|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jan 2, 2016 6:14:14 GMT -5
(Emphasis mine)No. That the is Two-by-Two gospel. Not the Christian gospel. Striving to be more like Jesus will not get anyone into heaven. What in your opinion will get one into heaven. This is not meant to be a provocative question, just interested to hear your answer. It's a good question, Partaker! It has been debated on this forum at length. Nothing against responding to this question, but I don't wish to hijack this thread, so let's move it to a new one. I'll create one shortly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2016 7:48:02 GMT -5
What in your opinion will get one into heaven. This is not meant to be a provocative question, just interested to hear your answer. It's a good question, Partaker! It has been debated on this forum at length. Nothing against responding to this question, but I don't wish to hijack this thread, so let's move it to a new one. I'll create one shortly. Ok, very much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 2, 2016 8:13:14 GMT -5
I don't know about Katrina but I know the funds for Haiti were mainly used for rebuilding the facilities that are used for convention hat were damaged badly during the earthquake. I also know that they are uses to support the workers laboring there. One worker I know was held at gun point two different times and robbed of all his money. He helps the friends back there with basic needs but he said that he is never quite sure if they are coming to meetings for that reason or for the right reasons. It's a really tough game they play. If people find out they will get help - they show up in droves. Good people our worker back there is - trying to do what he feels is his calling. Very tough life in that area. Some of the friends, who were nurses, doctor from Seattle, Wa. volunteered their time, flew to Haiti to help the people there after the Big earthquake. The friends and overseers have helped non-2x2 in difficult situation, which they don't mention to others what they have done, so most people don't know about it.Nathan, can you give any particular instance when this happened.? I Know some of the people that went there and am not aware of this. They have shared their pictures with me. I would like to hear about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2016 9:13:04 GMT -5
@morriss - With the frandle case and similar cases like in australia you should be able to suss out that hiring a succession of high-priced lawyers isn't done on a whim without there being ready funds available to pay for that. All the lawyer cares about is that he is paid. The source of payment could be from anyone and not from workers funds. Maybe someone stepped up to throw additional $thousands into the pot to help (It doesn't have to be put into the pot at all, and I expect it is unlikely to have been so. It will be likely paid for, outside of the pot) but how do think that would happen without asking when the friends weren't even told of what was going on at the time? Because none of these things are done in a complete corner and unknown. The workers do share the problems of the day (particularly when they are needing help) with a number of dedicated innies in the fellowship. By far the majority of friends won't know at the outset but some certainly will. In my view it's likely some dedicated well heeled person (people) within this group who will likely pay the costs. I don't know of any worker who depended on a public-assistance legal defender but am allowing that there might be a case that that has happened. Do you know of any? No. And as said earlier I expect some well off friends will step forward to arrange legal defence and costs. They are totally free to do so if they wish, regardless of what you or I think of their action. Church funds wouldn't be used at all. If we both had our way and there were transparent accounts produced, then what would happen if no legal costs showed up? Based on your belief you would likely respond that the accounts are clearly fake because there must have been legal costs paid. Whereas, with my belief, I'd be saying the accounts represent exactly what I expected to have happened.
I think it is wrong for people to allege that church funds have been used for defending pedophiles unless evidence of this is produced. Until then it should never be said. People have been given an opportunity to come forward with evidence and i note with interest the muted response.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 2, 2016 9:43:54 GMT -5
Nathan, can you give any particular instance when this happened.? I Know some of the people that went there and am not aware of this. They have shared their pictures with me. I would like to hear about it. There was a big discussion on TMB a few years ago, one of the men was Scott Ross, the moderator professing nephew, who went to Haiti during this trip. Perhaps, someone could pull the discussion out of the archive.I was referring to your comment about the Friends helping non-2X2s that most don't know about. This was in context to the Haiti discussion. I thought maybe you knew something that most don't know about which is why you said this. I wan't aware of the helping of non-2x2s out there by the Friends. Do you know this happened, or did you just make this up?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 2, 2016 23:35:40 GMT -5
Regarding 'striving to be more like Jesus'. elizabethcoleman wrote "No. That the is Two-by-Two gospel. Not the Christian gospel"A brief venture into many of the Christian denominations’ websites unsurprisingly proves that to be a predictably false and an extraordinary claim. Many christian churches openly encourage their members to try, or strive to be more like Jesus. "Striving to be more like Jesus will not get anyone into heaven"That is a straw man response as I did not state that 'striving to be like Jesus will get anyone into heaven'. It is doubtful that any branch of christianity has simplified their theology to this assertion ‘being like Jesus will get you into heaven’. If Jesus did not want his words to be repeated, he would have requested this. The bible records Jesus and others' advice regarding money and the 2x2’s avoidance of formal remuneration (wages) is a reasonable interpretation of their words. Jesus stated that he alone was (is for christians) the saviour of mankind and all who do not follow him are damned for all eternity: Jesus is the only way to gain salvation. Here is a Presbyterian minister explaining why truth is exclusive. Just a few minutes into the linked recording proves that those of you who criticise the 2x2’s for referring to ‘false prophets’ may choose to acknowledge that others also recite Jesus' words. The Presbyterian minister refers to a group who hopes religion will weaken and fade into oblivion. Those of us of that ilk acknowledge that religion is not only unnecessary for morality but contrastingly encourages and condones amoral behaviours (condemnation of homosexuals; subordination of women; indoctrination of children with ingrained suppression of rational analysis; exploitation to gain wealth; sectarian violence etc). Objective standards of morality which are untainted by threats of eternal punishment, and achieved without the ‘presence’ of an authoritative big-brother figure (whether a god, Jesus, pope, political dictator or other self-styled non-democratic leader, or your local PPP) looking over our shoulders coercing us to do right for the promise of a reward, achieve reliable ethical standards framed within rational moral principles. jondough, religion is identified as a social construct. Church-goers form part of a socially-cohesive group and your reticence with regard to attending other churches is therefore understandable. If the believer’s predominant focus is fellowship with their god then social interaction with others must be an added bonus? Exclusivity of religious belief would be effectively negated if believers did break down the barriers and prove they have no set allegiance to any specific / exclusive scriptural interpretation. Given so many humans continue to hold a religious belief, and that religion does contribute to even hostile divisions; what an amazing effect this ‘breaking down the barriers of exclusivity’ could have. It just comes across as insincere to accuse the 2x2’s of exclusivity whilst remaining entrenched within your own church walls. Your belief in the god of Abraham should foster a connection with other who also believe in him: whether muslim, jew or christian. And emerging further out of the monotheistic layer: why not also interact and worship with those who follow other gods? the fundamental principle for their beliefs is shared by all religious adherents as gaining eternal life is also their focus. Those criticising the 2x2’s for exclusivity are against this approach. So why not act on this intolerance of exclusivity and campaign against the dangers of religious sectarianism by worshiping with as many other church groups as is practical? This thread was initiated due to the coercion directed towards the 2x2 group to change some of their practices (specifically related to finances). That the 2x2 group's scriptural interpretations impress as no more or less invalid than other christian groups, and are even shared by some of these, implies those christians who are pressuring the 2x2's to change have not yet presented a strong case for doing so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 5:40:05 GMT -5
Fair comment, Joanna , food for thought,appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by thefinest on Jan 3, 2016 10:14:34 GMT -5
I have no doubt that a lot of the "friends" do charitable things for people who are not in their church. That's wonderful. However, shouldn't the church as a whole be interested in helping their "Neighbor"? Not individually, but the church as a whole? Most churches use their funds to help the less fortunate...food drives, helping the homeless, disaster relief...etc.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 4, 2016 21:42:22 GMT -5
Are the funds just used to help "professing" people and conventions or are they also helping their "neighbor" as the Bible commands. Jesus taught in the Bible to Love your neighbor and he was always helping the poor and unfortunate...what outreach does the "truth" do to help other's in their community with the funds they receive? Jesus taught individuals to love their neighbor - his teaching was not directed to church organisations. Secular groups can be better at getting help to where it's needed e.g. Red Cross, Cancer Society, children's hospitals, etc. Friends I know are pretty generous with helping those less fortunate.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 4, 2016 21:44:31 GMT -5
I have no doubt that a lot of the "friends" do charitable things for people who are not in their church. That's wonderful. However, shouldn't the church as a whole be interested in helping their "Neighbor"? Not individually, but the church as a whole? Most churches use their funds to help the less fortunate...food drives, helping the homeless, disaster relief...etc. When I was in the work my companions and I were talking that the overseers should donate 10% of the friends trust fund to charity, disaster relief, Red Cross, etc. Well, the friends who give their money to the work could include this wish in their wills... 10% of their money go to help the less fortunate and make sure the overseers carry it out their wish. Write it down on paper with an attorney, where you want your money to spend on and NOT to spend on, and the overseers will grant your wishes.Why wouldn't the donor simply give the money to where they want it to go? It makes no sense to make the ministry a dispenser of the friends money.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 4, 2016 22:43:09 GMT -5
Good point fixit. Why do most churches set up a relief fund whereby they become a depository for typically large sums of money. The church administrators likely have fun playing a game of "one for me, one for charity". This expose addresses concerns with financial transparency and may prompt those ex 2x2'S who are genuinely concerned about a lack of transparency within the 'truth' to redirect their focus.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 4, 2016 22:54:26 GMT -5
Good point fixit. Why do most churches set up a relief fund whereby they become a depository for typically large sums of money. The church administrators likely have fun playing a game of "one for me, one for charity". This expose addresses concerns with financial transparency and may prompt those ex 2x2'S who are genuinely concerned about a lack of transparency within the 'truth' to redirect their focus. I smiled at this in your link Joanna: "(It) is a religion that appeals to economically successful men by rewarding their financial acuity with respect and positions of prestige within the religion."
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 6, 2016 20:59:30 GMT -5
Yes, the friends can do this themselves... Give part of your will to charities, help others and leave the rest to the ministry. 55% of American adults do not have a will or other estate plan in place. "In 2014, the majority of charitable dollars went to religion (32%), education (15%), human services and grantmaking foundations (12%), and health (8%)"Without a written will "the ministry" may be missing out on a lot of cash. Now if someone wanted to give to " the ministry", what would be the, name and address to put in the will? This seems to be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 7, 2016 16:01:40 GMT -5
Now if someone wanted to give to " the ministry", what would be the, name and address to put in the will? This seems to be a problem. The instructions thats been distributed in the western usa told how to set up the legacy but you had to contact your local elder or overseer to find out whose name to put in the blanks for the trusted person who gets to handle and/or distribute the funds. Once the money or other property has been given it goes into the trust accounts and the overseer uses it for however he sees fit. I don't think theres a method of specifying the funds must go to a particular activity - a person would have to set up their own trust and trustees to make sure that happened and the overseer would have to agree to that - theres at least one case where the overseer refused to cooperate with the way the legacy was set up to be distributed so the money was forfeited. Theres definitely a problem if someone names a worker or overseer or elder as recipient with a vague or no purpose given because that just becomes the property of the named person - and that has happened. The way the trusts are now theres no assurance or record of whether the funds go to the purpose envisioned or whether they're being handled well or ethically. How things are handled tax-wise is also unknown. Something along the lines of what propp tried to do in alberta and what has been done in some other areas in having a legal entity that does at least some reporting seems a good step to me - I never did understand the fury that provokes in some except that it does go against the claims to have no organization and to have taken no name - both of which have been false for over 100 years even if no one admitted to either of those obvious facts.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 7, 2016 17:09:50 GMT -5
Yes, the friends can do this themselves... Give part of your will to charities, help others and leave the rest to the ministry. 55% of American adults do not have a will or other estate plan in place. "In 2014, the majority of charitable dollars went to religion (32%), education (15%), human services and grantmaking foundations (12%), and health (8%)"Here is a guess... 2x2 trust fund inflows. 150,000 friends, 75,000 2x2 households, 150K average household net worth, 25 years until both are dead, 2x2 give 1/3 of net worth to trusts funds. If so then the 2x2 trust funds would have $148,500,000 of cash inflows each year. It's hard to believe it's that much money coming in each year. What's your guess?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 7, 2016 18:26:53 GMT -5
Even if its a tenth of that its still a huge amount. I wouldn't be surprised if the total assets weren't into 9 figures tho. Given their other ongoing support and limited expenses there'd be some serious mishandling of the funds if it hadn't reached that by now.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 7, 2016 21:31:14 GMT -5
Here is a guess... 2x2 trust fund inflows. 150,000 friends, 75,000 2x2 households, 150K average household net worth, 25 years until both are dead, 2x2 give 1/3 of net worth to trusts funds. If so then the 2x2 trust funds would have $148,500,000 of cash inflows each year. It's hard to believe it's that much money coming in each year. What's your guess? I'd change the assumptions pretty dramatically... but leave you to do the math 150,000 friends; 50,000 households; $150K avg net worth at death; 40 years until both are dead; 5% bequeath ANYTHING to the workers (I truly believe this is a relatively rare phenomena -- most friends leave all their estate to their family, in my unsubstantiated opinion); those 5% bequeath on avg. 1/3 of their net worth to trust funds.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Jan 7, 2016 23:45:30 GMT -5
Here is a guess... 2x2 trust fund inflows. 150,000 friends, 75,000 2x2 households, 150K average household net worth, 25 years until both are dead, 2x2 give 1/3 of net worth to trusts funds. If so then the 2x2 trust funds would have $148,500,000 of cash inflows each year. It's hard to believe it's that much money coming in each year. What's your guess? I'd change the assumptions pretty dramatically... but leave you to do the math 150,000 friends; 50,000 households; $150K avg net worth at death; 40 years until both are dead; 5% bequeath ANYTHING to the workers (I truly believe this is a relatively rare phenomena -- most friends leave all their estate to their family, in my unsubstantiated opinion); those 5% bequeath on avg. 1/3 of their net worth to trust funds. I second Gene's observation. Thinking of one state with many friends where I was a senior worker for a number of years, I am only aware of three bequests to workers (or worker trust funds) in that state during that time. One of them was refused because there were family members in serious financial need, and we had the executor return the money to the family. The overseer of that state, whenever he was asked about leaving money to workers, answered, "If you wish to give, do so while you're alive. Leave your estate to your family." The only trust fund in that state (middle five figures) would have been wiped out by one hospital stay of less than a week. Other states I'm well acquainted with were in the same position: small bank accounts (if any at all) administered by two or three elders that were about enough to cover one major medical bill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 6:02:59 GMT -5
I'd change the assumptions pretty dramatically... but leave you to do the math £3m pa approx150,000 friends; 50,000 households; $150K avg net worth at death; 40 years until both are dead; 5% bequeath ANYTHING to the workers (I truly believe this is a relatively rare phenomena -- most friends leave all their estate to their family, in my unsubstantiated opinion); those 5% bequeath on avg. 1/3 of their net worth to trust funds.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 8, 2016 8:51:02 GMT -5
I'd change the assumptions pretty dramatically... but leave you to do the math 150,000 friends; 50,000 households; $150K avg net worth at death; 40 years until both are dead; 5% bequeath ANYTHING to the workers (I truly believe this is a relatively rare phenomena -- most friends leave all their estate to their family, in my unsubstantiated opinion); those 5% bequeath on avg. 1/3 of their net worth to trust funds. If the average giver gives 32% to their church. www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/I wonder why the two by two would be so different. It sounds like less than 5%. I would think the two by two as a group are more zealous than the average church goer. In my case our wills leave 80% of our NW to secular organizations, and none to any denomination. We want to help people in the here and now. Red Cross, Doctors without borders, Engineers Without Borders, Foundation Beyond Belief, FFRF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 10:25:14 GMT -5
Agree with the helping people here and now.
The 2x2 giving is largely as follows:- ongoing needs of workers in their area - smallish continuous donations (for here and now) Money left in wills - small number of people as described above (Gene and Christopher J) - sizeable sums when given Donations by 2x2s to worthy causes - Red Cross, Refugee Crisis, Syria, earthquake appeals etc - reasonable size donations (for here and now) 2x2 Friends in need - one off reasonable size donations (for here and now)
Agree with comments already given that these are given mostly unknown to other members in line with the left-hand, right hand advice as described by Alan Richardson. (I sense some of the exes think the 2x2s are not generous givers to worthy non 2x2 causes but I don't think that is so.)
it clearly is a different giving model than other churches/organisations. But that's OK. Many 2x2 church members like it that way and see it as scriptural. It is hard to see how the above modes of giving are inferior to the model of other churches' giving.
