|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 28, 2014 3:33:58 GMT -5
24. in a sense, according to one explanation or view; to a certain extent: "In a sense it may have been the only possible solution." They don't need to be open because that money according to your view or explanation is given to God. Still doesn't change what you wrote Virgo ... you are putting the workers on the same level as God. Why would God want anyone's money ? what a load of twaddle talk about twisting it to suit, i never said it was given to God like personally handing it to Him i mean how dumb would that be, but i wrote in a sense, do i need to make that bigger for you to see that Well Virgo, what does IN A SENSE mean to you ??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 3:42:57 GMT -5
i would ask, what is the point in the workers hording great sums of money? it is of no use to them to do such, anyway their life does not bare out such i understand that some has to be in bank accounts for travel and the likes Here, virgo, I totally agree with you. What is the point? Perhaps you could ask them. But I believe that is exactly what has happened. I surmise they started hoarding the excess to their requirements, and it got out of hand. It is simply being stashed away in trusts and bank accounts, while they continue to take more money from the friends and their estates. They're not quite sure what to do with it all. There's only so much you can spend on travel, mobile phones and laptops. I suspect that massive amounts have poured into convention ground upgrades and facilities. Sure, but then stopping all that self-righteousness posturing about not having church buildings. Yes, I understand some has to be in bank accounts for travel, etc. No problem with that at all! My problem is that they seem to go to great lengths to hide what they have, and keep it a great secret from the friends in general. It all seems to have gotten a long way away from their original intent, and their still stated claims, that they go out penniless and homeless, only taking lodging and food etc. as they have need. It is the hypocrisy of the whole situation that continues to hit me in the gut. And many of my extended family continues to fall for it. if you have no hard evidence then it just hearsay
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 28, 2014 3:44:13 GMT -5
Hi Review005, I apologise if my comments seemed harsh and ungracious. I agree some could have been worded far better. My frustration comes from several angles: - I have no idea in what vein you are responding, because you don't let on. Are you responding as a worker? On behalf of the workers? As one of the friends? As an ex having some fun? You do not give any context to your answers at all. While you may wish to remain anonymous, you have stepped forward to challenge the questions. Forgive me for misunderstanding you if you give no clue whatsoever to who you are or why you are answering. - You cite me several times as making "incorrect, unfactual statements". I'm not sure to which statements you are referring. You believe the workers are not on TMB (incorrect? I was rephrasing your statement to this effect). You are a worker pretending not to be (incorrect? You stepped forward to make statements about my questions, so it would be a fair assumption). If you ARE a worker, you certainly DID imply that you weren't, by saying that I surely couldn't expect a worker to see and answer anything on TMB. Every now and then I think "perhaps the culture really has changed. Perhaps they are more open and less secretive than they used to be. Perhaps they are willing to be more open and accountable." But then I ask questions. The answers? Sadly, always the same. "If you are outside the group, it is none of your business. If you are inside, we may answer, if we feel like it, but only if you are completely humble and submissive." Ross - Thanks for your responses and comments, which were far more gracious than mine. Greg - thank you for taking the time to answer the questions to the best of your ability, even though you are not able to officially answer on behalf of the workers (I presume). Review, very happy to continue to dialogue via PM if that makes you more comfortable.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 28, 2014 3:48:15 GMT -5
Here, virgo, I totally agree with you. What is the point? Perhaps you could ask them. But I believe that is exactly what has happened. I surmise they started hoarding the excess to their requirements, and it got out of hand. It is simply being stashed away in trusts and bank accounts, while they continue to take more money from the friends and their estates. They're not quite sure what to do with it all. There's only so much you can spend on travel, mobile phones and laptops. I suspect that massive amounts have poured into convention ground upgrades and facilities. Sure, but then stopping all that self-righteousness posturing about not having church buildings. Yes, I understand some has to be in bank accounts for travel, etc. No problem with that at all! My problem is that they seem to go to great lengths to hide what they have, and keep it a great secret from the friends in general. It all seems to have gotten a long way away from their original intent, and their still stated claims, that they go out penniless and homeless, only taking lodging and food etc. as they have need. It is the hypocrisy of the whole situation that continues to hit me in the gut. And many of my extended family continues to fall for it. if you have no hard evidence then it just hearsay Yes, which is why I am asking directly. Still no answers. One major question - the Dandenong convention grounds were sold (some years back now), and it has always been a matter of conjecture amongst the friends (not just exes), what happened to the money from this sale, which would have been considerable. More than hearsay, less than forensic evidence. Let's call it circumstantial evidence. Still silence from the bigwigs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 3:58:52 GMT -5
