You probably have the bean counters warning about impending financial disaster and then you have the dillusional GB wanting to kick the can down the road and hope they get raptured to heaven before the org. Implodes
The current financial crisis of Watchtower in historical context (part 1)
by slimboyfat 165 Replies latest members private
-
-
sir82
Well written, but I have one comment.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that the governing body are "in charge of" all or nearly all financial decisions. I'm not sure this is the case.
Of course, they are "the top" of the organization conceptually, and ultimately anything that is done in the organization needs their approval.
But I suspect, without evidence of course, that they defer almost 100% of the time to whatever their financial advisers recommend (I also think this is true of their legal advisers).
I kind of view them as a sort of "head of state", roughly analogous to the Queen of England, for example. The Queen is the "head of the government", and it operates at her command as it were, but day-to-day operations are far removed from her control.
Likewise I see the GB as a group that sits around and plays around with doctrinal & policy issues, and is heavily involved in the "PR" of the organization (via regional visits and those god-awful broadcasts).
But I suspect that while they have the final "right of approval" for financial decisions, their role is more or less to listen to 15 or 30 minute summaries of the financial issues, shrug at the complexity, and 99% of the time agree with whatever recommendation the "real" financial gurus come up with.
I think they are pretty much content to leave the "business" end of the organization with "other guys".
As noted, this is based on nothing concrete, just my impression from watching & listening to these bozos.
-
Diogenesister
instead we have, on public record, and for all time, a Governing Body member all but categorically denying a cornerstone of JW beliefs, not to mention undercutting the very basis of his own authority.
I disagree. To anyone else, yes it may look as if he were saying that.
But not to Jehovah's witnesses. Firstly, Stewart asked him if the GovBod was "God's channel" not the ONLY channel. Jackson replied by saying that it would be "presumptuous to say we are God's ONLY channel". In doing so he mudied the waters. The question then became whether gods holy spirit could be using others, which to jehovahs witnesses the answer is yes, of course...it uses elders when they teach, it uses publishers in the ministry, dont we prey for as much before we start a Bible study session?
I'm not saying Jackson thought on his feet, gave a good witness or even came across as anything but a man looking like he was doing anything but avoiding the elephant in the room.
But that question was practiced, in my veiw, they knew it was coming.
-
sparky1
Since the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Bible And Tract Society do not publish a financial statement for public consumption, than anything any one of us (including me) post on this subject is pure speculation, conjecture and personal opinion. I respect the way you try to 'follow the evidence and build your case' but am of the opinion that your conclusions are simplistic and myopic.
Case in point: "It reminds me somehow of people who argue that Trump may look and act like a clown, but in reality he's an evil genius.....The man (Donald Trump) is a clown. Some are in danger of similarly attributing fantastic powers of strategy and deception to the Governing Body, instead of drawing the more obvious conclusion.(That they are clowns)." This is an analogy that is a false comparison and could draw an incorrect conclusion. I agree that Donald Trump is a buffoon and a clown. However, he is a very wealthy clown. Forbes magazine gives his net worth at over 4 Billion dollars. Did he earn every penny himself? I doubt it. He probably has the finest lawyers, accountants and business consultants that money can buy. He has created, along with other professionals, a huge business empire ( system or organism, if you will) that he is the public face of and final decision maker for. This empire has taken years to build and has weathered bankruptcies, litigations, charges of fraud, economic downturns and whatever vicissitudes the dollar, pound or euro are susceptible to. In other words, he and his organization have adapted through life's ups and downs and though at times it may have looked like he was 'finished', his business model is still flourishing. So, the Governing Body members certainly have 'clown like and buffoonish' personality traits but that does not mean that the religious corporation ( again, system or organism, if you will) is an extension of their personal abilities. They are the public face and final arbiters of the corporation, but like Donald Trump have many advisors that overlap many fields of expertise. I think that the Governing Body is facing some financial issues but not to the severity you are alluding to. I agree that they are in a 'cash flow' crunch, but baring any huge disruption in the social order, any upheaval on the Governing Body or any interference by 'worldly' governments, this religion will cope, adjust and survive.
