|
Post by ghost on Aug 11, 2009 5:06:05 GMT -5
I would like to acknowledge that you are right, there have been abuses of money in the past (by workers) and I also believe there could be in the future as well. Mankind is prone to times of dishonesty. If you look at the people who followed Christ in his day, you will see that not all in His church had victory all of the time either. I would agree that your statements above especially examples 1 and 3 are indeed mismanagement. Depending on how many crashes involved in #2... it's not any cheaper to fix a new car than an older one. This could have been classified as a mistake by an inexperienced car owner, similar to the poor investments Clearday wrote of on this thread. Either way, money could have been spent more wisely, especially with hindsight. Over the course of 30+ years, as you say you've been watching us, I wonder how many workers have accepted money from friends. Could it be 3000? Lets take your 3 examples x 10 and say that money has been abused or grossly mismanaged 30 times. This makes 1% of the time that it happens. Is that practically no one? I think it is. If a presidential candidate got 1% of the vote I'd say that practically no one wants him/her to be president. I know that everyone is quite offended at outright ripoff artists (especially if they have respected positions of authority) and those incidents stand out in our minds, but still, if you had a hundred bookkeepers and 1 of them stole money from you, you wouldn't label all bookkeepers as thieves. Therefore, I still stand by my statement that nearly all of the workers handle money in an honorable way. Practically none of them are abusing it. By the way, Ghost, did you abuse money while you were in the work, or did you have a strong enough conscience to use it as wisely as most of the people who were giving it to you? 1. I was never a worker (thanks god for that!). 2. The math is flawed. You disregard time and the level of authority of the the workers abusing the money. In the cases mentioned above the people involved acted over a period of several years. And they were overseers. This makes the acts more unacceptable. 3. Furthermore, you base your maths on the three cases I mentioned. You should take into account the dozens if not hundreds of cases reported in this and other fora. As long as you disregard this you just try to justify the iniquities of the abusers. 4. Last but not least, you base your maths on cases revealed. The lack of accountability means that not all abuses have ever been documented. Government services and international organisations estimating illegal activities (e.g. hidden economy, drug trafficking) always assume that for every reported case there are 20 or 30 more cases going unreported. Conclusion: If one takes into account the reported cases of abuse one could estimate that reported abuse happens approximately 10% of the time which means that real abuse happens 30 to 40% of the time. And that is a lot my friend, that is a lot ... Of course you will try to argue in favour of the 2x2 system. But as long as there is no proper accountability of all the economic transactions of the workers, I consider the 2x2s as the most abusive christian cult around.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 11, 2009 11:09:10 GMT -5
most workers I know (well, all but one) are quite frugal with money. I asked one what they do with the money they don't spend, and he said a lot of money accumulates and is given to overseers at the end of the mission. Somehow, that bothered me...I wanted to help HIM continue his ministry, not pay for somebody else to fly across the ocean or build a meeting shed. I wanted to hear that the excess money was given to the needy, ala "real" ministry. I haven't given anything for a couple years, cuz I have no way to assess the need nor where the money will go. No criticism of those who do give...I just find uses for my charity now that better suit me, that's all. But DC, they do need to collect money for convention expenses, travel, and so on. I tend to give what I think is appropriate given what the expenses are, and cover the "needy" and other causes through secular charitable giving. Personally, I like this approach because in another denomination I might have to tithe and have nothing left for say, the Cancer Fund and other worthy causes.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 11, 2009 12:24:04 GMT -5
I like this approach because in another denomination I might have to tithe and have nothing left for say, the Cancer Fund and other worthy causes.Emphasis should be on 'MIGHT'. There is no pressure at my church in regard to giving, and although giving comes up in sermons, it has never been in a manner to try to coerce anyone to give money, but rather just a part of the sermon. I talked with our pastor about the issues I had concerning giving of money, and was surprised to learn that he had specifically told those that keep track of free will offerings to NOT tell him who gave what. His point was that he would not feel any kind of pressure as to how he treats people by not knowing who gives what. I felt it was a pretty good point, and I gave him a quarter.... Actually, he and I have each bought lunch for each other as friends will do. Interesting part is that is also how a worker friend of mine and I handled that. I bought him dinner, and the next time he bought me dinner. I thought it was pretty decent of him actually. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2009 14:21:59 GMT -5
I agree with What that I wouldn't want a church to do all my charitable giving.
