Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2012 7:58:03 GMT -5
Definition of 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK' 1. The use of a good or service as payment instead of cash. Investopedia explains 'Payment-In-Kind - PIK' 1. A farmhand who is given "free" room and board instead of receiving an hourly wage in exchange for helping out on the farm is an example of payment-in-kind. It seems to me that Workers receive payment in kind and are thus, "paid!" Amen. Does that make them hirelings? Or is the whole hireling argument a smokescreen? In view of there only being one true Shepherd, that would make everyone else not a shepherd and therefore a hireling. Or something like that... All clergy are hirelings. Old Irv baby and his early cohorts misinterpreted the hireling piece of scripture and used it to their own ends. There are good hirelings and there are bad ones. Some use their talents whilst others bury them (or hide them under the carpet). When troubles roll you know a good hireling from a bad one. Do they put the flock first, or do they put themselves first. Doing the latter is commensurate with fleeing!
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 11:16:57 GMT -5
CUL - you mention that the workers are unpaid. can you please clarify this? Do you mean that what ever they receive - they dont declare and therefore as far as the Income Revenue Service is concerned - they are unpaid? You mean Internal? Not "declaring" a payment doesn't make it not a payment. An employee in a company who successfully protected his privacy and his money from that organization would still be getting paid. However, I distinguish between payments (wages, salaries, prices) and gifts (donations, tips). Further, the monetary contributions they receive are generally not intended for them personally, so they shouldn't be considered income. But even if they were, they are gifts, not payments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2012 13:16:38 GMT -5
CUL without being personal, it is not what YOU think should be considered income, it is what the taxman thinks. Over here in the UK there are many benefits which the workers receive by way of gifts and other support, which would be considered to be "earned income."
I understand that this was once looked into several decades ago in the UK but the advice at that time was that it was highly unlikely the workers received anything like the amount which would take them over the threshhold whereby they would be liable to pay income tax.
Maybe this is why the workers (as I understand it) are asked to turn over any surplus to overseers ? I don't know. However, back in those days the workers didn't have the same use of cars etc.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 14:09:07 GMT -5
CUL without being personal, it is not what YOU think should be considered income, it is what the taxman thinks. You're only looking at the question from the taxman's perspective. By the taxman. Why should we accept his interpretation? It's bound to be biased in favor of himself. As individuals, we should be capable of thinking for ourselves. OK. Maybe they don't, maybe they do. If they do receive anything over the threshold at which the taxman would make a claim, that's all the more reason to be careful about the disclosure of information. Maybe in part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2012 15:03:11 GMT -5
CUL without being personal, it is not what YOU think should be considered income, it is what the taxman thinks. You're only looking at the question from the taxman's perspective. And that's not extremely important for legal purposes?By the taxman. Why should we accept his interpretation? It's bound to be biased in favor of himself. As individuals, we should be capable of thinking for ourselves. We have to abide by the laws of the country. I believe that was a "commandment" of Jesus somewhere? The taxman collects revenues according to the laws of the country. His opinions and decisions are extremely important, especially for Christians who should be seen to be upholding the laws of the land as they are commanded to do! OK. Maybe they don't, maybe they do. If they do receive anything over the threshold at which the taxman would make a claim, that's all the more reason to be careful about the disclosure of information. That's tax evasion or tax avoidance at best. It is deceitful. Are you really putting forward these last few points as valid arguments?Maybe in part.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 15:50:57 GMT -5
And that's not extremely important for legal purposes? It's important to understand his perspective. It's not necessary to agree with it. No, it wasn't. Not necessarily, but it makes little difference. Taxmen are thieves without exception. Wise stewardship and protection of resources is not deceitful. Is it deceitful to make sure your wallet is secure when walking through a section of town frequented by pickpockets? By the way, even from the perspective of those who believe it's always necessary to follow the laws of the state, there is nothing wrong with "tax avoidance". From a legal perspective, it is well-advised for those who wish to comply with the law while protecting as much of their resources as possible from plunderers.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 17:18:51 GMT -5
CUL, it sure is a pretty bad indictment of the workers if you can attest that they are going to be dishonest no matter how many protection measures you put into the worker money system....But I do agree with you. The ones in charge are dishonest and are going to be dishonest no matter how many new patches you put on the old garment.
