I agree that the many of the organizational changes have to do with helping to ensure their long term solvency, but I don't understand the "think before you open your mouth" part...Just a tad confrontational, and unless you actually took the time to understand the big picture yourself, I doubt you or anyone else would logically come to such a conclusion. That is why your otherwise likely accurate observation was shot down. Use a little tact next time.
Here is why this you are likely correct:
1. The organization has been cutting expenses since they adopted the so-called "donation" arrangement in 1990, (to avoid taxes to begin with), and is now at a point where cuts are hard to come by without massive reorganization.
2. Donations are likely down significantly.
3. Pending abuse lawsuits loom large, (especially in the long term).
4. Also since the "donation" arrangement, the organization must now finance itself through real estate flipping. They have realized how significant the total property values they own are, and how easy it is to get local congregations to fork over both liquid money and assets, and do so within "legal" limits.
They are not so interested in "growth" anymore. They are doing what all corporations do when they plateau from a revenue perspective, they cut costs and focus on profitability. Since they likely do not have an immediate cash flow problem, most of these changes are based on trends that can be extrapolated and forecast. Those forecasts likely do not look too good, mostly due to the intensifying importance and impact of the four issues above.
d4g