The real issue is long term solvency.

by joe134cd 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • menrov

    If an organisation believes it has a scriptural reason to exist (although the scriptures do not support a global religious master organisation over all believers), then their purpose is to spiritually support the congregations it oversees. The only 'food' they should consider is the bible. And they can 'recruit' people to provide that 'food' and those people can be supplied just enough money to have a regular life as an evangelist (also not as Paul did because he worked to support himself). In such a setup, the organisation would never run out of money as there is hardly any money involved in the first place.

    But the WBTS has built an religious empire. Always used "size of the organisation" as proof of heavenly support. But such a setup is no longer sustainable by voluntary donations. It needs heavy income streams in order to maintain, renew and grow their portfolio. They have to cover for losses, unexpected damages and costs and at the same time, generate funds to support future expenses.
    In other words, it is no longers a religious organisation, but a commercial enterprise with religion as their main product.

    Not unique in the world though. I guess all so-called religious organisation are or have become commercial enterprises. The hypocrisy in here is that the WBTS always marketed themselves as being different,

    Well, as Jesus said (my wording): you recognize the sanity of a tree through its fruits.

    I just hope that one day, governments and tax authorities will review the Charity rules and make a policy that all profits (the difference between original purchase price and current sales price) is returned to a dedicated charity fund from which other charities can be funded or supported. Charities or relgious organisation should not be allowed to undertake commercial activities, in any form, not via real estate, shares etc.

    In my view, when someone is exempt from tax, he should also not be able to make profits.

  • done4good

    I agree that the many of the organizational changes have to do with helping to ensure their long term solvency, but I don't understand the "think before you open your mouth" part...Just a tad confrontational, and unless you actually took the time to understand the big picture yourself, I doubt you or anyone else would logically come to such a conclusion. That is why your otherwise likely accurate observation was shot down. Use a little tact next time.

    Here is why this you are likely correct:

    1. The organization has been cutting expenses since they adopted the so-called "donation" arrangement in 1990, (to avoid taxes to begin with), and is now at a point where cuts are hard to come by without massive reorganization.

    2. Donations are likely down significantly.

    3. Pending abuse lawsuits loom large, (especially in the long term).

    4. Also since the "donation" arrangement, the organization must now finance itself through real estate flipping. They have realized how significant the total property values they own are, and how easy it is to get local congregations to fork over both liquid money and assets, and do so within "legal" limits.

    They are not so interested in "growth" anymore. They are doing what all corporations do when they plateau from a revenue perspective, they cut costs and focus on profitability. Since they likely do not have an immediate cash flow problem, most of these changes are based on trends that can be extrapolated and forecast. Those forecasts likely do not look too good, mostly due to the intensifying importance and impact of the four issues above.


  • DJS


    Well stated. Thank you.

  • SimonSays


    That’s an agreeable and fair assessment.

  • Lieu
    Well Rutherford did say, "religion is a snare and a racket", as he laughed while driving a brand new car every year.
  • jwleaks

    A shepherd (or farmer) tends to his flock for three primary reasons:

    1. to grow the flock as a means to increase the net worth of the shepherd

    2. to fleece the flock as a means to increase the net worth of the shepherd

    3. to slaughter the flock as a means to increase the net worth of the shepherd

  • Lieu
    A Shepherd isn't the owner of the Flock. He's an employee or servant to the actual owner.. He would only make money if he owned a few sheep himself, etc. Biblically speaking, it's Christ's flock, not mans.
  • Vidiot
    Done4good's nailed it.

Share this