That is why I highly advocate getting rid of the overseer overseers and many of the underling overseers. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Dishonesty has spread throughout the overseership and has corrupted the whole church. These overseers are the wolves among the sheep. There are many fine, sincere workers and friends who are in subjection to the wolves and feel powerless to do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 17:34:01 GMT -5
CUL, it sure is a pretty bad indictment of the workers if you can attest that they are going to be dishonest no matter how many protection measures you put into the worker money system.... Of course, that's not what I said and you know that. The dishonest ones will be dishonest. Arbitrary rules about disclosure won't prevent that.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 18:02:07 GMT -5
CUL, it sure is a pretty bad indictment of the workers if you can attest that they are going to be dishonest no matter how many protection measures you put into the worker money system.... Of course, that's not what I said and you know that. The dishonest ones will be dishonest. Arbitrary rules about disclosure won't prevent that. In my experience, there was no overseer who was any more use than the least of the saints. In some cases they were far worse than useless and downright destructive to the fellowship. They have the status and respect of a Godly person but are far from it. The only need for an overseer is to maintain the need for an overseer. Having overseers only keep people from growing spiritually and not being led by the Holy Spirit. They hold workers in fields...geographical areas. They are only free to be moved by the spirit in that area. Overseers are just a tradition of man and unnecessary. Along with other things that the friends and workers think are so necessary. Conventions are unnecessary and are just a tradition of man. Fields are a tradition. The format of the meetings are just a tradition. The manner of dress in meeting is just a tradition. I am saying that the workers know all of this because they preach the same things about other ("false") churches. Somewhere in the gospel mission you are liable to hear that these people in false churches need to forsake the traditions of man and accept the truth. I am saying the same thing to the worker. Forsake the traditions. Don't put new wine into old bottles. Don't put a new patch on an old garment. It is their own message that I am saying to them.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 19:29:28 GMT -5
Many things are "unnecessary" but useful. Do you believe we should never do anything that's not "necessary"? How do you determine what is "necessary" and what is not?
I ask because you started out with overseers which you said were both unnecessary and bad. Then you branched out and listed a bunch of other things which you call "unnecessary".
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 20:02:41 GMT -5
Many things are "unnecessary" but useful. Do you believe we should never do anything that's not "necessary"? How do you determine what is "necessary" and what is not? I ask because you started out with overseers which you said were both unnecessary and bad. Then you branched out and listed a bunch of other things which you call "unnecessary". I have had relationships with people who were put in a position of overseer. I am more interested in the relationship than I am their position. Some of these men as overseer abused their position of power. I think the same good relationships could exist without the position of overseer and there would be no loss at all to the meetings...only gain. However, the position of overseer is destructive because it sets men up to abuse power. The dishonest overseers set policies and shun those who oppose them. They move others to shun them also. As an overseer or overseer overseer who does this, it is VERY difficult to have him removed from his abusive power. The meetings would be much more effective without overseers as it would make the workers really more and more just like the friends. But don't stop with doing away with overseers. Let the workers marry and have homes and go on missions and learn from other churches and preachers. Are overseers useful? Good question. I have sat and heard and even preached against the things of the "world" that are unnecessary but have never heard any of the workers say that church buildings are useful to the kingdom or married preachers living in their own homes paid by the church are useful to the kingdom. I have never heard of the workers seeking out these useful men in their useful buildings for scriptural instruction. Again, these are worker sermons turned back onto the workers. I am telling them what they taught me.
|
|
|
Post by bryanfromak on Jun 24, 2012 20:04:51 GMT -5
CUL,
A paid preacher receives a formal paycheck/monies from his church, by way of the church members' offerings, which he uses to pay for lodging, clothing, food, travel expenses and so forth.
The Workers receive lodging, clothing, food, monies for travel expenses, and so forth directly from the Friends.
Fundamentally, how is one different from the other? Are both the workers and the paid preacher not supported by the members/Friends of their respected fellowship/church?
If I give $20 during a church service and that 20 dollars is used by the preacher to purchase food for dinner, how is this fundamentally different then a Friend using $20 to purchase food for dinner which the workers will eat?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 21:08:51 GMT -5
I have no problem with the workers who preach the word of God and get paid for it. The labourer is worthy his hire. There are many workers who are at least partly doing what they are supposed to be doing in regard to money. They are just taking what they need. I can see why they assume that the overseers and their other brothers and sisters are doing the same because many workers are without guile and naive. They believe what they are trained to believe, also. So, in a way, they are like sheep led astray because of their trusting in man. I have compassion for them.
