|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 26, 2014 19:48:02 GMT -5
Dear Overseers, Workers, Elders in the know.
How much money did you collect from the friends in your state this year, including from deceased estates?
How much money do you currently know about which is stockpiled in bank accounts, collected from the friends?
What form of accountability is there for those holding the money? Is this information disclosed to anyone? If so, whom?
What form of accountability is there for those spending the money?
Is it reasonable for members of an organisation to be informed on the income, expenditure and activities of its leaders and the funds provided to them by members?
Why do you slander churches for accepting money from their members when you do the same?
Why do you slander churches for having their own purpose built facilities when you have your own purpose built convention grounds all over the world?
Why do you take money from your members but fail to provide any form of accountability to your members on how this money is used?
Why do you seek to hide every aspect of money management from your members rather than acting with transparency, integrity and accountability, declaring income and expenditure through financial statements to those who provide this money to the ministry?
Are you willing to answer any of these questions?
If not, why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 26, 2014 20:34:39 GMT -5
Of course some of this is nobody's business, but the friends and workers. I would not doubt that the majority of the friends are quite accepting of how the money is handled. And if not a majority of the friends as a whole, then the majority of those that give.
Likely some will contend otherwise, but if you do not want to give money, then don't.
The church isn't about the money. By workers and I think many of the friends attempting to be not focused on money there seems to a lot of others focused on it. Published accounting would put a focus on money inside the church.
A published accounting of money could seem like an asking for money. A published accounting of money could lead to more grumbling by the discontent. Likely there is some "sharing" of money among the powers that be for the general good of convention and other needs, though convention would likely be primary. Some fields with more money might have a few discontented that might not want to share with the seemingly less fortunate fields.
Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 22:01:22 GMT -5
Dear Overseers, Workers, Elders in the know. How much money did you collect from the friends in your state this year, including from deceased estates? How much money do you currently know about which is stockpiled in bank accounts, collected from the friends? What form of accountability is there for those holding the money? Is this information disclosed to anyone? If so, whom? What form of accountability is there for those spending the money? Is it reasonable for members of an organisation to be informed on the income, expenditure and activities of its leaders and the funds provided to them by members? Why do you slander churches for accepting money from their members when you do the same? Why do you slander churches for having their own purpose built facilities when you have your own purpose built convention grounds all over the world? Why do you take money from your members but fail to provide any form of accountability to your members on how this money is used? Why do you seek to hide every aspect of money management from your members rather than acting with transparency, integrity and accountability, declaring income and expenditure through financial statements to those who provide this money to the ministry? Are you willing to answer any of these questions? If not, why not? what do you do with your money? |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 26, 2014 22:03:33 GMT -5
Greg wrote: Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members.
What do you mean by this? The workers slander churches for accepting money.
However, churches are not slandered by their members because they are open about it. The workers on the other hand are not.
Virgo asked what does the writer do with her money? Are you part of her clan? Do you give her money? Are you her partner? I think not.\
We are a part of a church so there needs to be accountability to its members the same as a husband and wife team.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 26, 2014 22:04:31 GMT -5
Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members. Greg, did you type this with a straight face? There is a constant refrain - including here from you - that the Way is "not about money". So much so, that they pretend it doesn't exist at all. Do you seriously contend that the workers do not ridicule other churches for taking collections and paying preachers a wage (just hirelings, not true shepherds, etc. etc.) ? It is a constant point of pride by the workers that they "take no collections". They openly advertise this in their gospel meeting advertisements. They say they go forth "in faith", "without scrip or purse". They constantly use this to compare themselves with "false preachers of the world" who do take money. And yet we all know that they do take money. So why the double standard? Why lie about it? The ONLY difference between money matters between the Two-by-twos and other churches, is that other churches - those with integrity - provide accountability to their members. You have provided a lot of surmising about what happens, and excusing of the lack of accountability, but your comments reveal an ignorance of how money is generally accounted for in other church organisations. No, it doesn't put the focus on money. It just provides transparent accountability. Although yes - on second thought - it may put the focus on money for the Two-by-twos if the workers revealed the truth. I suspect we would all fall off our chairs, and say "They have HOW much money???" I have yet to hear from those who really hold the purse strings: - Is it really true that you "take no collections?" - Is it really true that you go forth "in faith, without scrip or purse?" - Is it really true that you are different from the "false preachers of the world" in this respect? These are claims of the workers. Maybe it is time for them to withdraw these claims. As for your statement that it is nobody's business but the workers and friends - I once challenged the workers to stop lying to their members regarding the origins of the group. They said "It's none of your business now". I said "Yes, it is, I'm one of the people you lied to." |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 26, 2014 22:06:06 GMT -5
what do you do with your money? Me, personally, or my church? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 22:48:45 GMT -5
Greg wrote: Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members. What do you mean by this? The workers slander churches for accepting money. However, churches are not slandered by their members because they are open about it. The workers on the other hand are not. Virgo asked what does the writer do with her money? Are you part of her clan? Do you give her money? Are you her partner? I think not.\ We are a part of a church so there needs to be accountability to its members the same as a husband and wife team. no they don't , i think he is meaning what is the third degree about a churches money they don't need to be open because they are trusted because that money is given in a sense to God you ask Are you part of her clan? Do you give her money? Are you her partner? I think not.\ but you seem to think it fine for elizabethcoleman to do just such obviously those who you speak of don't trust their clergy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 22:50:53 GMT -5
Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members. Greg, did you type this with a straight face? There is a constant refrain - including here from you - that the Way is "not about money". So much so, that they pretend it doesn't exist at all. Do you seriously contend that the workers do not ridicule other churches for taking collections and paying preachers a wage (just hirelings, not true shepherds, etc. etc.) ? It is a constant point of pride by the workers that they "take no collections". They openly advertise this in their gospel meeting advertisements. They say they go forth "in faith", "without scrip or purse". They constantly use this to compare themselves with "false preachers of the world" who do take money. And yet we all know that they do take money. So why the double standard? Why lie about it? The ONLY difference between money matters between the Two-by-twos and other churches, is that other churches - those with integrity - provide accountability to their members. You have provided a lot of surmising about what happens, and excusing of the lack of accountability, but your comments reveal an ignorance of how money is generally accounted for in other church organisations. No, it doesn't put the focus on money. It just provides transparent accountability. Although yes - on second thought - it may put the focus on money for the Two-by-twos if the workers revealed the truth. I suspect we would all fall off our chairs, and say "They have HOW much money???" I have yet to hear from those who really hold the purse strings: - Is it really true that you "take no collections?" - Is it really true that you go forth "in faith, without scrip or purse?" - Is it really true that you are different from the "false preachers of the world" in this respect? These are claims of the workers. Maybe it is time for them to withdraw these claims. As for your statement that it is nobody's business but the workers and friends - I once challenged the workers to stop lying to their members regarding the origins of the group. They said "It's none of your business now". I said "Yes, it is, I'm one of the people you lied to." so what what they say or have said or will say, what is that to you |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 23:18:02 GMT -5
