u/Spiritual_Cod_2758

EDIT: the title says 896 — that's wrong. I'd read the 2015 world population row instead of the 2016 one. Corrected figures below: world population grew 8.9% over the period, not 10.2%, and the 2016 ratio is 1 per 906, not 1 per 896. Thanks to the user who caught it.

Update. A user pointed out that showing only 2016–2025 doesn't account for the full series. Fair, and the whole picture is more interesting. People on earth per Witness: 2,491 in 1970, 1,957 in 1980, 1,326 in 1990, 1,023 in 2000, 935 in 2010, 894 in 2025.
-------------------------------------
So growth was real and substantial — density nearly tripled in half a century. But the rate went from +3.97% a year in the 1980s to +0.30% over the last fifteen years. Thirteen times slower. Not a flat series: a series that fades, and fades precisely while the end is presented as closer than ever. The opening section of the page has been rewritten accordingly.

I've just put up the complete world report series from 1970 to 2025: 56 years, 13 columns, every figure taken from the Yearbooks and jw org. No critical sources, no estimates. All I did was line the numbers up next to each other.

Here's what comes out.

The growth is almost entirely demographic

2016: 8,340,847 publishers. 2025: 9,205,326. That's +10.4% over nine years. World population over the same period: +8.9%.

2016: one Witness per 906 people on earth. 2025: one per 894.

Put the other way round: had they grown at exactly the rate of world population, they'd number 9,083,000 today instead of 9,205,326. So of every hundred publishers gained in nine years, 86 are simple demographic growth and only 14 are real advance. At that rate, doubling their share of the world's population would take over four centuries.

The turnover is running at a loss

2,302,097 baptisms between 2017 and 2025. Net increase in publishers over the same period: 864,479. That leaves roughly 1,437,000 people unaccounted for: deaths, disfellowshipped, disassociated, and above all those who simply stopped reporting. The published figures don't let you separate deaths from departures. And a large share of those baptisms are Witness children, not converts.

Hours per baptism

Total preaching hours divided by that year's baptisms:

1974 — 1,246 hours per baptism
2000 — 4,054
2015 — 7,428
2022 — 10,318
2023 — 6,647

From the 2024 service year the Watch Tower no longer publishes total hours, having scrapped individual time reporting in 2023. So the series stops there, right at the point where it had become hardest to comment on.

The part I find hardest to argue with

The all-time peak of the entire series, both for percentage increase and for efficiency, is 1974: +13.5% growth, 297,872 baptisms, 1,246 hours each. That was the year the 1975 expectation was at its height.

Then 1975 came and went. Baptisms fell to 196,556 in 1976, 124,459 in 1977, 95,052 in 1978. A 68% collapse in four years. 1977 and 1978 are the only two negative years in the entire table before the pandemic: publishers actually declined.

If growth were the product of divine blessing, why does the peak coincide with the announcement of a date, and the collapse with that date failing? A work sustained by Jehovah shouldn't track a human calendar.

And today, with the end presented as closer than ever, the work runs more than five times slower than it did in 1974.

Where the stagnation is

In the 2025 report, 40 countries and territories report zero growth and 23 report a decline. That's 63 out of 241, more than one in four. Among them: Italy, Japan, Germany, Britain, South Korea, Australia, the Netherlands, Greece, Sweden, Switzerland, Hungary, Austria, Finland, Norway. Poland −1%, Ukraine −3%, Cuba −1%, Moldova −10%, Turkey −12%.

Of the 206 countries listed by name, 103 report growth of 1% or less. Exactly half. Only 59 exceed 5%.

And what real growth there is sits almost entirely in Africa and a few other high-birth-rate countries: Mozambique +12%, Zambia and DR Congo +11%, Burundi +10%, Malawi and Tanzania +9%, Rwanda +8%, Kenya, Madagascar and Zimbabwe +7%. Not where the preaching is heaviest. Where the babies are.

One caveat before anyone raises it: some of the dramatic percentages are meaningless. Sudan's −52% involves 71 publishers. The Falklands' −30% is thirteen people becoming nine. Kosrae holds the world growth record at +22%, which is twelve publishers in total. I counted them in the totals but I don't use them as an argument.

The page

In Italian, so here it is through Google Translate:

https://www-infotdgeova-it.translate.goog/2organizzazione/dati-mondiali-1970-2025.html?_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

Original: https://www.infotdgeova.it/2organizzazione/dati-mondiali-1970-2025.html

If anyone spots an error in the figures, tell me and I'll fix it.

This case was posted here in June and got a lot of discussion. I've now read all 35 pages of Doc. No. 1 from the docket, and I think one point that came up repeatedly in that thread deserves a clearer answer than it got, because the thread ended up split on it and never really resolved.

