|
Post by mdm on Jun 25, 2017 6:03:57 GMT -5
Review is right. Workers are not accustomed to being questioned by less senior workers than themselves or by professing people, let alone by outsiders. There is simply no transparency and no accountability. A professing person would not dare question a worker about history, financies or their handling of CSA. Of course, workers may disclose things to those they trust, but these things are not freely talked about. And if something immoral or criminal has happened, the traditional doctrine and practice is to hide it. I have heard both US and UK workers state this. Yes 'Review is right' but not with the slant that Maja puts on it! ....... when someone writes: "and has been instrumental in me developing an intention to make investigating 2x2 finances my main focus in life for the foreseeable future. The truth about William Irvine is out there, and I think it will likely not be long before the 2x2s also have to face up to the existence of a surprisingly high level of child abuse, and the existence of very large 2x2 bank accounts."
Then YES friends and workers ( not just workers) are going wonder 'what planet does this guy come from'?. You have talked about your experience Maja.... 'workers not accustomed.....' Maja that is your experience and opinion; I accept that. But don't make the error of assuming or thinking it is mine also! My experience and opinion is different to yours! Edgar Massey was excommunicated for asking questions. He dared do the unthinkable. professing.proboards.com/thread/25593/eldon-knudsen-notes
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 25, 2017 7:08:21 GMT -5
I don't think they've changed, Littlepaddy. In fact, this sounds rather familiar. I wish I could pin down something solid, because if people are able to be persuaded to move to a smaller home and give more money to workers, and they have full mental capacity, that's their own "free" decision in legal terms. But I'm moderately certain that things are going on that are downright illegal. If they are, they need stopping. If not, then fine, people are doing things of their own volition in the eyes of the law. They might just really like workers a lot, and that's up to them. You'll likely notice that there was a somewhat wealthy elder (owned a lot of land or property) hovering around in the background in these cases, I'm guessing. I doubt things will change. Who will walk away from a situation, as specified in the bible, where 10% of the revenue of members is delivered to the leaders? It is an open invitation for fraud and abuse. After all, some paranormal being is on their side and they need funds to survive... Consider the mega-churches, the smaller religions like scientology and even the LDS. When you represent a god and people really believe that to be true you have a great deal of power over the believers.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 25, 2017 7:27:27 GMT -5
It's really the darkness that is the problem. If "professing" people actually weren't at all afraid to ask questions, and asked them, and we had the finances and stance on preventing child abuse in the church all out in the open, along with the church's history from a secular viewpoint (so that people can decide for themselves, without pressure, whether to believe the church started with Jesus or started in 1897), there would be very little to discuss.
If the 2x2 church cannot withstand light being cast upon it, and cannot answer questions openly and honestly, that shows a very different spirit to what we find with Jesus and his disciples in the Bible. It suggests that there are many dark secrets that could not withstand exposure. Many of us here are aware of some of those dark secrets that have come to light, but still people in the meetings are told to avoid looking at Internet sites like this one.
Does the Church of England have to go round telling people not to look it up on the Internet? No, because its members are generally comfortable with problems being aired, so that they can be dealt with. Even the Catholic Church does not these days, as far as I'm aware, discourage people from looking it up on the Internet. They have accepted, largely, that problems needed to be out in the open so that they can be corrected. They've accepted that they cannot be a law unto themselves, but that the laws of wider society must be embraced, and the spirit of openness and clarity that wider society has largely embraced in organisational contexts.
