Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 16:04:15 GMT -5
Yes -- something like that could maybe be possible --- But it is rather tricky to define the legal status of this 'convention' that is to be held on the property, when it isn't registered anywhere and no one can know for sure who will be responsible for it!!! And the financial responsibilities need to be defined etc etc. Like I said, it is somewhat of both a legal and moral mine-field. That is what contracts are for. The access needed, the condition of the property before and after, the liability, etc. The biggest question is with whom the contract would be implemented. There is no legal entity, as you pointed out, to even present the contract. Can god sign contracts? Now we are talking dark conspiracy!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 26, 2014 17:43:29 GMT -5
From what I hear, some "Friends" are purchasing the Hogtkiss conventions grounds. Originally they were going to be shut down. I'm not sure of the details. Does anyone know any more on this? This appears to be a new trend that convention grounds aren't getting snapped up practically overnight like they would have 20 years ago and prior. The convention grounds in Western Canada that were for sale were widely known to be for sale long before anyone stepped up. Who can afford them? You have to be a millionaire now to buy a farm. I wrote a few years ago about how a convention change in California took place, and it so offended some professing folks that they exited the discussion group I was on. However, I saw the documents for the transaction and all the names of those who signed it. Some of them were workers, and one of the workers had the nerve to get up at the first convention on the new property and say that he did not know how it was that conventions got moved from one location to another. A flat out lie.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 26, 2014 18:02:21 GMT -5
With conventions it's becoming way more about the cost of owning than the cost of running the convention. Younger people simply don't have the money to take over a convention grounds. Around here they are lucky to own a house for 300K+ with 5K+ taxes and specials, and a couple 30K+ vehicles in the garage. With that and a few kids with upcoming college expenses they are at their financial limit. After paying for today's living expenses very few would have anything left for buying and maintaining a convention grounds. If they came clean about what exactly the "farm" is for, and stop playing forked tongue about ownership selection, they might just save a LOT of money on taxes. And it will continue until (1) they get over the worldwide quest to establish conventions on private property, or (2) revise their "doctrine" on annual conventions.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 26, 2014 18:12:20 GMT -5
Yes, I'm well aware of the Didsbury circumstances (not Smeaton) of close worker involvement. Brick is telling us that the involvement is not the same as, for instance, Didsbury. I have a choice of accepting what he has said or calling him a liar, and until he is proven otherwise, I will accept his word for it. I can cite another recent circumstance in which workers had very little involvement in the sale of the convention. It was the Independence convention in Kansas. I have information on the process of the sale but without going back and looking it up, I can say that the owners were largely left on their own with regard to the sale as they were preparing to retire to a warmer climate. Eventually a "friend" did emerge to buy it, but for awhile there it was looking like it was going to be sold and the convention shut down. I recall that the owners were quite surprised at how little involvement the workers had in it....it appeared if they were disinterested in the outcome one way or another. I was very surprised as well, knowing that in Western Canada an ownership change was more likely to feature workers actively seeking a new owner for which there would be multiple applicants. However, since then there has been some ownership changes in the West and I understand that it wasn't a fast process to find new owners......although I expect that workers were actively seeking new owners. I am not suggesting that Brick has not explained the situation as it is ... I just have noted from what he said, that the workers feel a need of getting into real estate concerns to make sure that they have the possibility of influencing the deals that are made regarding their convention system. There would be nothing wrong with this except for the hard necked resistence they claim to have against other churches involvement in property concerns. This places 2x2ism firmly in the realms of first degree hypocrisy as I understand it. Of course this is just one of the many examples of such moral compromise that saturates group doctrine. The enormous size and importance of the 2x2 convention system has forced the group into moral mine-fields at every turn. The normal method of dispersing of property is to take it to a real estate agent, and asking them to find a buyer. Normally when property is sold, the new owners have the right to decide how it is used. That is why ensuring the 'right people' take ownership is important for 2x2ism organizational concerns!!! And the "soft" influence the workers claim to exercise over ownership selection is not exactly as soft as it sounds. They are perfectly capable of manipulating the previous owners out of high 6-figure equity in the transaction, never apologize for the rip-off, and receive praise for everyone concerned -- except for the previous owners who happened to exhibit signs of not being able to afford comfortable accommodations following the deal.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 26, 2014 18:42:59 GMT -5
Hardly upfront about the fact that fact that 'the work' is anxious to keep control of the property for convention purposes -- To the work the convention grounds is 'their issue' and thus who the new owner is is irrelevant, as long as the convention can continue there.. This makes the continuation of the convention for 2x2 purposes the issue --- not the holder of the realestate papers. Clearday, both you and I know of quite similar circumstances at Didsbury, where a convention grounds changed hands because of 2x2 leadership contention with the owners -- and a 'the work' dug up a new professing 'owner' that would be more under their thumb than the previous one. As well, you probably won't remember it --- but I clearly remember when the Smeaton convention grounds changed hands 1966-67 -- arranged in the exact same way 'by 2x2 leadership' -- Or the convention grounds at Aylesbury --- the new owners didn't just turn up from a real estate agent. -- Hand picked by the workers - no previous interest in farming. It is quite hypocritical for 2x2ism to claim a distance from real estate concerns -- when they are the prime movers in the buying and selling of the property .. and do the major part of the investment in the facilities. The myth about using existing facilites (on a farm for instance) for a convention is directly dishonest these days. Convention ground are bought and