The framing that's been circulating is that the complaint names each Governing Body member individually as a defendant, and that this is what makes it different from prior cases. That isn't quite what the filing does, and what it actually does is arguably more interesting.

Who the defendants are. The Governing Body as an entity, WTNY, CCJW, and John and Jane Does 1-75. The eleven current members are not defendants. They appear at paragraph 20 as the composition of the body, and at paragraphs 21 through 31 as alternative allegations about which of them holds the coordinator role.

So no, nobody's personal bank account is in play. But the point of the pleading was never personal liability.

What paragraphs 16-32 are doing. The complaint pleads the Governing Body as an unincorporated association under New York law, with a separate and perpetual existence distinct from its changing membership. Paragraph 18 then argues that the coordinator, formerly the chairman, is the functional equivalent of a president or secretary in a secular unincorporated association, which matters because New York requires someone identifiable for service.

Here's the part I find worth reading twice. Because the organisation does not publicly disclose who holds the coordinator role at any given moment, the complaint lists all eleven members and pleads eleven alternative allegations, one per name, to cover every possibility.

Read that back. A plaintiff had to plead in the alternative eleven separate times because the organisation will not say who its own coordinator is. That is now on a court docket in Kings County. Whatever happens to the case, that stays there.

The perpetual-existence framing is also what answers the "none of them were on the Governing Body at the time" objection. The theory isn't that these eleven men did anything in 1985. It's that the entity did, and the entity is the same entity.

What's changed since June.

• WTNY and CCJW appeared on 13 July through Feinberg & Gasbarro. So they do have counsel now.
• The Governing Body appeared separately on 15 July through Carl Schaerf of Kerley Walsh Matera & Cinquemani. Separate counsel from the corporations, which is itself worth noting.
• As of late August no answer on the merits has been filed. Time to answer has been extended by stipulation. Docket shows 26 documents.

On the refiling. Someone in the June thread pointed out the action was originally filed 28 February 2025, the last day of the first GMVA look-back window. This is a refiling under the 29 January 2026 amendment, which added express retroactivity for enabling conduct and opened a new window running to 29 July 2027. That window is the thing to watch. It's not about this case; it means more filings are coming.

What I'd expect the defence to attack. Paragraph 86 argues gender animus is satisfied simply by absence of consent due to minority. New York law is not settled there. Second, the unincorporated association characterisation. Third, the scope of the January 2026 retroactivity.

And one caution. Paragraphs 40-67 set out the hierarchy in detail, but that is pleaded, not proved. It doesn't by itself refute the "no control over local congregations" defence. It sets up the discovery fight over it.

On expectations generally. Worth being honest about the pattern here. When these cases go well for plaintiffs, they tend to end in settlements under confidentiality clauses, and the discovery material never becomes public. When they go the other way, the ruling gets used in apologetics. Either way the public yield is thin. Which is exactly why I'd rather write about what's already on the docket and verifiable now than about how it might end.

Docket is public: NYSCEF, search index 522573, year 2026, Kings County.

Happy to link my write-up in the comments if anyone wants it.

Continuando il lavoro sulla circolare S-147 sono finito su una cosa che non c'entra con i documenti riservati: sta alla luce del sole, sul sito ufficiale cctg.it, e credo che quasi nessuno l'abbia mai aperta.

Sono i rendiconti del cinque per mille. Chi lo percepisce deve dichiarare al Ministero del Lavoro come lo ha impiegato, con una relazione analitica firmata dal rappresentante legale. Ecco cosa c'è scritto.

2021 — l'intero importo, 1.271.931,58 euro, per la locazione delle strutture dei congressi di zona. Fiera di Roma, Palazzo dei Congressi di Bologna, MiCo Milano, Arezzo, Cagliari, Fiera del Levante di Bari, Palacongressi di Rimini, Vicenza Convention Centre.

2016 — dettaglio fattura per fattura, con il fornitore accanto a ogni cifra. Milano 355.593,40. Rimini 131.894,99. Bari 131.760,00. Roma 130.210,60. Firenze 68.875,06. Cagliari 59.956,51. Jesolo 15.860,00.

2019 — destinazione diversa: 300.000 euro per un terreno destinato a una Sala del Regno a Rovereto, 613.363 per la nuova sede nazionale di Bologna, 81.864 per una Sala del Regno a Binasco. Circa il 79% del contributo in patrimonio immobiliare.

2012 e 2015 — 553.252 e 724.533 euro, di nuovo per la locazione delle strutture congressuali.

Nel frattempo, chi ha frequentato i congressi ricorda che dal podio venivano annunciate le spese con la cifra, e che le contribuzioni arrivavano prima della fine. E secondo una testimonianza raccolta in questi giorni, ogni congregazione versava anche una quota anticipata calcolata per proclamatore e per giorno, cinque euro a testa per ciascuna giornata, con responsabilità del corpo degli anziani. Gli interventi sulla Sala delle Assemblee erano poi pagati a parte con risoluzioni dedicate.