Dear Overseers, Workers, Elders in the know. How much money did you collect from the friends in your state this year, including from deceased estates? How much money do you currently know about which is stockpiled in bank accounts, collected from the friends? What form of accountability is there for those holding the money? Is this information disclosed to anyone? If so, whom? What form of accountability is there for those spending the money? Is it reasonable for members of an organisation to be informed on the income, expenditure and activities of its leaders and the funds provided to them by members? Why do you slander churches for accepting money from their members when you do the same? Why do you slander churches for having their own purpose built facilities when you have your own purpose built convention grounds all over the world? Why do you take money from your members but fail to provide any form of accountability to your members on how this money is used? Why do you seek to hide every aspect of money management from your members rather than acting with transparency, integrity and accountability, declaring income and expenditure through financial statements to those who provide this money to the ministry? Are you willing to answer any of these questions? If not, why not? would you believe any of the answers to these questions anyway, some how i doubt it |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 26, 2014 23:19:41 GMT -5
Virgo said: would you believe any of the answers to these questions anyway, some how i doubt it
Do you mean because they've never been known to tell the truth? Yes, I take your point. It is a risk. (sorry, I'm having some problems with the quote function) |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 27, 2014 0:05:55 GMT -5
Elizabeth, a)You are not a member of this group, b)You do not contribute to it's funds. A non member A non contributor Elizabeth Please explain how you; an ex member who speaks and writes against the group; could expect answers to questions about funds of the group to which you have not contributed. Dear Review005, I respond to you in the spirit of you genuinely asking this of me. You ask what answers "I" can expect as a non member and non contributor. I understand, and take the point, that I, as a non-member and non-contributor, am not "entitled" to answers to these questions as such. The same could be said of you as a non-member/non-contributor of my church. However, if you were to come to my church, we would, and could, happily provide financial statements for you. These are independently audited. The premise of your response seems to be that I have no right to know because I am not a member and am not a contributor. What is the difference, then, for those that are members and contributors? Do you imply that I would have a right to this information if I was a member/contributor? |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Jones 'kyblue' on Aug 27, 2014 0:47:41 GMT -5
Review005, what's your beef here? Elizabeth is asking thought-provoking questions, so why not entertain a new perspective. Think about who a church, a non-profit, and publically traded company. They are accountable to the church members, donors, and stockholders/investors. If I invest in an organization, I'd better be sure I know how the group is handling my money, otherwise I'll take my money elsewhere. So, when workers cover up and pull the wool over everyone's eyes, what does that tell someone who wants to contribute to the F&Ws? They'd best hang on to their money.
If a group wants to make the best of their contributions, they'll also volunteer to be transparent about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 27, 2014 0:50:56 GMT -5
Of course some of this is nobody's business, but the friends and workers. I would not doubt that the majority of the friends are quite accepting of how the money is handled. And if not a majority of the friends as a whole, then the majority of those that give. Likely some will contend otherwise, but if you do not want to give money, then don't. The church isn't about the money. By workers and I think many of the friends attempting to be not focused on money there seems to a lot of others focused on it. Published accounting would put a focus on money inside the church. A published accounting of money could seem like an asking for money. A published accounting of money could lead to more grumbling by the discontent. Likely there is some "sharing" of money among the powers that be for the general good of convention and other needs, though convention would likely be primary. Some fields with more money might have a few discontented that might not want to share with the seemingly less fortunate fields. Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members.
How many times over the years have I heard the this saying from a worker?
"I haven't been hired so I can't be fired"
If you haven't heard it perhaps it is changing.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 27, 2014 1:16:04 GMT -5
But there is only one way to be sure about it - open and transparent.
I am aware of quite a few instances of money being ripped off, cases of cronyism, and quite a few times that money has been used very unwisely resulting in losses to the fellowship.
These are only cases that I am aware of, how much goes unreported, is unknown or just gets swept under the carpet?
Your faith in man is far greater than mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 27, 2014 1:28:47 GMT -5
ElizabethWhy did you ask many detailed questions which you understand you are not entitled to have answers for? In the Spirit of Martin Luther's 95 thesesWhy did you ask them on this forum? Because there is no other forum on which to ask. I cannot find anywhere on the internet where I could submit an email to an overseer or worker privately. And again, the in the spirit of Martin Luther's 95 theses - that those with the same questions who are afraid to ask for themselves can perhaps get an answer. Or at least consider what accountability they should be expecting of their leaders. Did you honestly expect any Overseers, Workers, Elders 'in the know' would answer them here? I guess we'll find out. The trouble is, nobody is willing to publicly identify themselves. So if a worker did respond, how would I know?
