by Ozner2 13 Replies latest watchtower scandals
Friends, whats your opinion about www.jwgift.org ? First creditcard acceptpoints in congreshalls in the Netherlands, now an internet creditcard donationsite, official of WTS Brittain. Just see this as using only new technics for getting donations or is it big business now? (7% of JPMorgan Liquid Assedfund must be enough for the short time investments???)
Ozner2
There is a button "Disaster Relief" but you cannot use the field "How should the donation be used".
I suspect there a some donating and thinking it is for South Asia - which it is NOT.
It' an electronic collection plate AFIAC.
The WTS has, without a doubt, breached the promise that Russel made years ago:
*** jv chap. 21 p. 340 How Is It All Financed? ***
As early as the second issue of the Watch Tower, in August 1879, Brother Russell stated:
"?Zion?s Watch Tower? has, we believe, JEHOVAH for its backer, and while this is the case it will never beg nor petition men for support.
When He who says: ?All the gold and silver of the mountains are mine,? fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to be time to suspend the publication."
Consistent with that, there is no begging for money in the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses.
Interesting quote.
Would you really call this "begging for money" though? How is a non-profit organization supposed to finance themselves?
I've often said that, although there are many wrong and silly things about the Witness organization, their handling of money is not one of them.
Bradley.....of the "not everything about the JWs is wrong" class
Bradley.....of the "not everything about the JWs is wrong" class
Hummmphh...apologist
their handling of money is not one of them.
I would agree here, they handle money with the greatest of skill.
I recall while temping at Bethel it was pointed out to me that when the WTS made large purchases, they always strived to use the currency that had the most "bang for it's buck" on the world market.
Clever, yes!
What bugs me is that the WTS touts themselves as an non-prophet organization that NEVER begs for money. But at every turn they are begging for $. In the OKM, in the WatchTower, at assemlies and conventions, now on the very Internet that THEY have demonized.
Hypocrites!
Just come out and tell everyone that you are hard up for cash and then beg. But don't pretend that God is watching out for your finances and you will never need to beg because "jehover provides." That's talking out of both sides of the mouth.
The WTS begs more than a Black Lab at a Thanksgiving Dinner
Trying to get the "most bang for your buck" isn't wrong at all. I would do the same and so would you!
You say the WT "begs" for money, but you have to admit that that is a very subjective feeling, yes? Of course it is. Unless you also feel that the Lutheren Church, UNICEF, Green Peace, George Bush, AMVETS, the United Negro College Fund, the Salvation Army and a million other non-profits also "beg" for money.
Nor could it really be said the Society has demonized the internet en toto. They've demonized certain aspects of the internet (ie "apostate" sites, porn, etc) but not all of the internet.
It could also be argued, from a JW perspective, that Jehovah provides through donations -- by affecting the hearts of people to donate where they can. That's similar to any other religious person saying that "the Lord will provide" and then finding that the Lord "provided" in a manner which any non-religious person will say is utterly naturalistic. I'm an atheist, by the way.
We should criticise our criticisms so that our criticisms won't be criticised. Think about it.
All best,
Bradley
> Trying to get the "most bang for your buck" isn't wrong at all. I would do the same and so would you!
Yes, I praise them for this because they are a publishing business and this is good business sense.
> You say the WT "begs" for money, but you have to admit that that is a very subjective feeling, yes?
Of course
>Unless you also feel that the Lutheren Church, UNICEF, Green Peace, George Bush, AMVETS, the United Negro College Fund, the Salvation Army and a million other non-profits also "beg" for money.
Unless you can show me where any of these organizations said ?When He who says: ?All the gold and silver of the mountains are mine,? fails to provide necessary funds, we will understand it to be time to suspend the publication [operation].", I fail to see the correlation between these organizations and the WTS in this discussion.
You said that the term ??beg? is subjective, well, it?s subjective to the above quote and general viewpoint of the WTS RE: donations.
> Nor could it really be said the Society has demonized the internet en toto
First, I don?t understand what Dorothy?s dog has anything to do with this.
Making me look up words Bradley, tsk, tsk
I don?t see where I ever claimed that the WTS has written off the ENTIRE [if I understand that Latin phrase correctly] Internet, just the information that doesn?t espouse their viewpoint, which is the majority of the Internet. It goes well beyond apostate and porn. Any news report that puts the WTS in a bad light is Satan?s tool. Does the WTS quote "The Guardian" anymore [UN scandal] ??? Even the R&F are told not to 'witness' or have their own page on the Internet because that?s what the WTS?s page is for. So no, the WTS hasn?t demonized the Internet on whole, just the majority of it.
> It could also be argued, from a JW perspective, that Jehovah provides through donations -- by affecting the hearts of people to donate where they can.
Agreed. But if Jehovah is affecting hearts, does there need to be the constant reminders in publications and from the platform for the R&F to donate? If it comes from the heart, it should be from that person?s heart and not the heart of Brooklyn.
At best I would say that the WTS should let the R&F know that there is an new avenue [give your estate yearly reminder..] or a new need that the WTS would like to address that the R&F are not aware of yet [new printing presses, etc..].
But to give multiple announcements at an assembly/convention that they are short of funds is about as big of news as trouble in the Middle East. R&F know they have to give, but need the WTS to beg them to give at assemblies by tying in the attendance count with the total cost to run the program. The R&F are then expected to do the math and then donate, the more well to do adjusting for the poorer in the congregation.
Otherwise the hearts of the R&F would not give enough without these constant reminders from Brooklyn?s heart. The WTS requests money often enough that I would say at this point they may as well pass the collection plate. There would be nothing wrong with that mind you, except the WTS claims they don?t need to do this because they are backed by god.
I?m all for praising them for the good so as not to undermine an ?apostate?s? other effective counter-information, but IMO this isn?t one of those cases.
Best,
Paul
I have to agree with Logansrun on this one...while the vast majority of Christendoms religions almost expect their membership to tithe i.e 10 percent of gross annual monthly income goes to the church ...JW's leave it to each individual to decide on when and how much to contribute.
All faiths rely on contributions and donations from members, they couldn't survive otherwise.
While not a WTS apologist , I think criticsm on this issue is unfairly biased against the society.
JW's leave it to each individual to decide on when and how much to contribute.
I could almost buy that, if it weren't for the dishonest way they get donations to the organization's general funds from local assemblies. It has been discussed on this board before that prior to a circuit assembly, the CO and elders sit down and determine what the "donation" to the Society will be for this assembly. Before the assembly even starts, it's $5000 in the hole because of that donation. Then the chairman will come out and say, "We have expenses for this assembly totalling $6500. Receipts total $2200. We're sure you friends will take care of that deficit." In reality, there is no "deficit". The expenses were $1500, which were already met and exceeded. But the donation -- dishonestly and quietly lumped into the "expenses" -- forces everyone to dig deeper.
Granted, it's still voluntary in some sense. But there's no arging that it's dishonest.
Dave
