Okay the amount of publishers or better put redundant salesmen/benchwarmers is increasing, but is the number of JWs really increasing? Okay, what are JWs characterised by? By "love"? Nope, by meeting attendance and field service participation, and matrydom. Now, tell me, are the numbers of JWs increasing? Go attend a meeting of 100 pubs and find the average meeting attendance, get 80+, and you can be sure its because of memorial night! Get 40 out in FS anyday, and it can only be "special campaign" weekend!! Get one who died for his faith, and you can be sure he died in an accident!!!
The antidote to the myth that JWs are declining
by slimboyfat 153 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
LisaRose
I have never thought that the number if JWs was declining, it's numbers are still increasing, and I have no reason to believe they are not correct. But that is true of many religions. I have been out so long, I have no idea what is happening happening the congregations and of course those that post here are naturally very negative about it.
All that being said, you have to realize that many still attending may be staying only due to family pressure and/or the threat of being disfellowshipped, who knows how many still in actually believe anymore. And just from reading the literature you get a sense that the GB feels threatened by so called apostates and are trying to tighten their grip and keep their members from researching on the internet. I believe this will ultimately be futile, it's just too easy to look things up on the internet, and most dubs in developed countries have a computer.
The dubs already have the worst retention rate of any religion, and I don't think that will change. Due to constant proselytizing they manage to keep the growing, but not at a very fast rate. Most people in the world have probably never heard of JWs and probably never will. I don't think dubs will ever go away, but I don't believe they will ever be a major religion. I think that the type of people in the religion will change. I think the ones who remain will overall be less intelligent, more gullible and more more passive. I think the GB will get more nutty and will make even more stupid new rules and do more doctrine flip flops. They will continue to pretend the end is close, which will be less and less believable. I think eventually their numbers will shrink.
-
sir82
In any case the lower baptism figures have arguably already translated into slower growth. They have not produced actual decline.
My argument is not that the decline has already started.
I say that, if the downward trend of baptisms continues, decline is inevitable.
I think what may be happening is that fewer born in JWs are getting baptised, but more of those who do get baptised are sticking with it.
Any evidence to back that assertion up? Or is it just a "gut feeling", which you roundly condemn in your opening post?
-
-
OUTLAW
The growth of JW`s converting from the outside world is`nt what it used to be..
Most of the Growth comes from within the JW`s..You don`t get Points for Breeding JW`s..
.........................
...OUTLAW -
Vidiot
Outlaw - "You don't get points for breeding JWs."
Particularly if 2/3 of those bred don't stay.
-
redvip2000
Well obviously the smaller religions are the ones who seemingly grow the most percentage-wise. Jehovah Witnesses are small by comparison to other religious groups and so any increase will show a higher percentage when compared to the mormons for example.
I do agree that this decline does not really exist and if it does, it's not apparent for now. However there was some signs of downsizing which seem to indicate some trouble. Also, numbers of JWs are kept by the organization itself, and to be fair, i've seen evidence that they shuffle the numbers in order to make compensations ( bundling Hawaii and US and i think they did the same with some of the UK)
Don't they also pick the month out of the year with most field reports handed in, as basis for their count? Hardly a good measure. It should be the average count when all 12 months are used.
-
Separation of Powers
I agree Slimboyfat, particularly with the idea of projecting one's feelings onto the situation. The reality is, the organization continues to grow. Many commenters here have pointed out the reasons, so I will shy away from that. With regard to the lying and deception about numbers, well, I don't see that, and never have.
To my point, I recall the mass exodus after the 1975 debacle. The Society didn't fudge those numbers as noted in the Yearbook, I believe 1977 onward for a couple of years. It was there in black and white, close to 250K left as I recall. It prompted no real explanation to the rank and file. No real apology. Just an in your face "so they left" mentality. I remember Sydlick saying, "They were not of our sort." Funny, I didn't feel that way at the time.
Today, people come in, not in droves, but in trickles. Like a bucket placed under a leaky roof, drop by drop. The bucket still fills, not as fast, but still. And when a piece of moss breaks from the cedar shingle and drifts down the roof, the hole might plug, so the bucket is moved to an area where the trickle is stable.
Sometimes the pail overflows and water trickles out of the bucket and through the cracks of the floorboard. The bucket doesn't really care about the loss...it's just a bucket. But, I, I am just a drop of water pooling below the floorboard with other drips. LOL
-
Shador
Don't they also pick the month out of the year with most field reports handed in, as basis for their count? Hardly a good measure. It should be the average count when all 12 months are used.
Both are given in the detailed chart. Not a grand difference, but some. For example, in the 2013 Yearbook (2012's figures) you had: 7,782,346 PEAK publishers (which is the number they use for the summary). However, the AVERAGE was: 7,538,994 - a difference of 243,352.
-
BizzyBee
Random thoughts on this interesting topic:
It would be helpful in this discussion to establish some criteria that remains consistent, such as a definition of "decline." By my definition they are in decline - we won't see a complete implosion, but I think we are beginning to see a "hollowing out" - most of those in are going through the motions, the 'fire in the belly' isn't even embers anymore.
There is a wide variance on the continuum between "modest growth" and "last one out the door, turn the lights out."
I doubt that we will see in our lifetime a scenario where the GB says, in effect, "The jig is up! We've been stringing y'all along all this time."
When they abandoned 1914, they lost the lynchpin that ignited a sense of urgency. Without urgency, people become lackadaisical, dull and easily distracted.
Once a JW reaches a certain age - say 60/70 - they have more reason to stay in than to leave, even if they suspect TTATT.
Can we trust their numbers? They've changed their definitions of "pioneer," "publisher," "generation," etc., perhaps they've changed the definition of who they count as a JW.
I once calculated that, of my large JW extended 3rd and 4th generation born-in family, at least 60% had left the organization.
...OUTLAW