Cutback prediction

by slimboyfat 204 Replies latest members private

• 

  Anony Mous

  I don't think they're broke, on the other hand I also don't think they're as well off as they used to be. It's easy to see, as @OrphanCrow says, that they're retooling for the "Internet age" and after all, running a website isn't all that hard or expensive.

  They sure are modernizing, televisions in every hall, chorus, streaming, this is all what very "modern" contemporary Christian mega-churches do. It's not the WTBTS as we know it, they can't afford printing for free but I've been out for 6 years now and I wouldn't recognize the modern JW halls.

  Will the WTBTS go bankrupt: no, but it won't last in this age in the "classic" form but 'they' know it and they're changing accordingly, slowly but surely and you'll have people like Morris that will continue to decry the tight pants and slowly but surely people will start writing it off as the ramblings of an older pastor, while a younger pastor wearing jeans does some Christian rock songs.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  cofty: OC - What sort of outside agencies would give large grants to a religion that do no actual charity work?

  Well, they do 'do' charity...in a way. At least, they fall within the parameters of what a foundation would define as charitable. Just being a religious organization puts them into an automatic "charitable" standing with, I would think, most outside agencies. Their 501c3 standing is the free pass that opens the door.
• 

  cofty

  Speaking as somebody who has completed many grant applications for sporting charities I can tell you they have zero chance of securing a penny of external funding in the UK. Invariably anything that even hints at proselytisation is excluded from being eligible for any financial contribution.

  Maybe it's different in the USA.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Losing their main source of revenue; not finding another source of revenue to replace it; cutting back personnel 25% and counting; severely cutting print and other physical media; actually declaring that they have a deficit; actually declaring that their call for donations wasn't enough and they need to tighten their belt: none of that counts as evidence?

  Instead we are presented with a vague notion that Watchtower may/will get charitable funding? That's what you consider good evidence of robust finances? Speculation based on nothing.

  In fact worse than nothing. In Britain where they detail these things, charitable grants were tiny to non-existent. It's there in black and white. It's not a significant source of revenue.

  As for the reserves in the British branch: we talked about this last week, did you miss it? If Watchtower gathers all the spare money from local congregations, of course they will have a reserve. The question is how long will it last.

  Additionally another poster mentioned that someone at the branch said only the US, Canada, Germany and UK branches have surpluses. Brazil brakes even. (I think) The rest run deficits.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  cofty: Maybe it's different in the USA

  Could be. I am only familiar with Canadian nonprofits and charities.

  The Canadian WTBS did not receive money from any outside agency in Canada. However, I don't know how they operate in countries around the world. Who knows? They may receive monies from government agencies for literacy programming. Maybe. That would be the most likely activity that would get outside support.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  No, Slimboy....not vague evidence. Just that the interpretation may be different than what you say it is. I just threw out the charitable foundation option as another way of looking at the 'evidence', that's all.

  What the org is really good at is changing and morphing as the tax laws demand them to change. What we are seeing in some of the actions of the org are its' reconfigurations to comply with tax laws.

  For example. The 'forgiveness' of the KH loans. That was a direct reaction to charity tax laws that clamped down on what charities were allowed to do with their money. Charities were told that they couldn't loan money out anymore. So the KH loans changed. Tax laws made that happen.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The cut backs are real. The statements that they have a deficit and need to tighten their belts are real. Their loss of revenue from publishing is a matter of historical record. All this is good strong evidence.

  Simply sayimg "maybe they'll get grants somewhere" is not evidnece. It's just a statment: like maybe the moon is made of cheese.

  In fact all the available evidence is JWs don't get much (or any) charitable funding.

  I just find it bizarre what some consider evidence.
• 

  konceptual99

  Re the U.K. figures, don't forget you need to factor in the drive for cash for Chelmsford. They are also about to get a windfall from the impending sale of Mill Hill.

  Did someone mention the UK got a loan from Australia? If so that's a classic example of the WT moving money around to protect it. The WTS is managing the risk that AU will see a large rise in claims over child abuse.
• 

  Listener

  In the January, 2018 study article of the Watchtower this was written
  
  

  In recent years, there have been many exciting new initiatives At times, this resulted in more money going out than coming in for a period of time. Thus,the organization looks for ways to reduce expenses and simplify the work so as to be able to accomplish the most that it can with your generous donations.

  
  There's not a lot to garner from this statement but it does tell us a little.
  
  Strangely, it was exciting new initiatives that resulted in a loss at times. No mention is made of unexpected costs, such as losses through investments, legal fees, child abuse payouts and so on. It would be surprising if these costs did not amount to far greater than expenses paid for their 'wish list', although the new Bible would have been very expensive.
  
  Interestingly, it suggests that it is the organization that has the control over the money and it is the organization that tries to do what is best with it. rather than it being the oversight of the Governing Body/FDS. Yet at other times, especially when introducing new ideas, it is the GB that is pointed to as being the gift givers.
  
  They say that they look at ways of reducing expenses AND simplifying the work. Maybe a more correct statement should be that they are reducing expenses BY simplifying the work. And there's the problem, is simplifying the work really about preaching the good news to greater effectiveness and which happens to be their most important role or is it because they are in deep financial problems that they are forced to do this? What fools we were to go out from door to door selling the magazines, even knowing that most people didn't want them and were just being polite or hoping to get rid of us, even the organization is now acknowledging this to be ineffective.
  
  
  
• 

  freddo

  Crazyguy: "... and of course the elephant in the room is pending child abuse cases. Maybe all the begging is just to build up a nice fat fund to defend against child abuse cases and if they loose to afford to pay out the fines."

  THIS.