Did Jesus tell people to avoid anyone who might be critical? I don't think he did.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 25, 2017 15:42:06 GMT -5
John fields "It's the darkness that is the real problem", You see multiple scandals and problems, fraud, child abuse etc with this group, to expose them "is my main focus in life for the foreseeable future." Please do exactly that, live and breathe it for the next six months, 12 months, five years however long it takes to expose it. Please publish your findings with the irrefutable documented evidence in a major UK newspapers. Sarcasm again, review005
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 25, 2017 15:43:22 GMT -5
John fields "It's the darkness that is the real problem", You see multiple scandals and problems, fraud, child abuse etc with this group, to expose them "is my main focus in life for the foreseeable future." Please do exactly that, live and breathe it for the next six months, 12 months, five years however long it takes to expose it. Please publish your findings with the irrefutable documented evidence in a major UK newspapers. Quite a few scandals have already been published. The main one I seem to have unearthed at the moment is not newsworthy, and if the poor guy does turn out to be guilty and gets prosecuted, I'll probably not add to that further by telling newspapers about it. His mental health is not good. I don't think I'll be able to get anywhere with uncovering child abuse, so I'm not trying, at the moment. Victims have to go to the police and testify, at the end of the day. That's happened already a number of times, and various people have told me this or that worker abused them when they were a child, but they did not want to testify. In many cases, the worker is dead. In some cases, they can't remember who he was. In others, they just don't feel like getting into it. But you have to have your head stuck firmly in the sand to think it's not going on. How many children did the police know of in the Tanner case who did not want to testify? Children in the 2x2s do not feel they will be believed if they accuse a worker of anything. If they do say anything, the overseers have sometimes just moved them to different locations and the parents let it drop at that. I do have at least one good strategy that I'm exploring for finding cases of elders getting up to no good financially. If that bears fruit, I'll be sure to let you know. That there has been widespread child abuse by a minority of workers seems certain. That most of it has not resulted in prosecutions also seems certain. Whether financial abuse has been widespread, or not, I'm still trying to determine.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 25, 2017 15:48:04 GMT -5
What your personal experience is regarding this matter I don't know; but anyway it leads to you make the statement: "Edgar Massey was excommunicated for asking questions. He dared do the unthinkable." I accept that is what you believe and think. But don't expect me to influenced by it. My experience is different. I'm not going to open up a 'hornet's nest' on a public forum...but I'm not concerned or alarmed by the claims you make. There is most always more than 'meets the eye' or than which you read on the internet to situations and allegations....and I KNOW that to be the case in this instance. Then review005, YOU publish whatever it is that is "more than 'meets the eye' "
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 25, 2017 18:07:45 GMT -5
Quite a few scandals have already been published. The main one I seem to have unearthed at the moment is not newsworthy, and if the poor guy does turn out to be guilty and gets prosecuted, I'll probably not add to that further by telling newspapers about it. His mental health is not good. I don't think I'll be able to get anywhere with uncovering child abuse, so I'm not trying, at the moment. Victims have to go to the police and testify, at the end of the day. That's happened already a number of times, and various people have told me this or that worker abused them when they were a child, but they did not want to testify. In many cases, the worker is dead. In some cases, they can't remember who he was. In others, they just don't feel like getting into it. But you have to have your head stuck firmly in the sand to think it's not going on. How many children did the police know of in the Tanner case who did not want to testify? Children in the 2x2s do not feel they will be believed if they accuse a worker of anything. If they do say anything, the overseers have sometimes just moved them to different locations and the parents let it drop at that. I do have at least one good strategy that I'm exploring for finding cases of elders getting up to no good financially. If that bears fruit, I'll be sure to let you know. That there has been widespread child abuse by a minority of workers seems certain. That most of it has not resulted in prosecutions also seems certain. Whether financial abuse has been widespread, or not, I'm still trying to determine. John fields Look forward to the published results of the main focus of your life for the foreseeable future. I want any wrong dealt with and appreciate your efforts in exposing it. I don't know if I detect a degree of sarcasm there or not! The flaw in this is that my powers to detect corruption are limited. But I'm on the job, and will do what I can. I'm pretty sure at the least I can compile some interesting statistics.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 25, 2017 18:56:39 GMT -5
I thought the same - unusual to open a joint account. It seems really unusual that an elder/bishop would act as a POA for an unrelated professing person but someone in the U.K. told me recently that it is quite common there. It certainly hasn't been common down under. It's quite common here, from what I can gather. Historically women were somewhat kept away from men, and that led to lots of spinsters. There are more women than men in the 2x2s anyway. So elders were encouraged to step in and take care of them, and seem to do the same with widows. But then the opaque nature of 2x2 finances and the apparent fact that wealthy elders who can funnel money to the 2x2s enjoy higher status as a result, leads to a bit of a conflict of interests. Convention grounds here in the past apparently used to even have separate sections for men and women, or so I'm told by one person about one convention. Added to that is the distrust 2x2s often have here for non-2x2s. People can get isolated from relatives and left dependent on the honesty, or lack of, of an elder. Yes, convention grounds in the past had separate sections for men and women in the United States; - both in the meeting tent and dinning tent.
I am 85, born in 1932 and I remember it well.
WHY? Who knows. My guess is because that "sexual behavior" being such a important part of doctrine not only in the 2x2's but the public in general, is that they didn't want any more encounters between the two genders than absolutely necessary . They also didn't want to see a lot of marriages happening. They wanted young people to go into the work!
And God forbid (pun intended) that they should go into the work and then leave to get married. I know this also from my father's experience and my mother's experience for having "lured" my father out of the work!
Never mind that he had been out of the work for quite awhile.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 25, 2017 19:30:35 GMT -5
John fields Look forward to the published results of the main focus of your life for the foreseeable future. I want any wrong dealt with and appreciate your efforts in exposing it. I don't know if I detect a degree of sarcasm there or not! The flaw in this is that my powers to detect corruption are limited. But I'm on the job, and will do what I can. I'm pretty sure at the least I can compile some interesting statistics. I believe that you could produce reams of evidence and it could be in the main newspapers and it would still be denied as being true by the more devout church goers. They will justify it in their own minds somehow because they have to in order to still exist in the organization. That's how I see many of them, though not all.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 26, 2017 4:03:19 GMT -5
I believe that you could produce reams of evidence and it could be in the main newspapers and it would still be denied as being true by the more devout church goers. They will justify it in their own minds somehow because they have to in order to still exist in the organization. That's how I see many of them, though not all. John fields Please don't be put off or discouraged by this last post. I and many others others also will be very grateful if you are able to expose all the wrong, fraud, theft and misuse of funds, abuse etc that you feel exists. I think snow has a bit of a point there. I've seen myself how an elder whose actions are suspicious (but may have just been due to not bothering to follow rules or think things through properly, combined with distrusting non-professing people -- arrogance in short) can convince people he's 100% honest without, as far as I know, actually explaining his actions to anyone. Then his closeness to the UK overseer caused me to check what another elder had done with a will (wondering if elders have a general tendency to be dodgy in the UK), and his account there conflicts with that of other relatives. So I'm trying to get to the bottom of that. Then I have a bunch of stories from other people. So after that obviously I'm wondering if elders in general in the British Isles have a tendency towards at least bizarreness if not fraud with regard to wills and powers of attorney, and extracting money from elderly people who can ill-afford to give it. But it may be that I have encountered an unusually odd selection of them. I feel it's worth checking, since anyway I teach computer programming for a living, have to keep my skills up to date, and this is a good project for learning some new technologies for acquiring and cross-referencing sets of data. Obviously I can't prove a negative (that there is no financial fraud), but if there's anything wrong that I can uncover from information given to me combined with public data sources, I can bring that to light. If not, I'm perfectly happy with people who go to the meetings thinking I have one weird hobby, and I hope they'll welcome my expected lack of progress as at least some sort of very weak evidence that nothing is fundamentally wrong on this front. Unfortunately it's clear from what I've done so far that when I start making enquiries of people, people get hurt. Elders don't want to explain anything (going on what's happened so far), people who go to the meetings think I'm stirring up trouble needlessly, and non-professing relatives naturally become incensed at the way their professing relatives have been treated. So it's a balancing act between acting on suspicious behaviour and not wanting to spread gossip needlessly about particular individuals where there's only circumstantial evidence. I'd much prefer it if the 2x2s in the British Isles just disclosed their accounts, how much they get from wills, how much from donations, how much money they hold in reserve, how they invest their money, etc. Other churches generally do this sort of thing, and it saves a lot of needless speculation. Another good thing would be if 2x2s would stop thinking that non-2x2s are not to be trusted, as they often seem to think. Many seem to feel there's themselves, the only true group of Christians, and there's the "world", who are an untrustworthy bunch who spend their time getting up to no good. This is a very unhelpful attitude, and is a big part of what has led to so much child abuse going on with in the church unchecked, I think. In reality, secrecy breeds problems, and there appear to be at least as many problems within the church, where there's a lack of questioning and a lot of secrecy, as in the "world".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 6:46:14 GMT -5
I think snow has a bit of a point there. I've seen myself how an elder whose actions are suspicious (but may have just been due to not bothering to follow rules or think things through properly, combined with distrusting non-professing people -- arrogance in short) can convince people he's 100% honest without, as far as I know, actually explaining his actions to anyone. Then his closeness to the UK overseer caused me to check what another elder had done with a will (wondering if elders have a general tendency to be dodgy in the UK), and his account there conflicts with that of other relatives. So I'm trying to get to the bottom of that. Then I have a bunch of stories from other people. So after that obviously I'm wondering if elders in general in the British Isles have a tendency towards at least bizarreness if not fraud with regard to wills and powers of attorney, and extracting money from elderly people who can ill-afford to give it. But it may be that I have encountered an unusually odd selection of them. I feel it's worth checking, since anyway I teach computer programming for a living, have to keep my skills up to date, and this is a good project for learning some new technologies for acquiring and cross-referencing sets of data. Obviously I can't prove a negative (that there is no financial fraud), but if there's anything wrong that I can uncover from information given to me combined with public data sources, I can bring that to light. If not, I'm perfectly happy with people who go to the meetings thinking I have one weird hobby, and I hope they'll welcome my expected lack of progress as at least some sort of very weak evidence that nothing is fundamentally wrong on this front. Unfortunately it's clear from what I've done so far that when I start making enquiries of people, people get hurt. Elders don't want to explain anything (going on what's happened so far), people who go to the meetings think I'm stirring up trouble needlessly, and non-professing relatives naturally become incensed at the way their professing relatives have been treated. So it's a balancing act between acting on suspicious behaviour and not wanting to spread gossip needlessly about particular individuals where there's only circumstantial evidence. I'd much prefer it if the 2x2s in the British Isles just disclosed their accounts, how much they get from wills, how much from donations, how much money they hold in reserve, how they invest their money, etc. Other churches generally do this sort of thing, and it saves a lot of needless speculation. Another good thing would be if 2x2s would stop thinking that non-2x2s are not to be trusted, as they often seem to think. Many seem to feel there's themselves, the only true group of Christians, and there's the "world", who are an untrustworthy bunch who spend their time getting up to no good. This is a very unhelpful attitude, and is a big part of what has led to so much child abuse going on with in the church unchecked, I think. In reality, secrecy breeds problems, and there appear to be at least as many problems within the church, where there's a lack of questioning and a lot of secrecy, as in the "world". You please stick to it and bring to light and expose all the, at present, hidden cases of abuse, fraud, misappropriation of funds there in the UK. If it's there we want it rooted out. Now here is a bold , open and, I believe, sincere challenge, take it and run with it, if you are so concerned about wrong doing in the fellowship. Lift the lid once and for all times, purge the system of wrong doing and live happily ever after. God's church or churches should not be treated/regarded as Secret orders. Anything done in the darkness will come out in the light sooner or later. Nothing can be hidden from Almighty God even if it can be hidden from mankind. God is forever watching our every move.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 26, 2017 8:46:40 GMT -5
From Preserving the Truth Chapter 22 THE SEPARATION OF SEXES at Crocknacrieve Convention began in 1909, and was a new practice. Men and women were separated and sat on opposite sides of the assembly for Meetings and meals. This even included newly married couples and couples with small children. Reporters made the following observations: “In former years, the people sat anywhere in the spacious tent without distinction of sex, but on Sunday, the women sat on the right and the men on the left” (IR, Aug. 12, 1909, p. 3). The following year the reporter remarked: "But all the precautions in the world will not keep the ‘brothers’ apart from the ‘sisters,’ as they mark different places. Mr. Irvine seems to think that it is the women who tempt the men. Some of the women kind would think otherwise. Co-mingling is perfectly scriptural, and naturally right, and separation is morally wrong. Anyhow, virtue reigns, and there is not the slightest, not the faintest imputation against the purity of the Convention, but all the rules that ever were made will not prevent men and women from the natural impulses of healthy life, according to the Christian ideal of mating, according to God’s ordinance, and it is right and fitting that they should come together" (IR, Aug. 4, 1910). "This is Crocknacrieve, the present meeting place of the Pilgrims or Tramp Preachers. A man stands at a cross way and directs the males one side and females the other, and thus do the folk proceed till the tent is reached...Some one thousand people are present, the sexes sitting at different sides; and upon a raised platform with a high background of boards sit four or five men" (IR, July 28, 1910). The practice of separating the sexes at Convention was also carried to South Africa, as well as to America in George Walker's territory (Eastern U.S.) in the dining area until the l980s, but was not used in Jack Carroll's territory (Western U.S.).
It was still the practice at the Mississippi and Alabama conventions until the mid 1980s. My mother (who lived on conv grounds) and her sister decided to change things, and began sitting with their husbands on the mens' side and slowly, other ladies began to follow suit.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jun 26, 2017 9:11:41 GMT -5
Of course review would know about an elder who was an accountant in his country who was struck off from being an accountant for tax fraud. Not sure exactly how long ago as I had left meetings by then but I was told by a reliable source in 1998 when visiting the city, the name of the man. He would have been in his 60s then.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 26, 2017 12:48:03 GMT -5
I believe that you could produce reams of evidence and it could be in the main newspapers and it would still be denied as being true by the more devout church goers. They will justify it in their own minds somehow because they have to in order to still exist in the organization. That's how I see many of them, though not all. John fields Please don't be put off or discouraged by this last post. I and many others others also will be very grateful if you are able to expose all the wrong, fraud, theft and misuse of funds, abuse etc that you feel exists. The post wasn't to discourage him from investigating. I hope he does as you do. No one needs someone in their organization that brings down the others that aren't doing anything wrong. However, from what I see on here strong faith in the group does tend to close eyes to wrongs that are committed. I have seen people deny what is written in papers to be wrong. Maybe they were, but in the end how many times do we hear that before we start to question their credibility? When a group is protecting itself, a blind eye is often the only way to preserve faith. Hopefully there is nothing to find but just as hopefully if there is something found, people will also believe it and not just toss it away or cover it up. It happens in all groups.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jun 28, 2017 9:06:57 GMT -5
What your personal experience is regarding this matter I don't know; but anyway it leads to you make the statement: "Edgar Massey was excommunicated for asking questions. He dared do the unthinkable." I accept that is what you believe and think. But don't expect me to influenced by it. My experience is different. I'm not going to open up a 'hornet's nest' on a public forum...but I'm not concerned or alarmed by the claims you make. There is most always more than 'meets the eye' or than which you read on the internet to situations and allegations....and I KNOW that to be the case in this instance. professing.proboards.com/thread/18904/uk-scotland?page=1Here is a whole thread prompted by lack of information on what is going on in the fellowship. It's sad that professing people can't get answers from those in place of leadership, but have to resort to the internet. Regarding Edgar Massey, it is to be expected that some charge was fabricated against him. How else would the workers have been able to isolate him and his family from the local fellowship?! This is a common tactick, seen in other cases as well.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Jun 28, 2017 21:37:05 GMT -5
You please stick to it and bring to light and expose all the, at present, hidden cases of abuse, fraud, misappropriation of funds there in the UK. If it's there we want it rooted out. Now here is a bold , open and, I believe, sincere challenge, take it and run with it I agree. The official endorsement of johnfields ' investigation by a senior, well-known worker (review005) can assist greatly and should leveraged at every opportunity. There would normally be reluctance to share records and information with an outsider. But the presence of such a respected and enthusiastic sponsor may help ensure their cooperation. Hopefully the process can function similar to an internal business audit.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 29, 2017 1:25:40 GMT -5
Now here is a bold , open and, I believe, sincere challenge, take it and run with it I agree. The official endorsement of johnfields ' investigation by a senior, well-known worker (review005) can assist greatly and should leveraged at every opportunity. There would normally be reluctance to share records and information with an outsider. But the presence of such a respected and enthusiastic sponsor may help ensure their cooperation. Hopefully the process can function similar to an internal business audit. hahaha, Yes Review should be head investigating worker. He could review all the evidence before wishing everyone well on their journey.
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 29, 2017 3:38:05 GMT -5
I agree. The official endorsement of johnfields ' investigation by a senior, well-known worker (review005) can assist greatly and should leveraged at every opportunity. There would normally be reluctance to share records and information with an outsider. But the presence of such a respected and enthusiastic sponsor may help ensure their cooperation. Hopefully the process can function similar to an internal business audit. hahaha, Yes Review should be head investigating worker. He could review all the evidence before wishing everyone well on their journey. If Review is sincere, he could assist me by sending me whatever data he has himself -- lists of workers, professing people, any details he knows about 2x2 finances, etc. I've been very discreet with whatever information people have given to me in confidence so far, and have refrained from repeating the names of people who are involved in particular things (not illegal but secret) where information was passed to me in confidence. I also have not repeated the names of deceased workers who people have alleged to me molested them as children, since I was told in confidence and those people do not want this matter reported, and these workers are not here to defend themselves. If I knew of ongoing child abuse or other criminal activity I'd be obliged legally or at least morally to report it, but otherwise I will not. So Review may rest assured that what he tells me will be handled sensitively, and will only be used to try to determine whether criminal activity is or has taken place, to the point where it can be established well enough to take to the police or tax offices. And to compile statistics and to look for evidence of how the 2x2s handle money. I can't say I've been hugely discreet with talking about what a particular elder factually did in relation to my aunt, but I have not mentioned him by name on public or semi-public forums, and this whole business hit me as a shock and caused me to search for an explanation, since his attitude is that I should not dare to ask him questions. If he succeeds in cutting my aunt off from non-professing relatives, as he seems to be trying to do (unless myself and other relatives are paranoid), then I have plenty more to say about him that I've been holding back, on the assumption that he might be fundamentally honest in financial matters and just a bit mad and deceitful. I've persuaded various annoyed relatives not to call him or go over to his house and tell them what they think of him, and before I reported him to the appropriate authority, I lost much sleep over possibly causing him stress and we consulted three different organisations and I paid to discuss the matter with a solicitor (lawyer). I've accepted that no senior person in the 2x2s will reassure my aunt personally that matters like visiting relatives or having a TV is entirely her choice and not something others should judge her for. If this elder manages to poison her against her own relatives, matters will become very different for me, and I will not see why, subject to legal constraints, I should not follow Jesus's instruction to "tell the whole church" or to get back in touch with the national newspaper who was interested in my story if I was willing to be named, which at the time I wasn't. None of that affects that fact that what is shared with me in confidence, remains kept in confidence, unless I have a legal obligation to pass on information to the police.
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Jun 29, 2017 4:41:41 GMT -5
hahaha, Yes Review should be head investigating worker. He could review all the evidence before wishing everyone well on their journey. If Review is sincere, he could assist me by sending me whatever data he has himself -- lists of workers, professing people, any details he knows about 2x2 finances, etc. I've been very discreet with whatever information people have given to me in confidence so far, and have refrained from repeating the names of people who are involved in particular things (not illegal but secret) where information was passed to me in confidence. I also have not repeated the names of deceased workers who people have alleged to me molested them as children, since I was told in confidence and those people do not want this matter reported, and these workers are not here to defend themselves. If I knew of ongoing child abuse or other criminal activity I'd be obliged legally or at least morally to report it, but otherwise I will not. So Review may rest assured that what he tells me will be handled sensitively, and will only be used to try to determine whether criminal activity is or has taken place, to the point where it can be established well enough to take to the police or tax offices. And to compile statistics and to look for evidence of how the 2x2s handle money. I can't say I've been hugely discreet with talking about what a particular elder factually did in relation to my aunt, but I have not mentioned him by name on public or semi-public forums, and this whole business hit me as a shock and caused me to search for an explanation, since his attitude is that I should not dare to ask him questions. If he succeeds in cutting my aunt off from non-professing relatives, as he seems to be trying to do (unless myself and other relatives are paranoid), then I have plenty more to say about him that I've been holding back, on the assumption that he might be fundamentally honest in financial matters and just a bit mad and deceitful. I've persuaded various annoyed relatives not to call him or go over to his house and tell them what they think of him, and before I reported him to the appropriate