WATCHTOWER AND TOBACCO INDUSTRY???

by chuckyy 97 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Whiskeyjack

  An interesting ethics management question. Those of you that have taken an ethics course know that it can leave you feeling dizzy.

  The question, IMO, is is the WTBS exercising a stringent enough examination system to identify ethical boundaries and have appropriate decision matrices for its personnel? This is not easy to do even for a small organization (I was in a financial services watchdog program-compliance cops).

  Do those of you with mutual funds (even "ethical" ones) request quaterly portfolio listing and review the activities of each company-do you own part of haliburton, tobaco companies, arms manufactueres and so forth? All they do is in your name.

  In this case, I do find it bizarre that this type of donation would be accepted but it does not constitute a relation with PHM Tobacco any more than you investment holders (I screen those companies myself but I'm an anal, contrarian bastard!). To say there is a relationship is misleading missing the true issue which is acceptance of the income offered by the trust-I'm aware of no law forcing receipt of trust payments up in canada (I'm an ex-investment funds advisor and banker)

  Eduardo is technically right.
• 

  seesthesky

  eduardo is right - the assertion that the wtbts receives $ from PM is baseless - moreover, asserting that all $ from PM comes from tobacco profits constitutes an unwarranted and careless assumption - continuing to attack the wtbts in such a flawed way works to the organization's benefit because it can put the organization in the posture of a "victim" of hate-inspired persecution
  
  
  
  
  
  nice reasoning eduardo - identifying the initial issue and recognizing the tangential one as well - cheers
• 

  Taylor S.

  taylor do you think so ? from the begining ?

  but then the money part of the WTS must be being run by investment people and city banker types as the the Brothers havent got the education or job know how.could it be they gave up jehovahs earthly organization over to to big buisness.

  lurk

  Lurk ... I read the greatest article in the thread 'Can the org survive the internet', or something like that. What was interesting was when Knorr was president, it seemed the org became a lot more business savvy ....

  I wouldn't be surprised if it has always been about the buck since the days of Bro. Knorr, if not before. Because think about it, even Rutherford had the mansion built because Abraham, Isaac & Jacob were due back. But of course, he lived there in meantime. With a depression going on. When the average publisher couldn't afford shoes ... and who needed shoes more than them?

  All the these shady and semi-shady business dealings, then and now, show clearly that the org, contrary to the rank and file, is thinking about getting ahead in THIS system.

  As opposed to our parents and families and loved ones who do without in the interest of the ministry.
• 

  Voyager

  As I said before, Expatbrit said it best, and he proved it from their own words:

  ****************************************************************************************

  III: CONCLUSION.

  The initial quotes showed clearly that the Watchtower regards smoking as an unchristian activity. Indeed, smoking is a disfellowshipping offence for a Jehovah's Witness. A Jehovah's Witness is also not permitted to be employed in the tobacco industry, even to the extent of working at the cigarette serving counter of a store. There can be no doubt that if an individual Jehovah's Witness invested in the cigarette industry, the Watchtower would consider this an unchristian type of investment.

  Yet, a trust which exists for the primary reason of generating income for the Watchtower, invests in a cigarette company. While the amount of the investment is small, it is not the amount that is the issue, but the principle: the Watchtower Society will benefit from an investment made in the tobacco industry.

  They will do this knowingly, because if I can get hold of this information, do you really think that the Watchtower Society doesn't have a copy of these very same documents? And while the objection could be made that it is not actually the Watchtower Society itself making the investment, but just receiving the cash, is this a valid defence? If they know that the money is from a source they have condemned as unchristian, are they not hypocritical in receiving it? Remember that the sole purpose of this trust is to generate income for the Watchtower.

  In fact, here is another example of the Watchtower's hypocrisy in matters of principle. That which they condemn other religions for, and restrict their individual followers from, becomes acceptable when it results in $$$ for the Watchtower Society itself.

  From their own lips:
  

  *** g70 2/8 23 Churches in Business *** After listing some of the many companies in which the Vatican has substantial interest Mr. Lo Bello observes: "The foregoing details provide an uncomfortably sharp realization that the Vatican and its men have indeed carved a niche for their firm in the world of big business."

  The vast business holdings of the and of other religious organizations bind them inseparably with the business world. How unlike the true Christians concerning whom Jesus Christ said: "They are no part of the world"!-John .

  The religious organization that truly is serving God, in harmony with the example set by Jesus Christ, concentrates on preaching and teaching the liberating truths of his Word and does not become involved in commercial businesses. Following the Bible's instructions, it does not involve itself in "the commercial businesses of life."-2 Tim. 2:4.

  Expatbrit

  *************************************************************************************************************

  You are still more than welcome to scan any documents from the Watchtower Society, stating that they are not, or never have, benefited financially from Phillip Morris!
• 

  Mr. Kim

  Have you noticed that it is ALWAYS alright to accept something IF MONEY is involved and will be turned over to the society? Even if it is a conflict of interest?
• 

  Taylor S.