what a load of twaddle talk about twisting it to suit, i never said it was given to God like personally handing it to Him i mean how dumb would that be, but i wrote in a sense, do i need to make that bigger for you to see that Well Virgo, what does IN A SENSE mean to you ?? in a manner as if giving to through in a way; in one way of looking at it specific meaning; definition: in what sense are you using the word?. in the sense that Jesus had to use money so that The Fathers work be done, like with the Apostles like how would have Paul traveled to preach Gods word, in a sense of giving to God for His ministers to use
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 4:01:10 GMT -5
if you have no hard evidence then it just hearsay Yes, which is why I am asking directly. Still no answers. One major question - the Dandenong convention grounds were sold (some years back now), and it has always been a matter of conjecture amongst the friends (not just exes), what happened to the money from this sale, which would have been considerable. More than hearsay, less than forensic evidence. Let's call it circumstantial evidence. Still silence from the bigwigs. still barking up the wrong tree
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 6:17:36 GMT -5
in the sense that Jesus had to use money so that The Fathers work be done, like with the Apostles like how would have Paul traveled to preach Gods word, in a sense of giving to God for His ministers to use The ministry of Jesus and the Apostles bears little resemblance to the convention/special meetings system, with workers hosting conventions and travelling around the world to participate.
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Aug 28, 2014 6:38:45 GMT -5
This was Alan Richardson's thoughts about sharing information about money with the church: At Auckland Special Meetings June 2014, Alan Richardson responded to a question by expressing his astonishment that friends had asked for transparency (Can you imagine it?) and then gave a twisted response. The friends don't want to know how much any other person has given, but they do want to know if there are millions in the hands of the 'trusted elders' or if the workers are genuinely going out penniless (as they claim) and needing support.
After speaking about modesty, TV, and internet, Alan Richardson said:
Now just one more thing I want to mention and that’s a wee bit difficult too.
You know that as far as the servants of God are concerned, there are two things that we dare not change. One is the church in the home and only in the home and the second one is the preacher without a home. The church in the home and the preacher without a home.
Now, about two months ago I and some other senior workers received a joint email letter written by some of our friends, a group of friends and their names will remain unnamed. In it they made several requests. One of the requests they made was this: that the servants of God could be more open or transparent with regard to money matters. Can you imagine it? That the servants of God be more open or transparent with money matters.
Now, when I was a young worker, quite a number of years ago now, we were clearly taught by example and by word also, that there was one matter that should never be mentioned from the platform. No servant of God, no true servant of God, should ever mention from a platform like this the matter of money. But I am going to mention one or two little matters this afternoon and I think it will help you understand where we are coming from on this subject.
Now there are a couple of verses on this topic which are very important for us. One verse is Matthew 10:8. The context of it is that Jesus was sending out to preach his first 12 Apostles. These 12 Apostles, they were the first ones. He gave clear instruction. He said “freely you have received, freely give”. Now that is a very important statement.
I have heard people twist this around and for that reason one time I went to some of the more modern translations of the Bible just to see what they would say in this verse. It remains quite clear really and can’t be mistaken. I will tell you what it said. One version says “you received the gospel without paying, give the gospel without any cost” so I think that is quite clear really isn’t it. So consequently God’s servants freely labour. Collections will never be asked, appeals will never be made for money and really no servant of God should tell other people about his or her gifts to be in complete harmony with those words.
He said when you received the gospel you received it freely, you are going to give the gospel now, you make sure you give it freely too. Those are still very important words as far as the servants of God are concerned.
