They were losing elders to pornography and they changed the rules to accommodate them.
They were losing pioneers as times got tougher and they just kept getting reduced hours so they could stay under WT's thumbs.
Thats an interesting thought as well... i was thinking that once a brother or sister commits what the org calls a "sin" and then is "forgiven" it inspires more loyalty as they have been shown "mercy". Its kind of sick when you think about it. Convince them they did something wrong and then "forgive" them, all leading to more devotion to the one who "forgave", the organization. I found this that goes down that same line of thought:
As a foundation for authoritarian control
Yoga teachers Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad analyse the use of unconditional love and the associated concept of forgiveness as a foundation for authoritarian control. [33] They survey a number of religions worldwide and conclude that the imperative of forgiveness is often used by leaders to perpetrate cycles of ongoing abuse. They state that "to forgive without requiring the other to change is not only self-destructive, but ensures a dysfunctional relationship will remain so by continually rewarding mistreatment."
For instance, one Christian sect, the Anabaptists, take Christian imperatives to forgive particularly seriously, interpret them literally and apply them rigorously inside their closed churches. As such, they are a case where one can assess the effects of applying religious-based forgiveness in all situations, 'no matter what'. Not surprisingly, they have a well-deserved reputation for being gentle people but, inside their communities, rigorously obeying (Christian) religious imperatives to forgive, 'no matter what', has been reported to cause effects similar to what Kramer and Alstad theorize in their abstract analysis. Kramer and Alstad also point out similar dynamics operating in Eastern 'Oneness' religions in their wide-ranging analysis of the religious roots of authoritarian control.
Kramer and Alstad assert that of faith-based ideals of forgiveness, while appearing selfless, contain implicit selfish aspects. They state that "when forgiving contains a moral component, there is moral superiority in the act itself that can allow one to feel virtuous". They ask: "As long as one is judging the other lacking, how much letting go can there be?" They note that "Where the virtue in 'moralistic foregiving' lies is also complicated by the fact that it is often unclear who benefits more from it, the one doing the forgiving or the one being forgiven." Not surprisingly, they note "that for many people, forgiving is an area of confusion intellectually."