by Skimmer 19 Replies latest jw friends
I think that the WTS will loose members in the developed world where information, education and the Internet has a greater immediate effect. These losses will be made up for in the short term at least in third-world countries where people are deperate for even the 'promise' of a better life and in countries wanting to imitate the west.
Eventually though, information will reach them and also the declining average incomes of the members will start to have an effect.
Don't bet your life on it Simon. There are many still coming in the organization.
There are also many leaving the organization.
just wondering folks
Are there any more congs like my old one?
the only new faces there for the last ten years were old faces from other places who moved in!
sawthelight
I think another problem the WT has is not just the quantity of those who leave, but also the quality. Many who leave are not only intelligent, but also are willing to explore new ideas and think and reason for themselves. As a result, the WT has a growing number of people who know, in great detail, the falacies and horrendous mistakes that have been made by the oganization, and of course this information is readily available. As a result, it takes curious people very little time to research the JWs on the net, and thereby innoculate themselves from the Witness message. It appears that the JW apposers have become the "plague of locusts" and the Witness message is becoming impotent.
Actually this was a bit off topic I'll just start a new thread
Ven
I wouldn't worry much about China - I know old timers in
Bethel (hello, Awake!) speculate about expansion there.
The government only wants religions that are utterly
compliant - they have beaten down the Falun Gong (sp?)
member by member and they seem pretty innocuous.
I'm afraid we put far too much emphasis on stupid doctrines
and failed predictions in trying to predict the Watchtower's
future. For every one person that left because of 1975
or the 'generation' issue there's probably ten that just
got fed up with the ennui and faded away. Humans, including
'born agains' and Witnesses can rationalize anything - and do!
On the other hand, a real good public scandal would do
wonders in waking up the zombies. Dropping meeting attendance
helps too, in getting people out of the mind control lock
step they've fallen into.
As to published stats, don't believe 'em. Yes, they are
dutifully reported and added, I agree, but "hours spent
in the ministry" is padded nonsense. Number baptized is
silly too, in Western lands especially, when you consider
how many Witness youth get df'd/in trouble shortly after
getting dunked. As hypocrisy deepens, the number reporting
as publishers also becomes more fake. Some Secretaries
will cajole people into reporting, "you must have talked
to SOMEBODY this month, so, that's an hour, right?".
Someday if a scandal does hit, you may get a real view
of just how many 'paper Witnesses'(like Rice Christians)
there are.
metatron
: Someday if a scandal does hit
Someday? At least one is upcoming soon. I received direct input Brooklyn [sic] thinks the Dateline program will blow over in a couple of weeks. I haven't stopped laughing yet.
One prediction is very easy to make: it will not blow over, the fallout will expose internal mechanisms of the organization most JWs have never seen, and there will be even more disillusioned sheep--and even more wary JW prospects. That's for openers.
While I noted AlanF's calculus previously, I think statistical models are helpful but not conclusively predictive, obviously.
How do you factor in the stubbornness and tenacity of the old guard? Or the comfortable complacency of the progressives who tut-tut but fail to do what they can? Or the survival instinct that says the organization must continue to exist, even if modified?
I think the sociological models of organizational behavior may be more helpful here, and that's why I think the Zygmunt article would be interesting to revisit. (By the way, to speak of strategic theory in connection with W leadership gives it a kind of dignity that is not deserved--much less being accurate, as those of us who have been around at the top will attest.)
When you read posts from persons like "humble," you get a glimpse into the world of glassy-eyed believers who go through the revolving door--some in, some out. Basically nice people. Fodder to be used up, then discarded.
I've paid attention to posts from persons who say, "Well, we just go to college in our area anyway; we pay no attention to the old farts." "We say 'Yes, Massa' to the CO and then proceed as usual." Is that the future organization? If so, that's change, one way or the other.
What the rank-and-file have not yet seen, nor those on this board, is the practical result of the organizational "adjustments" in the last year, including the Branch committee operation starting March 1, and what they really mean to daily decisions affecting the course of the organization. I've called attention to them, so have others.
For legal protection, the leadership must at least have the appearance of being less hierarchical. That is a requisite that looms large. If they are actually not hierarchical, then that means change. Really galling to those who have been around a long time to have to listen to the lawyers BTW!
(In the case of the pedophile policy, they should have listened to the lawyers a long time ago--they had recommended universal uniformity.)
Time to get off the soapbox,
Maximus
Sound too much like window dressing to me. Where's the beef?
I can only hope that some internal crisis develops in which
an immediate scapegoat is needed to save the much worshipped
organization. I have little doubt that , like any tyrannical
regime, they will need to blame past leaders for mistakes,
if reverses come about. After that, pragmatism -- maybe!
metatron
Drop me a note, I'll share some hamburger.
If you choose not to, I'll understand.
Max