I mentioned about the church in the home. Now as you know lots of churches are in buildings. There is one problem with a church building: the moment it is built it just about needs an organisation to sustain it. It needs an organisation to raise funds. It needs some kind of organisation for the maintenance, a collection needs to be taken. If you have church buildings you make it much more likely that a collection is going to be made. Jesus said “freely you have received, freely give”.
Now the other verse is in Matthew 6:3. The context here is that Jesus was telling his disciples about some things that are better done secretly then being done openly. He spoke about the matter of alms or doing good deeds or making charitable gifts and then he went on to the matter of prayer, private prayers are of greater value when the person goes into a closet. He said you may not get your reward from some other person if they don’t see it but you will get your reward from the God in heaven who sees all things. That seems to be the emphasis there. Verse three says when thou doest alms, that’s good works or good gifts, let’s not thy left hand know what thy right hand doest. Now that’s a very important verse as far as servants of God are concerned. We as God servants, we are treated very well by you friends. Sometimes we have more and sometimes we have less. Whether it is more or whether it is less, we feel that is the way God has arranged it. We feel that is a God arranged thing and we don’t seek to change the position. When folks help us it is done not only individually but it is done privately. That’s what it means to not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.
That means when a servant of God is offered or receives a gift of some kind from one of God’s people, he acknowledges that it is something which has come from God. He accepts that gift in the spirit in which it is given, understanding that it has been arranged by God, that the person for no other reason has sought to help the Ministry and that it was the hand of God moving on their lives. If the servants of God knew of any other motive they would probably be somewhat reluctant to receive it. But they receive it gratefully in the spirit in which it is given that it is something which has been moved by the heart of God.
Now I think it said in that letter that the servants of God need to be more accountable. Well I’m going to talk about myself. I feel that I do need to be accountable. Firstly I need to be accountable to God, that is the most important thing. I need to be accountable to my fellow servants in this Ministry. I am answerable to them if they raise in the spirit of God a matter which could be a fault of mine.
My early companions, and particularly I remember Les Hill, he always used to stress upon us that the calibre of a person is often measured by the degree to which they take criticism. The calibre of a person is reflected in the way they take criticism. If you face criticism, you have to examine yourself first and see if what has been said could possibly be true. If it could be true and if it is fair, it needs to be dealt with, it needs to be corrected.
And then he said, if after self-examination the matter is not dealt with and not corrected, just forget it, don’t worry about it. So in any situation the calibre of a person is reflected in the way they react to criticism.
There are a couple of dangers which could arise from being more transparent in certain things. I myself humanly would not have a great problem with it and I suppose that is part of my human nature that possibly I like to talk about what I am doing. Maybe that is a human weakness of mine which is that I like other people to know the good things that I am doing. That is what I am like humanly. There could be a danger in that so it is not for me. If I did disclose certain things like that I could be betraying other people and could be betraying the God of heaven too. The other thing is that if some things became public, it would be difficult in the long term to not disclose who gave what. That is something which would be directly contrary to the matter of not letting your left hand know what your right hand does. People make great sacrifices for the kingdom’s sake. They make those sacrifices before the God of heaven. They don’t do it for any other motive than to please the God of heaven and it is not correct by any degree of imagination that they would want their good deeds publicly displayed in public forums. So I have probably said enough about that matter.
Just to indicate, these are some of the things that are important to us as God servants, the things we need to hold fast to, we dare not change them.I would like Mr Richardson to consider the following How does “ freely you have received freely give ” - translate into “we don’t need to give account of how we spend donations given for the furtherance of the gospel”? In light of the fact, one of Jesus original apostles was a thief and stole from the “bag” How can Mr Richardson make the claim today’s ‘trusted elders’ are above such temptation ? Mat 6:3 doing alms in secret, is about not “blowing your own trumpet” Paul ordered regular donations and wrote naming the churches those who had contributed and accounted for where it was going 1Co 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. 1Co 16:3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. 1Co 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me. Rom 15:25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. Rom 15:26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. Rom 15:28 When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain. I don’t know anyone who has asked where the money is coming from but I have heard a number of concerns regarding how it is spent and I know a few people who have reduced their donations or stopped giving completely because of concerns it is used to cover corruption within the system or is spent unwisely on buildings and travel for (some) workers who preach unsound doctrine When I read “Mr Richardson dares not make changes,” I would encourage him to look to the NT and reconsider his stand Regarding the - preacher without a home that he “ dare not change,” does he not understand Philip the evangelist was a preacher and had a home? Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Act 21:8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. Act 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. Act 21:10 And as we tarried there many days
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 28, 2014 7:45:42 GMT -5
Virgo
A number of yrs ago when it came to light about massive bank accounts belonging to the group. From memory and I could be wrong it seemed the accounts were opened because the workers didnt know how to handle/manage the growth of giving. They had a dilema.
