...It Belongs to the Society
Please give me your suggestions to what those bylaws should be.
How are shares to be determined?
What happens if someone moves?
Can someone sell their shares to someone else?
What happens if someone dies?
There are a ton of fine points that would make it impossible. Then all that happens is that instead of Watchtower using a religion for a business you have individual people who use a religion as a business. Can you have rich witnesses just buy up shares of multiple kingdom halls, and then when the market hits a peak they cash out and shut down a kingdom hall at their own will.
How do you decide who gets to decide.....RO
I don`t decide anything..
JWs donate to their congregations,its congregation money..
The congregation makes the decisions..
The way you make it sound like is so easy but these are just a small fraction of the complicated questions you would have to answer.....RO
It is easy..
What complicates it is,endless pointless questions..
By people with very little common sense and complete loyalty to the WBT$..
And here is another question. Lets say that Orphan Crow you and Outlaw are in the same congregation, and Outlaw has controlling interest of shares in the kingdom hall. And then lets say that he all of sudden hats Orphan Crow and says to everyone, you all either, you either Disfellowship him today and stop associating with him completely or I am going to sell the Kingdom Hall, because I don't like him. Would you think that is a good idea?
I think the point is - the congregation should decide what is done with the hall they attend and presumably have paid for.
How about a vote by the current members of the congregation?
The problem has been the halls were built by the congregation members, and then sold out from under them without so much as a discussion.
Richard, the congregations in Canada are registered as 'charities'. They must abide by the laws governing charities. You have formulated your questions based on your understanding of a for profit corporation.
Unfortunately, in Canada at least, if a congregation is dissolved, the money that is realized as a result of holding assets, would, by law, only be able to be transferred to a "qualified donee". In Canada, that qualified donee is the WTS.
The only way for a congregation to avert the funds realized from a sale of a KH, would be to not register as a charity to begin with.
The specific KH mentioned in my memories was built in the late 40s early 50s . Then no charitable status was possible for individual congregations and the deeds of course referenced only the land purchased pre the build of the KH. Those deeds were in the names of two local brothers, servants as then known, buth anointed and in their 70s. The Hall cdwas built using voluntary labour of around 8 or so brothers, who after a day's work as miners worked in every weather using any scrap materials they could find and those they could afford. The built hall was dedicated as a Kingdom Hall and used for regular meetings thereafter. When the incident referred to happened few if any UK congregations were registered charities, as indeed this one was not either. So at that time, if it had ceased operations, its funds, as against the building, would have been shared with the congregations members then attended in proportion to numbers of members. The value of any sale of the land and in situ KH would follow as similar pattern. While still in existence the congregation could vote on a resolution as to the use of those funds,
In ,I think, 1997 British congregations voted on and if agreed accepted a uniform Constitution which among other things described how in any cessation of the congregation spare fu do would automatically transfer to WT in one of its legal entities. Prior to such cessation a congregation could of course vote to spend/donate those funds in any way they chose. Of course, with the new constitution, elders assumed a new and challenging legal role, as trustees, As such their fiduciary conduct required them to observe the law and best interests of THAT charity of which they were trustees. The standard constitution was drafted, I believe, by a brother n Devizes, a solicitor. This situation was a major change in many things, including the annual returns to the Charity Commission.
My fil , in the early 70s, was defending a place of worship he and companions had sweated blood building and any suggestion to simply dump that place for its financial worth irritated him intensely. He had no intention of sharing around any assets from a sale, or of donating them to the far off WT. His view, and still mine today, was that any assets be used locally to support what he saw as his duty to provide a base for promoting the truth. The 97 constitution. Was a wordy document that was read to the congregation before accepting it. It contained many clauses that have now gone beyond what we expected to allow the use of KH assets to be used by the society for non Kingdom Hall construction or maintenance, even being transferred abroad, as with the millions recently sent to the Selters, German branch.
In brief summation of your question, what did he expect to happen to assets etc on congregation cessation, first, congregation cessation was an impossible concept, the only one use was if a new and better facility was needed locally either by this congregation or in partnership with an immwdiate neighbour. In his day and his fathers and indeed his fathers, local ecclesias stood alone and had to be defended at all costs by locals, with no help from Mill Hill, in retrospect MHs only help was directing the builders to a roof component supplier, an asbestos roof that was a nightmare to replace.Back then so few KHs existed that the concept of building one to merely sell to provide funds for WT was laughable. The congregation understood that the land and the building were owned by the Zzzz congregation of Jehovah's witnesses, and always would be in this system, which they did not think would be long. So views and rules on congregation cessation did not exist.
So let me get this right, and correct me if I am wrong. Lets say that Watchtower says that the kingdom hall at location X is no longer needed and that it should be sold. But that Watchtower says that the congregation members can decide what to do with the proceeds and the majority of the members decide to send the proceeds to Watchtower, you would have no problem with that right?
So let me get this right, and correct me if I am wrong. Lets say that Watchtower says that the kingdom hall at location X is no longer needed and that it should be sold. But that Watchtower says that the congregation members can decide what to do with the proceeds and the majority of the members decide to send the proceeds to Watchtower, you would have no problem with that right?.....RO
Votes normally go the way the WBT$ wants..
If JW`s like yourself are that stupid..
You deserve to be continuously robbed by the WBT$..
So Outlaw, you feel that a kingdom hall should never be sold ever. Even if the demographics of a community has changed so much due to economic or social events that negate having a kingdom hall there. Lets say in any number of US cities where economic pressures has decimated a city and has seen it's population dwindle dramatically. Some examples are Cleveland Ohio, where the cities population has decreased by half a million people, Buffalo, NY by 300k people. Obviously some of those people who left were JWs, and so a kingdom hall may not be needed because people are just moving out of the community. No Kingdom Hall should ever be sold?
So Outlaw, you feel that a kingdom hall should never be sold ever.....RO
I`m not sure if your trying to be an idiot,or just come by it naturally..