-
Diogenesister
Sir82 But I suspect, without evidence of course, that they defer almost 100% of the time to whatever their financial advisers recommend (I also think this is true of their legal advisers).
Id go even further. I know for a fact their legal advisors attend their "spiritual"Wednesday meetings, so the same is probably true of their financial advisors.
I'd put money on the recent cutbacks, money grabs and other changes being down to the org farming their finances out to a team of secular specialists once the orgs in-house bean counters came up with a few worrying forecasts.
-
Londo111
I wonder if the pinnacle was not 1975, even though the leadup to that year was a launch ramp for growth, but 1989/1990. After a decline in the late 70’s and an apostate purge in 1980, the organization rebounded and grew.
The cornerstone of income was selling Watchtower publications, something it did from its inception in 1879. The biggest market for these sales was the United States. This came crashing down after 111 years in early 1990 with the Jimmy Swaggart lawsuit and Watchtower’s response to it. Little by little, the selling of magazines and books ceased worldwide. As did lunches as the district conventions. There was a move to “simplification”.
This was the beginning of many setbacks. In 1995, two big things occurred. Watchtower retracted its doctrine on the Generation, waking many people up. And the Internet began to make its way into households across the world, giving people access to information that they were never able to get before, and ways of communicating and comparing notes.
By 2001, growth was stagnated. The United Nations NGO scandal was exposed and has since began to wake people up. In 2002, the child abuse scandal was also exposed, alerting many that this was not just a problem of “Babylon the Great”. This woke more people up than anything else ever has.
The organization was set to decline around this time, but then 9/11 happened and was a shot in the arm for this group with apocalyptic expectations. This is why I worry about the Russian ban forestalling the stagnation in the 2016 yearbook.
In 2000, the Governing Body resigned as directors, a legal maneuver to insulate themselves from litigation. Clearly they saw a potential for problems on the horizon. They also allowed “blood fractions” while maintaining the ban on whole blood. Rumor has it that there were factions in the Watchtower attempting to overturn the blood ban, but again, when 9/11 happened, it scared the Governing Body away from making any doctrinal changes.
-
slimboyfat
Depends what you mean. They've got people to handle their investment portfolio and property transactions of course. But in terms of their general strategy regarding my-God-what-are-we-going-to-do-now-that-the-publishing-empire-is-a-busted-flush, yes I do think the GB are in charge. From the decision to move to Warwick, reduce literature, raid congregations, close book study, cart witnessing, emphasis on digital, yes there's lots of evidence they are personally responsible for these miscalculations.
-
sir82
From the decision to move to Warwick, reduce literature, raid congregations, close book study, cart witnessing, emphasis on digital, yes there's lots of evidence they are personally responsible for these miscalculations.
Point by point:
decision to move to Warwick
I suspect the decision to move out of Brooklyn was made by Jaracz who was "spooked" by the proximity of the 9/11 attacks. But as to why Warwick and not [any of 5 dozen other little suburban cities looking to attract corporations] - that's a consultant's decision, certainly nothing that anyone on the GB personally researched.
reduce literature
The GB certainly didn't come up with this on their own. The bean-counters / consultants probably presented powerpoint charts showing it was losing money, so the GB followed their recommendations to reduce the quantity & cheapen the quality of it.
raid congregations
Again: bean-counters / consultants let them know how much was sitting out there in congregation accounts, and recommended raiding it. The GB happily obliged.
close book study
Your topic is about the WT's financial crisis. This issue doesn't affect the WT's finances at all.
cart witnessing
Your topic is about the WT's financial crisis. This issue doesn't affect the WT's finances at all.
emphasis on digital
Again, just rubber-stamping what their consultants have told them to do. Come on, really? You think someone like Lett or Morris has their "finger on the pulse of the digital world"? These guys can't operate a fork & knife without a video guide. Well, Sanderson can.
My point its this: I guess they are, ultimately, "responsible" for these decisions - but I suspect they for the most part they just simply don't care, and go along with pretty much whatever anyone recommends to them, so they can get back to figuring out how tight your pants should be or how much God really must hate homosexuals.
-
cofty
Interesting OP. Look forward to part 2.
-
jookbeard
Sir82 I dont know if my memory is right on this but didn't each home of the BS have a contribution box?