I dont care what people give nor how much. Its the fact we were lied too about money. What is wrong with honesty. It should be paramount.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 28, 2014 9:29:45 GMT -5
what does in a sense mean to you 24. in a sense, according to one explanation or view; to a certain extent: "In a sense it may have been the only possible solution." They don't need to be open because that money according to your view or explanation is given to God. Still doesn't change what you wrote Virgo ... you are putting the workers on the same level as God. Why would God want anyone's money ? When I reread this thing of the money donations the workers receive is "in a sense it may have been given to God." or something of that kind. Reminded me of what Jesus told the person who thought to trip him up on money matters....When they asked Jesus the question, his answer was "Give me a coin." and when they did, he asked "Who's inscription is on this coin?" They replied, "Caesar's"! Jesus reply was this: "Render unto God the things that are God's and render the things that are Caesar's that are Caesar's." Otherwords, sure seems to me that Jesus was saying he didn't get into that road of confusion of who had to pay what...he didn;'t require tithing, he didn't even require a mite, but was impressed by those who gave their last mite.....and he said that due respect and memorial was to be given to them. However when it came down to the ity gritty...Jesus told the Pharisees that they had demanded tithes, donations, things that were to be given to the priests in the temple for the sacrifices such as herbs and ointments...but that Jesus found the Pharisees had left the needy things out and that was that God preferred mercy over sacrifice. Otherwords..sacrifices often come in accounting of financial things such as money, etc but mercy comes from the loving and forgiving heart....and Jesus said that God would have them go and learn what God meant when He had said He wanted mercy over sacrifice." Kind of gets my goat when people start saying financial issues are given to God...I don't think God has much use of them, now does He? Yes, His appointed helps need such things for their job, etc However God doesn't want that to be the impetus that keeps or gets the appoints helps....seeing a lot of money or openings for different gains of the flesh or earthly things does not appeal to God...so for us to say it is given to God...seems perhaps a bit like tempting God to say something backa bout it?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 28, 2014 9:38:23 GMT -5
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. - I think the friends and workers do not pretend the money does not exist. I think their focus is not on the money, at least not as much as some outsiders. Still, some inside might have the same concerns as some outside.
This is accurate - it is the same in most other churches - the focus is not on the money.
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.) ? - The statement was made that other churches are slandered because they accept money from their members. I made the statement that other churches are not slandered because they accept money from their members. This is the point - "the claim that other churches are slandered because they collect money from their members." Now, if you want to expand or add to that, then that brings up other points. The point I contended against was "other churches are slandered because they collect money from their members.
I made the point about other churches being slandered. There are a number of sermons - both past and present where this has occurred. "Ridiculed" is another word that could be used. Professing folk tell me that less of this is now being done but in recent conversations I have been told "your ministers are hirelings...."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. - Could be pride. Could be awe or wonderment. The comparison by the workers of themselves to other churches in regard to collections is the workers do not ask for money in their public meetings or in fellowship meetings. Some other churches pass a collection plate and make the need of more donations for certain missions, church building repairs, and what-have-you. That is the comparison, not that other churches accept their member's donations (money).Taking collections is Biblical. Agree that workers don't ask for money and other churches do. Also, it is true that more money is required by a regular church because of upkeep of buildings whereas a core group of people in the 2x2's tend to foot the bill.Other churches accept money from their members. The workers accept money from their members. - Correct.Agree but I think an important distinction is that ministers in other churches would not accept it personally.
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. - Yes, we on this board know. The friends and workers know. Other former members not on this board know. The workers accept donations. Other churches accept donations. So, where is the double standard? Is the accounting done with integrity or simply because of need? "This is what you gave us. This is how we spent it. This is what we need. You need to give more."
Accounting/auditing is simply for accountability/transparency. Some churches overdo the money bit but most deal with it very wisely.
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. - Sorry about the surmising. Just thoughts that came to mind.
I think I would have similarly surmised when I was in the 2x2 group as we are trained (incorrectly) to believe that other false churches are all about money. Nothing could be further from the truth.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???" - The workers might have millions of dollars banked and some cash kept on hand (even that all totaled could be a million or more). Plus estates that have been given. There might be other assets.
It is very hard to preach a message of "we go out totally in faith according to Matt 10 and have millions in trust funds. It doesn't ring true.I have yet to hear from those who really hold the purse strings: - Are you really expecting to hear from them?
We won't hear from them for good reason. But let's be clear - they don't hold the purse strings - the Head Worker does.- Is it really true that you "take no collections?" - I think the answer is along the line of "we collect from our members, but not in the gospel meetings or in the fellowship meetings.
Agree - it's a moot point isn't it? When a worker says we take no collections it almost infers they take no gifts of money which of course they do by necessity.
- Is it really true that you go forth "in faith, without scrip or purse?" - I do not know if the claim without scrip or purse is made.
Matthew 10 is regularly held up as the model of the ministry. I think that is pretty clear in my experience anyway.
- Is it really true that you are different from the "false preachers of the world" in this respect? - The difference is clear. In general other churches ask for donations in their church services with collection plates and information in church bulletins. The workers do not. Some church ministers have houses given to them or are paid to be able to have one. The workers do not.
It is a different model. It has some advantages and disadvantages. In the worker's case the model is a core part of their gospel message.These are claims of the workers. Maybe it is time for them to withdraw these claims. - I do not know if they are made.Notes (including recent ones) of sermons would indicate that these claims are made.
They said "It's none of your business now". - They? Maybe one or two or maybe three or four told you that? It is really "none of our business" once we have left but because we often have family in the group we are often told why their (your) ministry is right and the ministry at our churches is false - it often comes back to money. Lots of things aren't our business once we have left a group but most groups (whether secular or Christian) want their former members to return. I have been implored by family to return to the 2x2's regularly. So if workers/friends are wanting ex members to return why would they say "it's none of your business..." in response to questions we might ask. It's not a great marketing technique!
I said "Yes, it is, I'm one of the people you lied to." - Hard to know who lied. The lie by omission likely done by some or many of the first workers. But now you know. I do not know how many know among the friends and workers.In some cases it's complete ignorance, in other cases it's lying. Either approach is not very positive!
Greg, appreciate your answers on these things and applaud your openness. Ross and Greg...I think the workers need to start checking out some of the more recent churches or religious gatherings. For the simple reason they can NO longer say that they are the ONLY ONES who do not taken collection at a church meeting. Calvary Chapel does not ever take a collection...they have a wooden bos at the back of their building or hallway into the meeting room for voluntary donations....they have asked for special donations to help finance some overseas' efforts by Calvary Chapel. Most of the pastors DO NOT receive wages for their time and trouble and most of the pastors have afull time job locally to their church...... I know of other religious efforts to go out in faith...I know a young couple with several children, both of the adults quit their day job, sold their home and went on the road with their children in a mobile home....they park in parking lots(with owner's permission) and have a short revivial type of mtg. OR if there are more people wanting bible study that's what they have....these people accept monies to help them, but they do not "collect" them in a blessed pan during the meeting time....most monies are left in a particular place that IS labeled what it is.....there is nothing hidden......IF the couple get a bit short on money, they will stop in a town and do day labor for a few weeks and then hit the road again. And yes, they are home schooling their children!