However, there are times when a group effort by the friends would be uniquely appropriate and there would be nothing wrong with the friends, or even the workers, being open about an opportunity to do some good where there is a need. We don't do that. There are some underground efforts to do good sometimes, but it is so quiet that many people who would like to get involved may not hear about it. At the same time, there are needs that go without because of the reluctance by the F&Ws to talk about needs and money or non-monetary help.
From what I have seen of the underground concerted efforts, the recipients are usually very "worth" type people. They are people who are devoted to the church and have few known problems, character or otherwise. Often it's the struggling soul who suffers the most in life yet does not get any sympathy because he/she is not deemed worthy of help.
|
|
Pink
Senior Member
Posts: 411
|
Post by Pink on Aug 11, 2009 19:27:03 GMT -5
Everybody says they would HAVE to tithe if they were in such and such religion. I don't think that is so. I mean, who could make you? Nobody would do it because they HAVE to in another religion. They only people who give money because they HAVE to would be the 2x2. Unless they could see the bigger picture and didn't because they realized they really didn't need to. All the needs were already met.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 12, 2009 1:45:05 GMT -5
Everybody says they would HAVE to tithe if they were in such and such religion. I don't think that is so. I mean, who could make you? Nobody would do it because they HAVE to in another religion. They only people who give money because they HAVE to would be the 2x2. Unless they could see the bigger picture and didn't because they realized they really didn't need to. All the needs were already met. Membership at most jewish synagogues require some form of payment. It might not strictly be a tithe (10%) but to be a member it is a requirement. From the Catholic Catechism: -------------------------- II. THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH
2043 The fourth precept ("You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.
The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.(emphasis added)Members of the Mormon church are required to hold annual tithing settlements to declare their tithing. So in light of your statement: They only people who give money because they HAVE to would be the 2x2.Where do you pull your facts from?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Aug 12, 2009 2:01:03 GMT -5
most workers I know (well, all but one) are quite frugal with money. I asked one what they do with the money they don't spend, and he said a lot of money accumulates and is given to overseers at the end of the mission. Somehow, that bothered me...I wanted to help HIM continue his ministry, not pay for somebody else to fly across the ocean or build a meeting shed. I wanted to hear that the excess money was given to the needy, ala "real" ministry. I haven't given anything for a couple years, cuz I have no way to assess the need nor where the money will go. No criticism of those who do give...I just find uses for my charity now that better suit me, that's all. I know that extra monies left over here has gone to the Red Cross.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Storebo on Aug 13, 2009 22:29:38 GMT -5
Funds are set aside for use by elderly and/or ailing workers who have retired. Right?
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Aug 15, 2009 6:03:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 15, 2009 13:17:37 GMT -5
My own experience on this subject is rather "bitter". Our family were fairly poor immigrants our first years in this country ... to the point there wasn't money for anything but bare necessities. Yet I remember the elders pressing my parents hard for money when Dad was unemployed and Mom had to stretch every penny. I think things have changed in that denomination and many others simply because the elders and ministers do not have the authority they once had. I was reading an excellent article in the Globe&Mail today on the Catholic church in Quebec. At one time tithing to the Catholic church was a law in that province. Now many of them can barely afford to pay the heating bills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2009 13:36:44 GMT -5
The last time I was in Quebec City in the old city overlooking the main part, we were told that there were once almost 400 neighbourhood churches, and we could certainly see little spires all over. At the time, 15 years ago, there were less than 100 left operating as churches and there are probably fewer today. The rest had been sold and converted into cool condos or other uses. Obviously the money had dried up along with attendance.
I suspect we are moving into a post-institutional church age as the old institutions and systems break down. Interestingly, what may emerge is a low overhead fellowship not unlike the early F&W system in some ways, but more dynamic and spontaneous.
Institutions seem to form an anchor for people. However, if the institution begins to exist mainly for its own survival, it will fail as it no longer serves its members and the members see little use for it.
|
|