(An aside - why is everyone so afraid to be identified on here?)If not then what is your purpose of asking them here? I would like an end to the posturing and secretiveness about money in the Two-by-twos. I would like an end to the farce that they don't take collections. At the very, very, least - an end to derogatory comments about other churches and their finances who do show true integrity in this area.You have concern about funds to which you have not contributed in a group of which you were once a member; why? Because I was once a member. I was blindfolded and gagged (metaphorically speaking). Now I am not. So I'm asking the questions that I wasn't allowed to ask, or about which I was deceived, back then. Why is there lack of concern by most of members of the group who do contribute funds? I think we all know what happens to members who start showing that they have a questioning spirit. Those who show too much concern and start questioning quickly become non-members. So I guess you don't have to answer to them anymore. I'll give you the answer to that one....because they know and trust the men of integrity who handle them. Tell me, men of integrity, are you now openly admitting to your members the truth of your origins? Or are you still denouncing informative websites with historical truth as "enemies of the truth"? This isn't a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested in the answer.Please don't bring up the comparison of your church. You are not comparing 'apples with apples' and I do not mean that in any derogatory sense to your church. No offense taken. No, I guess we're not. I can find very few points of comparison. 'Income and Expenditure Accounts" etc etc would be anathema to most all of the members of our group. They aren't to you and you have wisely made the decision to be part of a group where such statements are prepared. It's great if you are happy in that group I respect that you have taken the time to respond to me here (a real identity would be nice, but you can't have everything). Please take the following as said in a neutral tone, and I try to say this as graciously as possible:
The 'Way' has a long history of pretending not to be an organisation. You (collectively), claim to just be christians who meet together in homes, in a simple and humble way. Non-denominational. Not registered or affiliated or incorporated or anything quite so normal and worldly. No buildings. No collections. It all just somehow miraculously happens. I am NOT overstating here - I have heard many of the friends say "It all just happens".
Income and expenditure statements would blow that wide open. It would come down to cold, hard facts of church administration for which other churches are made fun of. People may be thoroughly dismayed that there are large amounts of money stashed in bank accounts. The mystique would be gone. Every time a worker got up to say yet again that they have forsaken all and go by faith, it would ring hollow.
Perhaps, too, I am slightly naive. I look on the claims of the ministry, and see serious inconsistencies. The money matters - (ie. what is claimed versus what actually happens) - is just one such inconsistency. I think "maybe they will say that nobody ever asked!"
And so I ask the questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 1:29:22 GMT -5
Of course some of this is nobody's business, but the friends and workers. I would not doubt that the majority of the friends are quite accepting of how the money is handled. And if not a majority of the friends as a whole, then the majority of those that give. Likely some will contend otherwise, but if you do not want to give money, then don't. The church isn't about the money. By workers and I think many of the friends attempting to be not focused on money there seems to a lot of others focused on it. Published accounting would put a focus on money inside the church. A published accounting of money could seem like an asking for money. A published accounting of money could lead to more grumbling by the discontent. Likely there is some "sharing" of money among the powers that be for the general good of convention and other needs, though convention would likely be primary. Some fields with more money might have a few discontented that might not want to share with the seemingly less fortunate fields. Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members. Hold on Greg. We as public citizens have to be accountable for tax for all income. What is wrong with accountablity? Its biblcal. "Render unto caesar what is caesars" Church do their books yrly and are accountable to the congregation. Its the SECRECY that stinks. Why lie? Why the need to hide? Comeon! |
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 27, 2014 1:40:47 GMT -5
As a 2x2 I never knew there were bank accounts until I read 'secret sect'.