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Aug 28, 2014 17:14:47 GMT -5
if you have no hard evidence then it just hearsay Yes, which is why I am asking directly. Still no answers. One major question - the Dandenong convention grounds were sold (some years back now), and it has always been a matter of conjecture amongst the friends (not just exes), what happened to the money from this sale, which would have been considerable. More than hearsay, less than forensic evidence. Let's call it circumstantial evidence. Still silence from the bigwigs. Erm...... I hear there's been a couple of court cases in the same state that probably needed a good amount of funding
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Aug 28, 2014 18:15:57 GMT -5
i would ask, what is the point in the workers hording great sums of money? it is of no use to them to do such, anyway their life does not bare out such i understand that some has to be in bank accounts for travel and the likes Could be the teaching to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness. Not sure what that means, but I took it to mean either people with money or the money itself. The workers should be smart with the money and invest or save as best is possible.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 18:28:22 GMT -5
i would ask, what is the point in the workers hording great sums of money? it is of no use to them to do such, anyway their life does not bare out such i understand that some has to be in bank accounts for travel and the likes Could be the teaching to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness. Not sure what that means, but I took it to mean either people with money or the money itself. The workers should be smart with the money and invest or save as best is possible. Workers should be smart investors of church? I can't imagine that Jesus was an investor of church funds.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Aug 28, 2014 18:48:00 GMT -5
Hi Review005, I apologise if my comments seemed harsh and ungracious. I agree some could have been worded far better. "if my comments seemed......" ?? If it was me the wording would have been "I apologise for my harsh ungracious comments"I apologise for my harsh ungracious comments. Are you willing to forgive me?I wonder if understand that you come across as demanding and combative from the opening post you made?...."Open Challenge to All Overseers....."I'm sorry it seems demanding and combative. I do not see "challenge" as needing to be negative. Often it is needful, useful and positive. I am willing to be challenged as to my beliefs and actions, and need to acknowledge when I have made mistakes. I take on board your challenge that I have been harsh and ungracious. I have. For that, and offending you, I am genuinely sorry. An ex member (who carries no baggage/does not hold ill will against the fellowship) commented on this thread about your opening post "most of the questions are just statements with "Why do" pasted at the front, and a question mark at the end. IOW, they are rhetorical questions. I doubt you are really interested in "why", and already know the answer to your questions." I don't know the answers to most of these questions. Do you? I doubt anybody does - ex-members or current members. This was the purpose of my questions. Can the questions be adequately answered by anyone? The only response I appear to getting is "we are not accountable to anyone - even our own members". I am glad if this causes anyone to think how all of us are accountable for money we collect for any cause, but especially purporting to be for the work of God.
I still hold that the workers are unwilling for any form of accountability, and afraid to let their members know the truth in regard to money they collect and hold. My frustration comes from several angles: - I have no idea in what vein you are responding, because you don't let on. Are you responding as a worker? On behalf of the workers? As one of the friends? As an ex having some fun? You do not give any context to your answers at all. While you may wish to remain anonymous, you have stepped forward to challenge the questions. Forgive me for misunderstanding you if you give no clue whatsoever to who you are or why you are answering. Refer to my previous comment about the suitability of this forum for you. .I know I make myself more vulnerable by using my own identity. It comes from a long history of workers not being willing to identify themselves, and being deceitful. One day you'll find out more about this. I promised myself I would never be like that. And so here I am, I will never use a pseudonym. It continues to be my statement of being willing to stand behind whatever I say, and taking the consequences. - You cite me several times as making "incorrect, unfactual statements". I'm not sure to which statements you are referring. I made note with reference at the incorrect and unsubstantiated statements you made.
Please correct the statements for me. You have said mine are incorrect, but provide no correction. Therefore I am still at a loss to know how I am incorrect.
You believe the workers are not on TMB (incorrect? I was rephrasing your statement to this effect).You are a worker pretending not to be (incorrect? You stepped forward to make statements about my questions, so it would be a fair assumption). If you ARE a worker, you certainly DID imply that you weren't, by saying that I surely couldn't expect a worker to see and answer anything on TMB.
I have reread and stand by the accuracy of the statement I made.
Every now and then I think "perhaps the culture really has changed. Perhaps they are more open and less secretive than they used to be. Perhaps they are willing to be more open and accountable."
Your experience in different to mine. I'm glad they are being so open and accountable to you. Are they accountable to you? Or are you only accountable to them?
Review, very happy to continue to dialogue via PM if that makes you more comfortable.
If you wish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 20:11:56 GMT -5
"... Any ex-workers care to comment?
