Who Really Owns the Kingdom Hall?

by WTLies 4 Replies latest jw friends

  • WTLies
    WTLies

    There has been much discussion on this board about who actually owns the local Kingdom hall. My former Kingdom hall is now up for sale and I had a chance to talk to one of the brothers who is overseeing the sale of the building. He had some very interesting things to tell. First off, the body of elders were asking for over a million for the building, which is a heck of a lot more than they paid for it. They found a buyer but the sale fell through. They then decided to go their separate ways as it were and whenever they found a buyer just split the money between the several congregations that met there. When the Society got wind of this they sent a representative who then told them they could not do that because they did not own the property.

    They could rebuild or buy another building (with the Society's approval) but they could not sale the building and split the assets between the congregations. The brother the Society sent is a friend of mine and he told me that the congregations are not owners but that from the bodies of elders they select trustees who are to represent the congregations. When I was an elder, the Society sent out an Index of their letters to help elders quickly find a letter on most any topic. In this index under Kingdom Hall there is a subheading 'Ownership' and the following letters are cited

    Choosing trustees 9/15/87
    Discussion 4/1/82
    Relationship between Cong and title holders 4/1/82
    Replacing trustees 5/1/89, 9/15/87
    Trustee arrangement 5/1/89, 9/15/87, 4/1/82

    I don't have access to any of these letters, if anyone here does could you please let us know what they say. From reading the headings found in the index, it would seem as though my friend was right. The Society owns the buildings. If you do have these letters can you post them or at least the parts that answer the questions as to ownership. I know everyone here has an opinion on this topic but I'm really interested in what the letters say about this subject. Thanks for your help

    William,
    Former member of a Non Prophet Organization

  • XQsThaiPoes
    XQsThaiPoes

    The watchtower does not own the building they are the sucessor. The local cong owns them. If anything happens the buildings are transfered back to the watchtower (the clauses that decide what goes bak are raitifed by the local cong in there articles of corporation, and they all vote unanimously in favor of the watchtower).

    This is to keep lawsuits from ever getting to the watchtower. THe only stuff owned by them is the big stuff brance offices, factories, offices, and assembly halls. THat why when people say the watchtower did this to me or did that to me I am confused because unless they worked are bethel or was acosted at an assembly site the watchtower has never came in contact with them.

  • blondie
    blondie

    I can only speak for the arrangement in this part of the US. A non-profit corporation is formed; the corporation consists of 3 elders in the congregation that has the congregation territory the building is in. If a brother moves, dies, or is removed, then a replacement is selected from that congregations' body of elders. As long as the congregation is functioning, not dissolved, the corporation owns the building, land, and contents. If the congregation is dissolved, then it reverts the the larger non-profit corporation, the Watchtower Society. While the congregation is holding ownership, the WTS has no legal standing to sell or buy the land or property. The WTS can "encourage" them to do certain things but I have seen many a congregation ignore that "encouragement."

    Blondie

  • Glenmore
    Glenmore

    I heard of a congregation in Texas that went apostate, or at least most of the congo did, must have been 15 yrs ago. As I heard it the Society let them have the building, sounds a bit out of character tho', and the way I heard was that they didn't want a fuss and bring reproach upon Jehovah. Anyone know if this is true? And if so on what basis, maybe Texas law is different? It sure does seem the WTS has a lot of potential loose ends tied up. Must be great to have a legal staff at $60 a month.

  • blondie
    blondie

    That was in Bonham, Texas in 1986.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit