2017 grand totals.
branches of jehovah’s witnesses: 90. .
number of lands reporting: 240. .
Interesting. 284,000 baptized and average publishers only goes up by 110,000. What happened to everybody else? And it only took 7000 publisher hours per baptism. That's the equivalent of 3.5 people working full time jobs to get one person, and neither of those sets of numbers takes into account born ins.
What a waste of time.
quite possibly the most cringeworthy thing i've seen them do yet.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tk88rstv6o.
I only got through the first verse.
I didn't get that far.
i ask this question out of interest, because as a jehovahs witness for some 26 years, i have always felt that there is an 'all work, no play' culture within the organisation.
the organisation doesn't promote social gatherings.
i could count on one hand each year how many get togethers we have had.
The first congregation I was in (1973-1982) was VERY active socially. We had dinners with other people probably at least twice a month. Between our congregation and two or three others in the same circuit there was a sizable group of young singles (all in our twenties) that hung together. We never got in trouble for it. Congregation picnics were a regular feature in the summer. I think the social life was one of the things that attracted me to the religion.
i'm sure that a top secret security clearance not very high up the chain of command would show a ton of information, .
i mean everything that happens on the internet and on computers i'm sure is assessable to the us intelligence community, why would the government not pass up an opportunity to spy on it's population and run all internet data through homeland security to protect it's interest both home and abroad, realistically thinking that is.. so with this in mind what would a highly classified report look like?
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nei6lvfl13q.
interesting development in russia... according to this article on youtube, it appears that children that are subjected to being involved in banned social or religious groups can be removed from their parents..
This is just wrong. I do not believe the government, any government, should have the power to take some one's children just because it doesn't like how they think, or what they believe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/obituaries/charles-manson-dead.html.
I was always taught to say only good things about the dead. OK, he's dead. Good.
they have settled a lot out of court with gagging orders both ways so we will never know how much was payed out there.but some have been made public.
any ideas how much in total?.
karter
I wondered several months ago when Steve Lett , governing body, said on their jwbroadcasting, that more money is going out than coming in.
I don't believe that any more than I believe anything else they say. Why should I?
Along with reducing the total amount to be paid, the settlements almost certainly include structured payouts, which means they don't have as much to payout up front. All told, I imagine its not as much as you would think.
spoonfed nomore, has uploaded a video on his youtube site, of exjw activists protesting inside a kingdom hall during this sunday meeting.
several people speak out.
if some one can put a link on here that would be awesome, i can’t figure out how to do it with an i phone.
I've reached a point where I really dislike this king of thing. I can't see much difference between JW's running around trying to make more JW's, and XJW's running around trying to make more XJW's. Just do what you want and let others do what they want.
october 31, 2017 to selected bodies of elders in the united states branch territory re: discontinuation of the funds-on-deposit arrangement.
My guess the funds on deposit arrangement has some banking regulations that the corporation is not willing to meet, like an escrow account. Maybe a CPA or a financial expert will comment on this.
I'm not a CPA, but I've been an accountant for about twenty-five years. This was my first thought. They would have to keep all of those funds in a separate account or they're co-mingling funds - accounting speak for stealing (er..."borrowing"). .
in 1974 the society had changed there stance on shunning dis-fellowshipping people.
they said you could have limited association with those who were dis-fellowshipped.. what year did they change it back to the old way of shunning people?
.
The September 15, 1981 Watchtower made it clear that shunning was back in full force:
11 The expelled person is not a mere man of the world who has not known God nor pursued a godly way of life. Rather, he has known the way of truth and righteousness, but he has left that way and unrepentantly pursued sin to the point of having to be expelled. So he is to be treated differently. Peter commented on how such former Christians differ from an average "man on the street." The apostle said: "If, after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, the final conditions have become worse for them than the first. . . . The saying of the true proverb has happened to them: 'The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.'"—2 Pet. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 6:11.
12 Yes, the Bible commands Christians not to keep company or fellowship with a person who has been expelled from the congregation. Thus "disfellowshiping" is what Jehovah's Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer. Their refusal to fellowship with an expelled person on any spiritual or social level reflects loyalty to God's standards and obedience to his command at 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13. This is consistent with Jesus' advice that such a person be considered in the same way as "a man of the nations" was viewed by the Jews of that time. For some time after the apostles died, those professing Christianity evidently followed the Biblical procedure. But how many churches today comply with God's clear directions in this regard?