Il rendiconto del 2021 dichiara al Ministero che la partecipazione è gratuita e che non si fanno collette. Formalmente vero: nessuno passa fra le file.

Una cosa che noto e che lascio alla valutazione di chi ne sa più di me. Gli enti del Terzo Settore hanno un vincolo che gli enti religiosi riconosciuti non hanno: il D.Lgs. 117/2017 ammette solo le attività di interesse generale dell'articolo 5, che esclude espressamente religione e culto. Un congresso di zona è un'adunanza religiosa. Sotto quella disciplina, l'affitto della struttura difficilmente potrebbe figurare come attività ammessa. Le spese però restano identiche, perché i congressi si tengono negli stessi posti e costano quanto costavano.

https://www.infotdgeova.it/2organizzazione/cinque-per-mille.html

Nella pagina tengo separato ciò che è documentato da ciò che è testimonianza, e la distinzione è esplicita.

Due cose per cui chiedo aiuto. Se qualcuno ha conservato una comunicazione del comitato della Sala delle Assemblee con la quota per proclamatore e per giorno, è l'unico tassello che manca.

Ich betreibe seit 2001 eine italienischsprachige Recherche-Website über die Zeugen Jehovas. Zur Zeit werte ich das Rundschreiben S-147-26.08-E vom August 2026 an die Ältestenschaften aus. Für Deutschland fehlt mir noch die entscheidende Zahl.

Worum es geht: Der Betrag des monatlichen Beschlusses soll dem vom Zweigbüro empfohlenen Betrag pro Verkündiger entsprechen oder darüber liegen (Absatz 7). Dieser Betrag steht nicht im gedruckten Rundschreiben.

Ein brasilianischer Ältester hat mir inzwischen belegt, wie das konkret aussieht: In JW Documents erscheint unter "Anúncios e Lembretes — Agosto de 2026" das PDF der Rundschreibens, und darüber ein separates Hinweisfeld mit dem Satz, dass laut Absatz 7 der von Bethel vorgeschlagene Betrag 10,00 Real pro Verkündiger beträgt. Auf meine Nachfrage hat er bestätigt: Dieses Hinweisfeld erscheint nur beim Zugriff auf jenes Schreiben, und das Schreiben geht ausschließlich an die Ältesten. Wer in der Versammlung die Hand hebt, könnte die Zahl also nicht einmal nachschlagen, wenn er wollte.

Was ich bisher habe: die offiziellen Listen der US-amerikanischen Zweigstelle (11,50 USD) und der mittelamerikanischen (rund dreißig Gebiete), dazu Brasilien. Für Deutschland habe ich nur einen einzigen indirekten Hinweis: eine Versammlung, die für 2026/2027 monatlich 1.200 Euro beschlossen hat, bei 122 Verkündigern auf der Liste. Das ergibt rechnerisch 9,84 Euro, ist aber eine Division und kein offizieller Wert. Eine einzelne Versammlung sagt wenig über den Durchschnitt.

Meine Fragen:

1. Kennt jemand den vom deutschen Zweigbüro empfohlenen Betrag pro Verkündiger, oder hat Zugang zu dem entsprechenden Hinweis in JW Documents?
2. Falls nicht: Erinnert sich jemand an die monatlich beschlossene Summe der eigenen Versammlung und an die ungefähre Verkündigerzahl?
3. Wurde der Betrag pro Verkündiger jemals vom Podium genannt, oder immer nur die Gesamtsumme?
4. Gibt es ein deutsches Zweigschreiben, das den monatlichen Beschluss eingeführt hat? Das italienische von 2014 war deutlich aufschlussreicher als die allgemeinen Rundschreiben.

Ort und Versammlung brauche ich nicht und veröffentliche ich nicht. Bundesland, ungefährer Zeitraum und die Zahlen genügen. Alles wird mit Quelle und Datum veröffentlicht, ohne Hinweis auf die Person, die es mir geschickt hat, und ich nehme auf Wunsch alles wieder heraus.

Die vollständige Auswertung mit den Dokumentbildern und einer Tabelle der bisher bekannten Beträge:
https://www-infotdgeova-it.translate.goog/2organizzazione/una-donazione-con-importo-prestabilito.html?_x_tr_sl=it&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=de

Falls ich eine Zeile falsch wiedergegeben habe, sagt es mir bitte, dann korrigiere ich sie.

Even though the story of the Golden Age promoting quackery like the "Radio-Solar Pad" or the Radium belt is well-known among history buffs in the exJW community, it is easy to dismiss it as a mere relic of the 1920s—a time when many people were fooled by the novelty of radiation.

