whether they knew it or not (and I am pretty damn sure they did, they would have to, because they constantly have to at least make sure they don`t receive stocks or money from such things as I mentioned above), they are still hypocrites.

  • KW13

    I never actually believed that and or got involved in discussions regarding that but thanks for clearing that up, sometimes a tick in the JW box is needed but it doesn't make them right. As for Dozy...saying that judgement on Ex-Jw forums is clouded, i was a bit upset by that. I felt real pain both physical and emotional, since leaving using my own resources with an honest heart able to look at evidence and reject what is bad.

    That is my testimony, the JW's had an affect on my life in a big way. Firstly depression, guilt and worry. For a long time it affected how i showed emotions, dealt with situations and how i thought.

    Since leaving the Witnesses i feel like someone who had poor eye sight would when they got a pair of glasses. i see clearly now.

  • wanda

    Auld, the end result is the WTS gets moneys earned from tobacco investments. Others did it then gave it to them but they gleefully get it.

  • osmosis

    Perhaps if they donated the cigarette portion to, say, the american heart & lung association, this inane thread wouldn't even exist.

  • outoftheorg

    Damn it Eduardo, I hate to admit it but in this case you are correct as to the technical operations of a trust and how it operates.

    I wouldn't doubt but that the wbts just gobbles up the money from what ever source and invests it.

    It would take too much time and effort to trace all the sources from which the money comes from and they might not even care as long as no one else knows.

    WE will have to ease up on Eduardo on this one. But we will get you the next time !!! ha ha.


  • ocsrf
    We've had it hammered into our Bible Trained Consciences™ that "a little leaven ferments the whole loaf", and we have people expelled from JW congregations for using tobacco, even though it's a minor "sin" compared to murder or child molestation, and yet the WTS happily accepts donations from a documented source that is partially Contrary To Bible Principles™. This is what is offensive to our sensibilities... that we have been expected to Take A Stand For The Truth™, even as young children, while adults - people who set the rules and standards for us to follow - are not willing to do what they expect of their followers. It creates resentment toward the leadership - and I would think that an ethical individual would see that this loss of trust in leadership and resentment that a situation like this would foster would not be worth the $1200 and change that was added to the WTS's wealth by way of the HM Riley Trust while it held Philip Morris stocks

    .Dear Ed,

    You know way more than I do about this particular situation. The only point I want to make is summed up pretty nicely by Scully in the above quote. The Org. is always trying to tell us that appearances are so very important. That is why men can't wear beards. Why one witness is not suppose to sue another. But when it comes to them appearances don't seem to be so important. Many of us have made life changing decisions based on their words, so when we see them being not so worried about benefiting from less than pure sources, it certainly makes us want to bring it to others attention.


  • jwsons

    So, anyone can also use the trade mark name "Watchtower Bible and Tracts Society" to set up a Trust and claim tax redemption in that name even a brothel name "Circuit Brothers brothel" (for example) and have in documents as "donation for WTBTS" as HM Riley did with a scan pictures with Philip Morris tobacco name clearly on documents As following LINK.
    I doubt about it. Quotes only use the WT name on his website and nearly hast to go tocourt. Now Hm Riley use WTBTS name on their documents to claim tax redemption and The Watchtower magazine says nothing about it. Wash all the blood from your hand, Satan's offspring !!!


  • AuldSoul

    Fact is, just about every bit of money in the U.S. economy has been involved in some transaction or used for some purpose that the WTS condemns. While I am all for them swearing off money because of where the money has been, I seriously doubt they will. Nor do I consider it particularly reasonable to ask that they reject money from a trust based on the portfolio of that trust.

    I would feel differently if they were directly profitting from the tobacco industry, but I really see no difference between this and accepting a $5 USD donation in the door-to-door serve-us work from a prostitute or "Big Tobacco" executive. And I have never seen in print where they positioned themselves as being picky about where their money came from, so I don't see the hypocrisy in this instance.

    They aren't practicing something other than what they preach in this instance, this is exactly what they preach, "make good use of unrighteous riches."


Share this