SNORT! Workers who leave the work disabled are on their own if the overseer thinks their family has enough money to do provide for their care, while family rightly believe it should be the responsibility of the work: in my case even blaming me for leaving that deceiving deceptive work, leaving me to feel alone, forsaken and scared, not knowing how to cope, with the physical and emotional consequences of being uninsurable the most of my remaining life. Had I not been drafted into the US Army having the VA to fall back on, and later diagnosed with Agent Orange syndrone, life would be much worse than it is today, although arthritis in that old 4 bone lower back fracture while in that work causes the most pain today.
Recently tried to get some help from Mark Huddle, but he would not even respond to nor acknowledge my letters. Yep, that is his and their brand of Christianity. As expressed here before: beware, workers. You have been warned.
True, this may not not have been the case for all, but it surely has for enough of us that we warn workers now not to just blindly trust. I made an effort decades ago to form a group insurance program for them all, and administrate it without charge, but might just as well have been slapped in the face by some very unchristian overseers, who controlled the funds and had plenty for their own needs. I suspect it remains much the same today.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Aug 28, 2014 21:29:26 GMT -5
My understanding, based on what I've been told by at least one worker, is that at convention time all the workers hand over the money they have to the overseer, and then the money is equally divided (perhaps with a part of it going into a fund for travel, conventions and such) and distributed among the workers. Perhaps this was the context in which the money was collected, unless it was really only taken from the younger workers...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2014 21:42:04 GMT -5
My understanding, based on what I've been told by at least one worker, is that at convention time all the workers hand over the money they have to the overseer, and then the money is equally divided (perhaps with a part of it going into a fund for travel, conventions and such) and distributed among the workers. Perhaps this was the context in which the money was collected, unless it was really only taken from the younger workers... It seems that questions are being asked about the larger sums e.g. legacies. If an estate is left for workers health care, who is accountable to ensure its not spent on air fares?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 28, 2014 23:34:04 GMT -5
My understanding, based on what I've been told by at least one worker, is that at convention time all the workers hand over the money they have to the overseer, and then the money is equally divided (perhaps with a part of it going into a fund for travel, conventions and such) and distributed among the workers. Perhaps this was the context in which the money was collected, unless it was really only taken from the younger workers... It seems that questions are being asked about the larger sums e.g. legacies. If an estate is left for workers health care, who is accountable to ensure its not spent on air fares? If there is a legal document stating the wishes of the deceased, then the one accountable is the trustee of the fund. Any monies spent should have corresponding documents to show the expenditures from the fund. If I remember right, I have heard of trustees that have gotten into legal difficulties for mismanaging or falsely reporting the funds under their custodianship.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 28, 2014 23:39:16 GMT -5
My understanding, based on what I've been told by at least one worker, is that at convention time all the workers hand over the money they have to the overseer, and then the money is equally divided (perhaps with a part of it going into a fund for travel, conventions and such) and distributed among the workers. Perhaps this was the context in which the money was collected, unless it was really only taken from the younger workers... I have heard that all the money is collected, and then a minimum amount given back to start the next year with. Their church, their rules. That's fine with me. The money issue has been discussed here fairly often. It takes a lot of money to run the conventions and pay for all the travel that the workers do carrying the gospel message to the already converted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 0:59:09 GMT -5
if you have no hard evidence then it just hearsay Yes, which is why I am asking directly. Still no answers. One major question - the Dandenong convention grounds were sold (some years back now), and it has always been a matter of conjecture amongst the friends (not just exes), what happened to the money from this sale, which would have been considerable. More than hearsay, less than forensic evidence. Let's call it circumstantial evidence. Still silence from the bigwigs. who sold the grounds? who recieved the payment for the grounds? Conjecture, an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference
in other words the absence of truth
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 1:03:10 GMT -5
in the sense that Jesus had to use money so that The Fathers work be done, like with the Apostles like how would have Paul traveled to preach Gods word, in a sense of giving to God for His ministers to use The ministry of Jesus and the Apostles bears little resemblance to the convention/special meetings system, with workers hosting conventions and travelling around the world to participate. i wonder if Paul's ministry was then in the same vain as you see the ministry today? you know travelling and all