The big question mark is around whether the funds of the 2x2 church (whatever they are) should be transparent or not. I see it as preferable to be transparent so that if the funds are small or large it may move people appropriately to whether they leave money to the 2x2 church or not.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Jan 8, 2016 10:27:53 GMT -5
I'd change the assumptions pretty dramatically... but leave you to do the math 150,000 friends; 50,000 households; $150K avg net worth at death; 40 years until both are dead; 5% bequeath ANYTHING to the workers (I truly believe this is a relatively rare phenomena -- most friends leave all their estate to their family, in my unsubstantiated opinion); those 5% bequeath on avg. 1/3 of their net worth to trust funds. If the average giver gives 32% to their church. www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/I wonder why the two by two would be so different. It sounds like less than 5%. I would think the two by two as a group are more zealous than the average church goer. In my case our wills leave 80% of our NW to secular organizations, and none to any denomination. We want to help people in the here and now. Red Cross, Doctors without borders, Engineers Without Borders, Foundation Beyond Belief, FFRF. I believe the difference is that most workers I've known actively discouraged that sort of giving. I understand this may not be the case everywhere, but in the areas I worked it certainly was. I know of more bequests being refused and returned to the family than I've known of bequests accepted. During my first year in the work, my companion was the overseer, and he heard that the next senior brother had accepted a $1000 bequest and had set up a bank account to hold the money. His response was "We don't accept bequests, and we most definitely do not hold money in bank accounts." He insisted right then and there that the other brother send the money away; in that case it was sent for hurricane relief in some of the Caribbean islands. I know that quite a bit of cash passed through his hands, but in his case, the operative words were "cash" and "passed through". Each week he would send me to the bank with cash to buy money orders to send overseas, keeping very little for his own needs. This was in one of the largest states in USA. Yes, that was 36 years ago, and I know things may have changed, and that other areas may have had different practices, but I can definitely say that in 27 years in the work, that kind of giving was discouraged in every situation I was aware of.
|
|
bgm
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by bgm on Jan 8, 2016 11:38:43 GMT -5
This thread is an opportunity for trustees of F&W financial accounts, or any senior workers/overseers, to publicly demonstrate the accountability that we believe befits followers of Christ who have responsibility to administer the financial matters of the church. This thread can remain on top here for the year, and let's see if anyone with financial responsibilities is prepared to be open and accountable with how the Friends money is used. I promise that all who do demonstrate accountability here will be treated with total respect for your courage and honesty. admin I have been asked to post this on behalf of someone knowledgeable about the accountability aspect of financial matters of the church. There will be no responses to questions from the original writer, so the information will have to be accepted or rejected as is. In my personal opinion, this information is 100% credible and is important to the discussion. "I am interested in the purpose of this thread and have waited some time before considering replying.
I am not a trustee but am closely related to someone who has served in that capacity within the church.
One of the troubles you highlighted is what is fact and what is fiction. No one other than the overseer knows the full picture but I will jot down a number of things I am aware of and add a note about the level of certainty I have on each.
By the way I am not prepared to be pressed for any further details on these, as I am not prepared to put any individual at risk of identification.
I) Cheques would arrive from time to time (from another trustee) that would require a signature from the trustee I knew. The 2 signatures were presumably there for safeguard of assets purposes (This is 100% certain)
II) Sometimes assets left to the work are ‘awkward’ and pose problems to the church and overseers. I know of a case where a very valuable ‘awkward’ asset (worth a 6 figure sum) was simply handed on to one of the saints (not a trustee) and he was given total ownership (with no reciprocal payment). (This is 100% certain)
III) A non-liquid valuable asset was left to the work, who sold it on to one of the friends at a significant discount (This is 100% certain).
IV) A significant amount of the church funds went missing. Church leaders from other parts flew in to get involved. (This is 100% certain)
V) Some assets are not even passed on to the trustees. Another individual (not a trustee) may hold church funds for a significant period of time (decades) while it gradually gets wound down in size. (This is 100% certain). This is likely, in my view, to be unknown to the main fund trustees (I have no idea on the certainty of this last part, but is my belief based on the feel of what I’ve witnessed).