Flabbergasted @the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 27, 2014 2:00:04 GMT -5
Greg wrote: Other churches are not slandered for accepting money from their members. What do you mean by this? The workers slander churches for accepting money. However, churches are not slandered by their members because they are open about it. The workers on the other hand are not. Virgo asked what does the writer do with her money? Are you part of her clan? Do you give her money? Are you her partner? I think not.\ We are a part of a church so there needs to be accountability to its members the same as a husband and wife team. no they don't , i think he is meaning what is the third degree about a churches money they don't need to be open because they are trusted because that money is given in a sense to God you ask Are you part of her clan? Do you give her money? Are you her partner? I think not.\ but you seem to think it fine for elizabethcoleman to do just such obviously those who you speak of don't trust their clergy Wow Virgo, when did the workers become God  ? As to them being trusted well ....... |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 2:01:45 GMT -5
However, if you were to come to my church, we would, and could, happily provide financial statements for you. These are independently audited. I am guessing that your church is registered with the government and as such gets tax advantages. The reason they provide financial statements is because they are legally required to keep them. Not sure where you are living but in the US both the IRS and nonprofits organizations are required to provide information on Form 990 to anyone who asks. In addition, public inspection of the records of nonprofits must be allowed at their principal offices during regular business hours. Alas, the F&W do not file with the government to take advantage of the tax advantages so they are not under obligation to disclose. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 27, 2014 2:14:02 GMT -5
Well they should register and pay what's due the same as any other church.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 2:19:41 GMT -5
Well they should register and pay what's due the same as any other church. In the US the point of registering is that churches do not have to pay any tax. That means that the towns and cities do not collect property taxes from the churches. It usually means that funds donated by members are also not taxed. |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 27, 2014 2:35:00 GMT -5
However, if you were to come to my church, we would, and could, happily provide financial statements for you. These are independently audited. I am guessing that your church is registered with the government and as such gets tax advantages. The reason they provide financial statements is because they are legally required to keep them. Not sure where you are living but in the US both the IRS and nonprofits organizations are required to provide information on Form 990 to anyone who asks. In addition, public inspection of the records of nonprofits must be allowed at their principal offices during regular business hours. Alas, the F&W do not file with the government to take advantage of the tax advantages so they are not under obligation to disclose. Hi Rational, I live in Australia. Yes, we are registered. Churches here are counted as non-profit whether or not they register. It's probably fairly similar to the US in terms of tax. While we don't pay tax on freewill offerings given to the church, we do pay tax on our minister's wages (he pays tax on his income as paid by the church). Questions also arise about health care for workers. Here in Australia we pay a tax levy for healthcare (you can also elect to have private insurance on top of this for faster service, private hospital etc.). But public healthcare is generally available for everyone, either by virtue of being a tax-payer, or under the welfare system. I presume Australian workers would have to claim health care under our welfare system. Which would theoretically mean that they would have to claim that they are unemployed (I'm only guessing here, happy to be corrected). I am assuming that the tax-payer pays completely for the health care (and probably retirement pension) of Australian workers, regardless of how much money the 2x2s have in the bank. The bottom line is that our minister receives a wage, pays tax on it, and pays a tax-levy for health care. Our church registration and financial accountability as a church organisation means that our minister is in no way a burden on our already over-used welfare system. Nor should he be. I believe in America everyone pretty much needs health insurance? How do the workers fare under this system? Are they looked after in this regard? I would hope that the offerings from the friends would be used for such purposes. Any ex-workers care to comment? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 2:42:47 GMT -5
no they don't , i think he is meaning what is the third degree about a churches money they don't need to be open because they are trusted because that money is given in a sense to God you ask Are you part of her clan? Do you give her money? Are you her partner? I think not.\ but you seem to think it fine for elizabethcoleman to do just such obviously those who you speak of don't trust their clergy Wow Virgo, when did the workers become God ? As to them being trusted well ....... that's a really dumb question |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 27, 2014 2:48:48 GMT -5