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 1:07:19 GMT -5
Virgo A number of yrs ago when it came to light about massive bank accounts belonging to the group. From memory and I could be wrong it seemed the accounts were opened because the workers didnt know how to handle/manage the growth of giving. They had a dilema. I dont care what people give nor how much. Its the fact we were lied too about money. What is wrong with honesty. It should be paramount. where is the evidence? it is all very well making conjecture of such you ask for truth but don't post truth in actual evidence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 1:23:29 GMT -5
24. in a sense, according to one explanation or view; to a certain extent: "In a sense it may have been the only possible solution." They don't need to be open because that money according to your view or explanation is given to God. Still doesn't change what you wrote Virgo ... you are putting the workers on the same level as God. Why would God want anyone's money ? When I reread this thing of the money donations the workers receive is "in a sense it may have been given to God." or something of that kind. Reminded me of what Jesus told the person who thought to trip him up on money matters....When they asked Jesus the question, his answer was "Give me a coin." and when they did, he asked "Who's inscription is on this coin?" They replied, "Caesar's"! Jesus reply was this: "Render unto God the things that are God's and render the things that are Caesar's that are Caesar's." Otherwords, sure seems to me that Jesus was saying he didn't get into that road of confusion of who had to pay what...he didn;'t require tithing, he didn't even require a mite, but was impressed by those who gave their last mite.....and he said that due respect and memorial was to be given to them. However when it came down to the ity gritty...Jesus told the Pharisees that they had demanded tithes, donations, things that were to be given to the priests in the temple for the sacrifices such as herbs and ointments...but that Jesus found the Pharisees had left the needy things out and that was that God preferred mercy over sacrifice. Otherwords..sacrifices often come in accounting of financial things such as money, etc but mercy comes from the loving and forgiving heart....and Jesus said that God would have them go and learn what God meant when He had said He wanted mercy over sacrifice." Kind of gets my goat when people start saying financial issues are given to God...I don't think God has much use of them, now does He? Yes, His appointed helps need such things for their job, etc However God doesn't want that to be the impetus that keeps or gets the appoints helps....seeing a lot of money or openings for different gains of the flesh or earthly things does not appeal to God...so for us to say it is given to God...seems perhaps a bit like tempting God to say something backa bout it? Gosh i would wonder why then that Judas had the money bag, i wonder if it was to buy bread with?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 1:29:57 GMT -5
My understanding, based on what I've been told by at least one worker, is that at convention time all the workers hand over the money they have to the overseer, and then the money is equally divided (perhaps with a part of it going into a fund for travel, conventions and such) and distributed among the workers. Perhaps this was the context in which the money was collected, unless it was really only taken from the younger workers... I have heard that all the money is collected, and then a minimum amount given back to start the next year with. Their church, their rules. That's fine with me. The money issue has been discussed here fairly often. It takes a lot of money to run the conventions and pay for all the travel that the workers do carrying the gospel message to the already converted. i know that extra monies left which are surpluss to requirment have been given to the red cross
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 29, 2014 2:18:31 GMT -5
Spot on Ross ! Maybe the question should be asked of DL where the money came from for EB's trial ? I wonder how some of the people that have given money for the "Work of God " would feel if it was spent on getting workers off CSA charges ?
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Aug 29, 2014 4:04:46 GMT -5
I have heard that all the money is collected, and then a minimum amount given back to start the next year with. Their church, their rules. That's fine with me. The money issue has been discussed here fairly often. It takes a lot of money to run the conventions and pay for all the travel that the workers do carrying the gospel message to the already converted. i know that extra monies left which are surpluss to requirment have been given to the red crossVirgo your earlier quote: " where is the evidence? it is all very well making conjecture of such you ask for truth but don't post truth in actual evidence" So now where is your evidence or is it conjecture?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 4:15:30 GMT -5
i know that extra monies left which are surpluss to requirment have been given to the red cross Virgo your earlier quote: " where is the evidence? it is all very well making conjecture of such you ask for truth but don't post truth in actual evidence" So now where is your evidence or is it conjecture? what i posted is fact why the need for evidence?
|
|