Around transparency, I imagine in any ‘accounts’ , (II) above would not be disclosed at all if the asset is disposed of quickly. I also suggest that (III) would only show up as the amount that was paid for the asset.
For (V) there is a risk this asset mightn’t be shown at all, though it would show up whenever any amounts were handed over in future years (assuming they got added to the trust fund). There is a clear risk though of these assets going missing should the overseer die, if he hasn’t clearly written it down in his records for others to pick up on his death."
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 8, 2016 14:02:04 GMT -5
The big question mark is around whether the funds of the 2x2 church (whatever they are) should be transparent or not. I see it as preferable to be transparent so that if the funds are small or large it may move people appropriately to whether they leave money to the 2x2 church or not. When we professed, it never once crossed our minds that any money would ever be abused. We had no concerns about financial transparency. All we freely gave was to further the spread of the gospel. We trusted the workers 100%. Our reality was that we were trusting our eternal life on the one true messenger's sent directly from god to us to save our souls from everlasting hell. Even if we gave all our money to the workers, that would not begin to compared to finding the truth, and gaining enteral life. It would have been unthinkable to ask; What are you doing with the money we gave you? This was our professing mind set. Then things changed as we learned about the beginnings. But it was never about the money for us, and giving money to the workers has never been on our ex-2x2 regret list.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 14:15:13 GMT -5
I have been asked to post this on behalf of someone knowledgeable about the accountability aspect of financial matters of the church. There will be no responses to questions from the original writer, so the information will have to be accepted or rejected as is. In my personal opinion, this information is 100% credible and is important to the discussion. Your post gives good reasons why there is a very very strong need for transparency and control of church funds.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 8, 2016 15:33:21 GMT -5
Even if its a tenth of that its still a huge amount. I wouldn't be surprised if the total assets weren't into 9 figures tho. Given their other ongoing support and limited expenses there'd be some serious mishandling of the funds if it hadn't reached that by now. You're assuming that the goal is to increase the size of the fund. I doubt that is the case. In one jurisdiction, the money was dispersed at the end of conventions each year so it wouldn't accumulate. That seems pretty scriptural to me.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 8, 2016 16:28:55 GMT -5
Even if its a tenth of that its still a huge amount. I wouldn't be surprised if the total assets weren't into 9 figures tho. Given their other ongoing support and limited expenses there'd be some serious mishandling of the funds if it hadn't reached that by now. You're assuming that the goal is to increase the size of the fund. I doubt that is the case. In one jurisdiction, the money was dispersed at the end of conventions each year so it wouldn't accumulate. That seems pretty scriptural to me. This is similar to what I am aware of - end of year after convention all money accumulated by individuals during the year would be handed to the overseer and then each person would be given a small amount to start the new year. What the overseer would do with the money was no one's business. How it all works today I'm not sure.
|
|
bgm
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by bgm on Jan 8, 2016 18:57:41 GMT -5
You're assuming that the goal is to increase the size of the fund. I doubt that is the case. In one jurisdiction, the money was dispersed at the end of conventions each year so it wouldn't accumulate. That seems pretty scriptural to me. This is similar to what I am aware of - end of year after convention all money accumulated by individuals during the year would be handed to the overseer and then each person would be given a small amount to start the new year. What the overseer would do with the money was no one's business. How it all works today I'm not sure. As far as I know, it still works that way in most places, more or less. However, the money that circulates between the friends and field workers is really a separate system than the church funds which go directly to the overseer through large donations, often estate bequeaths. Two different systems. Whether the overseer skims some off the annual convention redistribution will never be known except by the overseer, but I suspect that is not a significant amount of money. Even if 20 workers came into convention with $1000 left over from their fields, it's a drop in the bucket even if the overseer skims off half of it. That part of the system is of little consequence in the big picture. The opportunity for fraud, theft and corruption exists with the big trustee accounts which can rake in hundreds of thousands of $'s at a time which are directed to the overseer throughout the year.
|
|