developed primarily for 2x2 conventions -- any other activity is minor in comparison in importance --- even if the convention is just a few days a year. Yes, I'm well aware of the Didsbury circumstances (not Smeaton) of close worker involvement. Brick is telling us that the involvement is not the same as, for instance, Didsbury. I have a choice of accepting what he has said or calling him a liar, and until he is proven otherwise, I will accept his word for it. I can cite another recent circumstance in which workers had very little involvement in the sale of the convention. It was the Independence convention in Kansas. I have information on the process of the sale but without going back and looking it up, I can say that the owners were largely left on their own with regard to the sale as they were preparing to retire to a warmer climate. Eventually a "friend" did emerge to buy it, but for awhile there it was looking like it was going to be sold and the convention shut down. I recall that the owners were quite surprised at how little involvement the workers had in it....it appeared if they were disinterested in the outcome one way or another. I was very surprised as well, knowing that in Western Canada an ownership change was more likely to feature workers actively seeking a new owner for which there would be multiple applicants. However, since then there has been some ownership changes in the West and I understand that it wasn't a fast process to find new owners......although I expect that workers were actively seeking new owners. Independence Kansas may be a special case. With all the drama that site, the owners and workers faced in the 1990s with an 'heir presumptive' family (not kinfolk of the owners) that even went so far as to build a second host-home on the site, replete with sleeping quarters, and then the whole thing fell apart... it's no wonder the workers were a bit hands-off when the topic came up again!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 27, 2014 12:13:31 GMT -5
Or you could take it to the agent and have it put on the market with the conditions of using the convention grounds as part of the sale. If, in time, no one wants to buy the property under those terms, the conditions can be modified/removed. Not everything is a dark conspiracy. Yes -- something like that could maybe be possible --- But it is rather tricky to define the legal status of this 'convention' that is to be held on the property, when it isn't registered anywhere and no one can know for sure who will be responsible for it!!! And the financial responsibilities need to be defined etc etc. Like I said, it is somewhat of both a legal and moral mine-field. It is much easier to administer if the property owner will just simply accept the fact that it is really God in heaven that directs the workers, so everything will be fine as long as you do what they say!!! I've understood that the toughest part of owning a convention ground is that the workers want to make all of the decisions while the owners need to fund the decisions and worry about insurance matters. Could be a moral morass, but definitely a legal and financial morass.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 27, 2014 18:45:58 GMT -5
Wish I could afford to buy it. It could be fun to sneak in a guest speaker from time to time during convention.
Question: If you could insert a guest speaker into the Convention speaking list, who would you choose?
Our own TMB Walker would be near the top of my list.
Shoot - let's take a whole meeting!
Sunday A.M. - Christopher Sparks - Sharing the Riches - Walker - Miley Cyrus (that one's for Bert)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 18:52:07 GMT -5
Wish I could afford to buy it. It could be fun to sneak in a guest speaker from time to time during convention. Question: If you could insert a guest speaker into the Convention speaking list, who would you choose? Our own TMB Walker would be near the top of my list. Shoot - let's take a whole meeting! Sunday A.M. - Christopher Sparks - Sharing the Riches - Walker - Miley Cyrus (that one's for Bert) And we will all stand and sing Amazing Grace while men in kilts play the bagpipes! An honor-our-founder moment...maybe round up the 3 Irish Tenors to sing Blessed Assurance?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Feb 27, 2014 18:56:15 GMT -5
Wish I could afford to buy it. It could be fun to sneak in a guest speaker from time to time during convention. Question: If you could insert a guest speaker into the Convention speaking list, who would you choose? Our own TMB Walker would be near the top of my list. Shoot - let's take a whole meeting! Sunday A.M. - Christopher Sparks - Sharing the Riches - Walker - Miley Cyrus (that one's for Bert) Gene ~ You forgot to include yourself, or are you the "main speaker" opening the meeting?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 27, 2014 18:59:05 GMT -5
Wish I could afford to buy it. It could be fun to sneak in a guest speaker from time to time during convention. Question: If you could insert a guest speaker into the Convention speaking list, who would you choose? Our own TMB Walker would be near the top of my list. Shoot - let's take a whole meeting! Sunday A.M. - Christopher Sparks - Sharing the Riches - Walker - Miley Cyrus (that one's for Bert) Gene ~ You forgot to include yourself, or are you the "main speaker" opening the meeting? Oh my, no! These days, I only speak at convention in my nightmares!
|
|
|
Post by Christopher J. on Feb 27, 2014 19:12:03 GMT -5
Gene ~ You forgot to include yourself, or are you the "main speaker" opening the meeting? Oh my, no! These days, I only speak at convention in my nightmares! Gene would be one of my top picks. I'm remembering some of his excellent messages at conventions through the years -- one in particular at Edgewood about being a holy sacrifice, from Romans 12:1. Was that in 1985, Gene?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Feb 27, 2014 19:19:01 GMT -5
Gene would be one of my top picks. I'm remembering some of his excellent messages at conventions through the years -- one in particular at Edgewood about being a holy sacrifice, from Romans 12:1. Was that in 1985, Gene? Probably around then, but I don't remember the sermon! (But I do remember the convention )
|
|
|
Post by faune on Feb 27, 2014 19:48:21 GMT -5
Gene ~ You forgot to include yourself, or are you the "main speaker" opening the meeting? Oh my, no! These days, I only speak at convention in my nightmares! Gene ~ Do you still have nightmares relating to the work after all these years on the outside? However, I can relate to being awakened out of my sleep by dreams that put me back in a convention setting every once in a while, which are scary to me, too.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Feb 28, 2014 17:23:33 GMT -5
Gene ~ Do you still have nightmares relating to the work after all these years on the outside? However, I can relate to being awakened out of my sleep by dreams that put me back in a convention setting every once in a while, which are scary to me, too. I wanna see those sequined shoes and shorts Gene wants to wear at convention! The kilted men played bagpipes is a very close second.
|
|