I have less compassion for those who have led them astray. They are willing to excommunicate people over money issues. Excommunicate them to keep their own place of authority.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 21:41:49 GMT -5
If Alberta became a cesspool of unscrupulous workers (as I understand you to say, CUL), then it seems that the cesspool included DS, overseer of California and all who support him. And it also includes all the overseers and workers who accept these preachers to preach at their conventions. DS went to South Africa for conventions and was briefed in Spain by the European overseers on the immorality issues down there. So I guess the cesspool includes Europe and South Africa, also.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 22:13:41 GMT -5
CUL, A paid preacher receives a formal paycheck/monies from his church, by way of the church members' offerings, which he uses to pay for lodging, clothing, food, travel expenses and so forth. The Workers receive lodging, clothing, food, monies for travel expenses, and so forth directly from the Friends. Fundamentally, how is one different from the other? Are both the workers and the paid preacher not supported by the members/Friends of their respected fellowship/church? The paid preacher is paid an agreed-upon fee on a regular basis. The 'workers' who go around living in houses are provided with a place to stay, food, and money given spontaneously by individual givers.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 22:25:38 GMT -5
CUL, A paid preacher receives a formal paycheck/monies from his church, by way of the church members' offerings, which he uses to pay for lodging, clothing, food, travel expenses and so forth. The Workers receive lodging, clothing, food, monies for travel expenses, and so forth directly from the Friends. Fundamentally, how is one different from the other? Are both the workers and the paid preacher not supported by the members/Friends of their respected fellowship/church? The paid preacher is paid an agreed-upon fee on a regular basis. The 'workers' who go around living in houses are provided with a place to stay, food, and money given spontaneously by individual givers. So if a worker gets far more money through donations than a preacher gets in a salary, he is better off, somehow? And what if a preacher gets a salary but has an unexpected need and then waits for God to provide the need(which He does through a generous anonymous gift)? Is that not the same as the workers getting paid and living in "faith"?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 22:40:04 GMT -5
By the way, gifts are not given "spontaneously" to workers by the friends. The system of giving is quite predictable in most cases. The friends know they are supposed to give to the workers because they know the workers have no other income(supposedly) and it is up to the friends to support them.
The workers know that writing letters is what gets them money. I was instructed by the overseer in my first or second year in the work to write more letters as that is how I was expected to get money.
The workers know where the $50 bills come from. where the $20 bills come from...etc. The workers do know how to make sure they get paid without "taking up a collection"....but they do essentially the same thing as other churches.
I remember Kennion Coleman telling me that letter writing becomes a money making scheme for many workers. He and I both did not really like writing letters. I must admit that I was obedient to my overseer and did try out his advice as I was really green in the work. I did not like it and eventually only wrote letters to those I was close to personally or whom I thought would need a letter(those who were isolated and perhaps did not get many letters from workers).
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 22:52:03 GMT -5
For a while in the work, I thought that we all turned in our money and the overseer would divide it all up evenly and redistribute it. His portion along with everyone else'. I don't see any reason that that would not work. Then, each worker would clearly know just how much the overall staff is doing.
We generally turned in far more than we got back. Each year started off with about $300. That would get us by until we got into our fields and then the friends would take over our needs.
If the total yearly intake was redistributed, then the workers would more than likely have several thousand dollars to start with every year. That would give the workers liberty to tell the struggling friends in the area that they had plenty and would also give the workers more liberty to help struggling friends. That way, the money from the whole state would be not only redistributed among the workers, but also among the needy friends.
That is just one model of how it can work but doesn't. the overseers generally do not trust the younger workers with lots of money. They certainly don't trust exiting workers with a lot of money to get started on their feet after years in the work.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 23:02:47 GMT -5
ts, How does turning in all the money work? When does it happen? You say "the end of the year" - is that at a yearly worker meeting, or what? Does the overseer say "give me all your money", or what? How much money were you given as an exiting worker to get started?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 24, 2012 23:06:30 GMT -5
By the way, gifts are not given "spontaneously" to workers by the friends. The system of giving is quite predictable in most cases. The friends know they are supposed to give to the workers because they know the workers have no other income(supposedly) and it is up to the friends to support them. How do they "know" this even though noone ever preachers about giving them money and they never ask for it? Knowing of a "need" doesn't make the giving not spontaneous. You say they have "no other income(supposedly)". What income do they have besides money that people give to them? Are you saying they write a letter and they get a letter in response along with money in the envelope? It doesn't sound like you needed more if you were turning in more than you got back.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 23:36:23 GMT -5
ts, How does turning in all the money work? When does it happen? You say "the end of the year" - is that at a yearly worker meeting, or what? Does the overseer say "give me all your money", or what? How much money were you given as an exiting worker to get started? At convention every year, there is a time when the overseer will come to you and ask for your money. Yes, he asks for your money or asks how much you have. As an exiting worker I was not in good health. I was given perhaps $3000 (which I easily used up for my health). I was not able to work much. Wasn't strong and was very depressed(made more depressed by the lack of support). I was given perhaps 300-500 dollars to start my new life with. I consider the the health I lost while doing God's work in their ministry their responsibility. They did NOT follow through with their responsibility. I gave freely of "my health, my strength, my all" and they did not give freely of their abundance. They pulled the plug on it after I got too expensive. Were I traveling around with an abusive companion, perhaps I could have gotten more money for my health, but that would have been very futile. When the overseer decides that you are "faking it" or "milking the system" or "being lazy" or whatever, he gets to cut off your health plan. I did eventually recover for the most part. It took about 2 years and my unprofessing, blasphemous, smoking and alcoholic side of my family took up the slack. They did not really want me to go into the work to begin with and were suspicious that something was very fishy about the group all along. I really tried to defend the group to them, but there was no defense. My spiritual brothers had forsaken me and left my family to care for me(which they gladly did). That was also knowing that all those years that I was wanting them to be a part of "the only truth and way." My unprofessing family showed more unconditional love than my worker brothers with whom I had lived and preached all those years. Sam McCracken was the one I offered to in the work. After moving around on different staffs(his included) for a few years, I ended my days on his staff. I KNOW he had more money than $3000 to help me. He treated me like it was a burden. It doesn't take too much for a fellow to avoid asking for help that is rightfully his when he gets such a cold response. I have known Sam since to leave an ailing brother worker high and dry. Sending him out of the work because of his health even though he really wanted to continue in the work on a less strenuous schedule. The worker was older, in poor health and not able to enter the work force like he was when he went into the work. That worker was against abuse, though. I think that had something to do with his treatment. The point is that I was sincerely wanting to be on my own for a while with some sort of help from the work. I sincerely wanted to do what it took to recover and get on my own feet as soon as possible. I had come to the conclusion that I could not continue in the worker lifestyle and heal. Once I left the worker system, they basically did not follow up on what I needed to recover. I kept up with what my unprofessing family gave me over the two years it took me to heal and recover. The workers owe my family that amount. If they were at all interested in setting their testimony right with them, they would take it to them and ask for forgiveness. It is easy now for them to do because they know a finite amount rather than simply doing what the Good Samaritan did and telling the inn keeper that he would pay whatever it was he spent over that when he returned. I can safely say that NONE of the workers were anything CLOSE to following the example of the Good Samaritan in my case. And I wasn't even a stranger to them. I was their spiritual brother!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 24, 2012 23:52:23 GMT -5
By the way, gifts are not given "spontaneously" to workers by the friends. The system of giving is quite predictable in most cases. The friends know they are supposed to give to the workers because they know the workers have no other income(supposedly) and it is up to the friends to support them. How do they "know" this even though noone ever preachers about giving them money and they never ask for it? Knowing of a "need" doesn't make the giving not spontaneous. You say they have "no other income(supposedly)". What income do they have besides money that people give to them? Are you saying they write a letter and they get a letter in response along with money in the envelope? It doesn't sound like you needed more if you were turning in more than you got back. I do not know of many instances of "spontaneous giving" in the meetings. There were typical ways that the friends gave money rather than taking up a collection. Handshake, envelope on the bed and money in a letter. Yes, the workers know that if you write a 14 copy letters a day, some of those people will respond and will give you money. Some give fairly predictable amounts after you get to know their giving style. Workers will then write those people very nice letters or nice copy letters knowing that these people will send the dough. Workers who want to build their finances will do the numbers. Again, my first overseer told me that that was the way workers did it and he expected me to do the same. No, I did not generally use more money than I was given. I was very frugal. However, I think it is appropriate that each worker is given the same amount and all treated as equals. If one is found untrustworthy with money, then kick him out of the work. But set some standard and write it down. Don't treat the workers like children. Treat them all as equals. The "letter writing for money" system basically makes workers into subtle beggars. It is really humiliating. And it creates a system that is very much out of the "real world".
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 0:01:19 GMT -5
Here is what I have come to know as "spontaneous giving".
I have a friend who, after being a very successful business woman, was told by God to leave everything and simply be led by Him. She had all a person could want. Houses, boats, BMW..etc. But she had been very close to God all her life, her family being ministers also. She responded to the call and left all.
So, her life consists of REAL "spontaneous giving". For example, God told her that she needed to go to a certain town several hours away across country. She only had a few cents to her name and had no transportation. She said to God, "Ok, Lord. I don't have a husband so YOU are my husband and YOU have to provide for me if I am to go to where you just told me to go."
Just then, the phone rang and a man she knew (from a distant city) said, "Why can't I quit thinking about you? What is going on?" She told him what God had told her and he said, "Ok, I will be there as soon as I can and I will take you."
And she went to that town to work a mission.
That is what I call "spontaneous giving." Rather I call it speaking to God and hearing His voice. It is really about the relationship and sensitivity to His direction.
But I would not call the systematic giving that that friends do as "spontaneous". Not for the most part. they are just paying the preachers in the socially accepted way in the meetings.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 0:05:17 GMT -5
I believe that Edgar Massey pointed out that Willis Propp had oil shares that was making money. There is no telling how much of that stuff goes on in the work as the money is not accounted for. And also, WP seemed to get support and acceptance from all the other overseers who knew about his business.
Many overseers get large inheritances of the friends for their sole use. That is a business in and of itself and hardly "spontaneous giving."
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 0:29:17 GMT -5
Conventions are unnecessary and are just a tradition of man. Fields are a tradition. The format of the meetings are just a tradition. The manner of dress in meeting is just a tradition. Are conventions and the general format of the meetings useful? Have you ever heard of a book called 'Rethinking the Wineskin' by Frank Viola?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 0:35:56 GMT -5
I believe that Edgar Massey pointed out that Willis Propp had oil shares that was making money. How do we know this is reliable information? How did information about Willis Propp's personal financial state become known if he was hiding it? If he did have oil shares, is there anything wrong with that, assuming he acquired them honestly and legitimately? Sure, and even with "accounting", there's still no telling. It probably wouldn't help much if the temptations and the opportunities are there. Is it really for their sole use or is it intended to be used to help others in some way? What inspires people to give the overseers inheritances like that? Is there anything wrong with people choosing to give money to those that they love and appreciate?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 25, 2012 0:43:06 GMT -5
Conventions are unnecessary and are just a tradition of man. Fields are a tradition. The format of the meetings are just a tradition. The manner of dress in meeting is just a tradition. Are conventions and the general format of the meetings useful? Have you ever heard of a book called 'Rethinking the Wineskin' by Frank Viola? I never heard of the book. I actually like the format of the meetings. Convention is ok, but I am not as fond of it. I am sure that both are useful. So are a lot of other formats. The thing that makes the meeting format(or any) less useful is the attitude that it is the only way Jesus would do it, the only way he started doing in the beginning and the judgment placed on others who do differently. Other than that, I am cool with it. I can enjoy meeting and convention apart from the exclusive talk in both and the tendency for a worker or two to build up worker authority.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 25, 2012 0:46:32 GMT -5
I do not know of many instances of "spontaneous giving" in the meetings. There were typical ways that the friends gave money rather than taking up a collection. Handshake, envelope on the bed and money in a letter. You say you do not know of many instances of "spontaneous giving". So you do know of some. Can you provide an example to contrast with what you call non-spontaneous and systematic giving? Other than intentionally money-seeking letter writing, I don't see that those other patterns of giving are inherently non-spontaneous. Shaking hands when giving money? Shaking hands is just shaking hands. The majority of handshakes are not accompanied by giving money. Occasionally a handshake will be followed by the passing of some cash. How can you know the thoughts of the giver to say that the timing of the gift was not spontaneous? Likewise for the envelope on the bed; unless it's an envelope with cash on every visit, who can say what led an individual to give?
|
|