Interesting, just as I thought. So I guess Henschel was wrong using the term that way in his article.
Governing Body pre-'70s: All Shareholders?
by neat blue dog 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
John Davis
Neat Blue Dog: At least in the portion of the article that you supplied it doesn't say, shareholder, it says member which is consistent with the corporate papers that were filed in 1945. You are the one that used the term shareholder.
While yes a non-profit can have shareholders and Watchtower did have that up till 1944 doesn't mean that it is the correct term following the change in 1945.
-
neat blue dog
Well no, the term shareholder has been used consistently by the org itself since then, up to even the most recent annual meeting, as I mentioned on the last page.
-
dropoffyourkeylee
There was a time not too long ago when the Annual Meeting was only attended by 'members' of the legal corporation, or their proxies. I personally knew one elder whose family had been in since the early 1900's, and one of the older members (with spouse) of the family had two voting shares in the Society (I never really knew how that happened, but I know that they knew A H MacMillan personally). For years, the elder I knew was able to go to the Annual Meetings as a proxy.
As long as a legal corporation exists, there will be some definition of voting members, whether that is called 'shareholder' or 'voting member' or whatever.