However, looking past the bizarre nature of the device itself, the core issue isn't just that people back then were misinformed about science. The real point of interest lies in what this reveals about the nature of the organization's claims.

When examining this episode today, a few key reflections emerge:

• The Fallibility of the "Channel": The Watchtower Society claimed to be the sole channel of truth chosen by Christ in 1919. Yet, almost immediately after, its official journal actively encouraged followers to embrace dangerous, pseudoscientific health fads.
• Blind Trust vs. Critical Thinking: Rutherford himself used these treatments, showing how deeply the leadership bought into the absolute authority of their own publications. Adherents were expected to trust the journal's guidance unconditionally, even when it put their physical health at risk.
• The Pattern of Unquestioned Obedience: The fundamental dynamic hasn't changed. Today, the leadership still demands complete trust and obedience to their direction, using the concept of progressive light to erase past blunders and harmful advice.

This part of Watchtower history serves as a reminder that blind trust in men claiming divine authority has always carried real-world risks.

I’m dropping the link to an article with historical documentation and original scans in the comments for anyone interested in reviewing the sources.

Dall'appendice 5C della TNM nell'edizione inglese del 1984, p. 1578.

Questa incisione l'avete vista tutti. Un uomo appeso per i polsi a un palo verticale, braccia unite sopra la testa, piedi inchiodati insieme. Compare nelle pubblicazioni dal 1950 in poi.

La fonte è dichiarata correttamente: viene dal De cruce libri tres di Giusto Lipsio, Anversa 1593. Lipsio non era un teologo, era un filologo, uno dei più noti del Cinquecento europeo, quello dell'edizione critica di Tacito. Il De cruce è un catalogo erudito di tutte le forme di supplizio per sospensione documentate dalle fonti antiche, ed è lui a coniare i termini che poi usano tutti: crux simplex, compacta, decussata, commissa, immissa. Quando un TdG scrive "esisteva la crux simplex" sta parlando la lingua di Lipsio senza saperlo.

Il libro è scaricabile gratis. L'ho letto capitolo per capitolo, e le cose stanno così.

L'incisione del palo è al foglio 9, dentro il capitolo che definisce la categoria. Il testo accanto non parla del Calvario: parla del martirio di san Pafnuzio, affisso a una palma. È un catalogo, una forma per capitolo. Nel capitolo dopo c'è l'impalamento, in quello dopo ancora la croce a X di sant'Andrea.

Il capitolo IX si intitola Affirmata Crux Immissa e scriptis maxime Patrum, ed è cinque fogli di Giustino, Girolamo, Tertulliano, Minucio Felice, tutti citati a sostegno della croce a due bracci. È illustrato anche quello: c'è il disegno di un crocifisso su una croce latina, otto fogli dopo il palo, nello stesso volume. Quella tavola non l'ha mai riprodotta nessuno.

Il capitolo X è l'unico posto in tutto il libro in cui Lipsio dice cosa pensa lui. Chiede su quale croce sia morto Cristo e risponde: ego arbitror et pronuncio, in hac postrema. Io ritengo e dichiaro: su quest'ultima, cioè sulla croce a due bracci.

E qui la cosa interessante è che Lipsio non tira l'acqua al suo mulino. Dove le fonti non bastano lo dice: sul numero dei chiodi scrive nescio, non lo so, e che nel disaccordo dei Padri non tocca a lui decidere. Sospende il giudizio per abitudine. Il che rende più pesante il fatto che sulla forma non lo sospenda per niente.

Poi c'è la parte sulle didascalie, che è quella che mi ha colpito di più.

Nel 1950, sotto quell'incisione, c'era scritto: "Questo è il modo in cui Gesù fu messo al palo". Stessa frase nell'edizione in volume unico del 1963, nell'Interlineare del 1969, nel 1971. Dal 1984 sparisce. E cambia anche il verbo: da "il metodo con cui lo si inchiodava è illustrato da Lipsio" si passa a "uno di questi strumenti è illustrato da Lipsio". Prima Lipsio garantiva la procedura, adesso garantisce solo che l'oggetto esisteva, cosa vera che nessuno ha mai negato. Nessuna spiegazione, nessuna nota. L'immagine però è rimasta lì, a fare esattamente lo stesso lavoro di prima.

Ho messo tutto qui, con le scansioni delle pagine del 1950, del 1963, del 1969 e del 1984 e le tavole del libro originale: https://www.infotdgeova.it/3dottrine/giusto-lipsio-de-cruce.html

E se preferite controllare da soli senza passare da me, il De cruce è qui: https://archive.org/details/ivstilipsidecruce00lipsuoft

Il capitolo che conta è il X del primo libro, fogli 22-24. Il latino è semplice.