I am guessing that your church is registered with the government and as such gets tax advantages. The reason they provide financial statements is because they are legally required to keep them. Not sure where you are living but in the US both the IRS and nonprofits organizations are required to provide information on Form 990 to anyone who asks. In addition, public inspection of the records of nonprofits must be allowed at their principal offices during regular business hours. Alas, the F&W do not file with the government to take advantage of the tax advantages so they are not under obligation to disclose. Hi Rational, I live in Australia. Yes, we are registered. Churches here are counted as non-profit whether or not they register. It's probably fairly similar to the US in terms of tax. While we don't pay tax on freewill offerings given to the church, we do pay tax on our minister's wages (he pays tax on his income as paid by the church). Questions also arise about health care for workers. Here in Australia we pay a tax levy for healthcare (you can also elect to have private insurance on top of this for faster service, private hospital etc.). But public healthcare is generally available for everyone, either by virtue of being a tax-payer, or under the welfare system. I presume Australian workers would have to claim health care under our welfare system. Which would theoretically mean that they would have to claim that they are unemployed (I'm only guessing here, happy to be corrected). I am assuming that the tax-payer pays completely for the health care (and probably retirement pension) of Australian workers, regardless of how much money the 2x2s have in the bank. The bottom line is that our minister receives a wage, pays tax on it, and pays a tax-levy for health care. Our church registration and financial accountability as a church organisation means that our minister is in no way a burden on our already over-used welfare system. Nor should he be. I believe in America everyone pretty much needs health insurance? How do the workers fare under this system? Are they looked after in this regard? I would hope that the offerings from the friends would be used for such purposes. Any ex-workers care to comment? Thanks for the response. I think that the burden of supporting the older ('retired') workers falls on the shoulders of the friends and society in general. At least that was how I experienced it decades ago. I believe the F&W have boxed themselves into an unmanageable situation that cannot be undone without some major reform. Creating an organization, registering with the government, employing the workers, paying the required taxes and fees, etc. I don't even see this as possible without a deeper change given that the organization is based on not accepting some of those 'worldly' concepts. Now I should argue that god does not exist but I don't see how that fits into this discussion (sorry - I tried to do my part to take over the TMB!). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 2:50:01 GMT -5
that's a really dumb question Virgo - it's not really a dumb question when you witness behaviour like I did as detailed in my last post. I've heard of people in the fellowship having money rejected because of their personal situation. Isn't that a worker playing God? is it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 2:51:33 GMT -5
Hi Rational, I live in Australia. Yes, we are registered. Churches here are counted as non-profit whether or not they register. It's probably fairly similar to the US in terms of tax. While we don't pay tax on freewill offerings given to the church, we do pay tax on our minister's wages (he pays tax on his income as paid by the church). Questions also arise about health care for workers. Here in Australia we pay a tax levy for healthcare (you can also elect to have private insurance on top of this for faster service, private hospital etc.). But public healthcare is generally available for everyone, either by virtue of being a tax-payer, or under the welfare system. I presume Australian workers would have to claim health care under our welfare system. Which would theoretically mean that they would have to claim that they are unemployed (I'm only guessing here, happy to be corrected). I am assuming that the tax-payer pays completely for the health care (and probably retirement pension) of Australian workers, regardless of how much money the 2x2s have in the bank. The bottom line is that our minister receives a wage, pays tax on it, and pays a tax-levy for health care. Our church registration and financial accountability as a church organisation means that our minister is in no way a burden on our already over-used welfare system. Nor should he be. I believe in America everyone pretty much needs health insurance? How do the workers fare under this system? Are they looked after in this regard? I would hope that the offerings from the friends would be used for such purposes. Any ex-workers care to comment? Thanks for the response. I think that the burden of supporting the older ('retired') workers falls on the shoulders of the friends and society in general. At least that was how I experienced it decades ago. I believe the F&W have boxed themselves into an unmanageable situation that cannot be undone without some major reform. Creating an organization, registering with the government, employing the workers, paying the required taxes and fees, etc. I don't even see this as possible without a deeper change given that the organization is based on not accepting some of those 'worldly' concepts. Now I should argue that god does not exist but I don't see how that fits into this discussion (sorry - I tried to do my part to take over the TMB!).and funnily it works |
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 27, 2014 2:52:10 GMT -5
"no they don't , i think he is meaning what is the third degree about a churches money
they don't need to be open because they are trusted because that money is given in a sense to God" Virgo did you say this ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 2:53:15 GMT -5
"no they don't , i think he is meaning what is the third degree about a churches money they don't need to be open because they are trusted because that money is given in a sense to God" Virgo did you say this ? no i wrote that |
|
? As to them being trusted well .......