  SeesTheSky & Whiskey Jack ...

  i realized eduardo is technically accurate and in a court of law, the WBTS could probably claim ignorance of the actions of the trust. and if it were an average person or org, the excuse would be acceptable. granted. point taken.

  but ... you must not forget who we are dealing with.

  [ and btw, seesthesky, its difficult to leave emotions out of all matters involving the WBTS, but i do try. the need to think with a clearer head so that i can possible help the last members of my family to escape this slavedom ... is the only thing that keeps me from raving like a loon. ]

  the SOCIETY has for decades put itself on the highest possible pedestal ...

  higher than the Pope ... higher than all earthly organizations ... it sits half-way to heaven just below God, who's whisperings it bestows through the WatchTower rag magazine. it insinuates itself in our personal lives ... our finances and the things we buy (modesty modesty modesty) ... our bedrooms ... and even our private thoughts because it knows best, its God's faithful and discrete slave giving us food at the proper time ...

  ... while at the same time it looks down its nose at the every other religion on the planet for their greedy materialism.

  Is there any wonder why a remote, possibly unknowing, connection with Phillip Morris (and its un-holy product) is so disturbing? Do you think the rank and file would understand, or the ones who were df'd for smoking, or the one's who struggled to quit for years because God the Society said it was wrong?

  How would you explain to them that the all-knowing mother org ... just didn't know?

  taylorS
• 

  cindykp

  I'd like to make a large donation the the wts and"to all the boys ive loved before"
• 

  Taylor S.

  Heres a couple of WatchTower quotes, which I feel bring home my point as to the total 'beyond reproach' pedestal the Society perches itself ....

  The Watchtower, May 1, 1957 Issue, Page 274:

  We must recognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our Mother.

  Pages 283-285:

  Showing respect for Jehovah's organization really resolves itself down to our attitude toward God's visible channel and the trust that we place in our proved, faithful brothers. If we have become thoroughly convinced that this is Jehovah's organization, that he is guiding and directing his people, then we shall not be unsettled by anything that happens.

  We will not 'forsake our mother's teaching' by immediately beginning to criticize and find fault....

  ....gratefully and willingly show our respect for Jehovah's organization, for she is our mother and the beloved wife of our heavenly Father....
  _____________________________________________________

  The Watchtower, June 1, 1982 Issue, Page 20:

  At times, some bring to the attention of the "slave" class various doctrinal or organizational matters that they feel ought to be revised. Certainly, suggestions for improvement are proper, as are inquiries for clarification.

  The proper spirit after offering suggestions is to be content to leave the matter to the prayerful consideration of the mature brothers directing the work in Jehovah's organization. But if those making the suggestions are not content with that and continue to dispute the subject in the congregations with a view to getting others to support them, what then? That would create divisions, and could subvert the faith of some. So Paul counsels: "Keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them." Paul also counseled Titus to "reprove those who contradict," adding: "It is necessary to shut the mouths of these, as these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they ought not.... For this very cause keep on reproving them with severity." -Romans 16:17, 18; Titus 1:9-13.

  A little 'all-knowing' to not know. Doncha think?
• 

  Whiskeyjack

  Taylor S.,

  I agree entirely that accepting those monies are completely unacceptable! Hiding behind technicalities of law is morally unnacceptable to me (a sinner who won't by mutual funds for the above reason).

  My point is any entity receiving widsepread donations will receive a percentage of questionnable funds in the process. Now, that said, why is there no reasonable organizational provision (like the review board on ethical fund management teams) to constantly review their income sources and new holdings thoroughly (I think they could afford a few professionals if necessary) and immediately remove or decline inappropriate donations.

  As a former business grad, I don't accept a position of ignorance as acceptable (any organization must choose how much its willing to pay to be ethical-accountants are capable of providing estimates regardless of what most senior executives will tell you, prefering to ignore the issue until a crisis comes along). One woild have thought that loving prudence would have created such a unit and process and that these things would be near impossible and quickly dealt with.

  That said, do I expect a detailed letter of apology and a history of the investment income receipts or an offer of donation to anti-smoking causes? Not really hopeful!

  My fingers hurt now, but does make my earlier post a little clearer? Accuracy in staements is paramount for the board's credibility.

  W.
• 

  Taylor S.

  Now, that said, why is there no reasonable organizational provision (like the review board on ethical fund management teams) to constantly review their income sources and new holdings thoroughly (I think they could afford a few professionals if necessary) and immediately remove or decline inappropriate donations.

  whiskeyjack ... this is a very good point ...

  after all, they wouldn't want to 'stumble' anyone or mis-represent God, now would they. I hear he renders swift justice to those who besmear his good name.

  hope i didn't come off as angry or anything .... as an ex-smoker, this issue sticks in my craw ....