authority, I lost much sleep over possibly causing him stress and we consulted three different organisations and I paid to discuss the matter with a solicitor (lawyer). I've accepted that no senior person in the 2x2s will reassure my aunt personally that matters like visiting relatives or having a TV is entirely her choice and not something others should judge her for. If this elder manages to poison her against her own relatives, matters will become very different for me, and I will not see why, subject to legal constraints, I should not follow Jesus's instruction to "tell the whole church" or to get back in touch with the national newspaper who was interested in my story if I was willing to be named, which at the time I wasn't. None of that affects that fact that what is shared with me in confidence, remains kept in confidence, unless I have a legal obligation to pass on information to the police. I rather suspect that if you were to approach a suitably experienced Chartered Accountant and ask them "How do you audit the accounts of a church in order to achieve some degree of transparency" and they might say something like "With a certain amount of difficulty". Any large church structure is bound to involve a certain amount of central funds management but around the edges there is likely to be significant charitable work for ranging from maintaining or improving an item of property, say the local church clock, through to supporting a particular missionary on a venture to the poorer parts of the world. And many of the donations to support those kind of activities are not going to be channeled through central funds. Therefore unlike a company who makes sales of goods and services then has all those services coming back through usually a single bank account, any large church will only have a certain amount of finance going through a central account. Auditing the central account will only satisfy certain tests like how much has been spent on particular classes of expenditure ("salary", "administration", "property maintenance" etc etc), and won't cover more than a fraction of the total financial activity of that church if many donations are used directly in sponsorship of a missionary or servicing that old clock etc etc. The church of the friends and workers what with their conventions and travelling arrangements etc is unlikely to be much different. Therefore the discussion with a Chartered Accountant whether or not an audit or production or availability of accounts even achieves anything would be quite interesting. At the end of the day a lot of company accounts, especially smaller ones which by law don't have to provide much detail, have a very limited meaning to readers. As to the actions of individuals in their administration of Power of Attorney or Wills or any other situation of trust, then that is hardly an accounting matter pertaining to whatever church they attach to. But their own management of those affairs is something they always have to answer for to the beneficiaries or donors or relations thereof, and it is up to them to be accurate and honest and efficient. If they are getting it wrong then they are subject to the law, or at least to the people who are involved around the situation. At the end of the day they are taking on a responsibility which they might not choose, and if they refuse to take it on in the first place nobody should be critical of that either.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jun 29, 2017 5:02:27 GMT -5
If Review is sincere, he could assist me by sending me whatever data he has himself -- lists of workers, professing people, any details he knows about 2x2 finances, etc. I've been very discreet with whatever information people have given to me in confidence so far, and have refrained from repeating the names of people who are involved in particular things (not illegal but secret) where information was passed to me in confidence. I also have not repeated the names of deceased workers who people have alleged to me molested them as children, since I was told in confidence and those people do not want this matter reported, and these workers are not here to defend themselves. If I knew of ongoing child abuse or other criminal activity I'd be obliged legally or at least morally to report it, but otherwise I will not. So Review may rest assured that what he tells me will be handled sensitively, and will only be used to try to determine whether criminal activity is or has taken place, to the point where it can be established well enough to take to the police or tax offices. And to compile statistics and to look for evidence of how the 2x2s handle money. I can't say I've been hugely discreet with talking about what a particular elder factually did in relation to my aunt, but I have not mentioned him by name on public or semi-public forums, and this whole business hit me as a shock and caused me to search for an explanation, since his attitude is that I should not dare to ask him questions. If he succeeds in cutting my aunt off from non-professing relatives, as he seems to be trying to do (unless myself and other relatives are paranoid), then I have plenty more to say about him that I've been holding back, on the assumption that he might be fundamentally honest in financial matters and just a bit mad and deceitful. I've persuaded various annoyed relatives not to call him or go over to his house and tell them what they think of him, and before I reported him to the appropriate authority, I lost much sleep over possibly causing him stress and we consulted three different organisations and I paid to discuss the matter with a solicitor (lawyer). I've accepted that no senior person in the 2x2s will reassure my aunt personally that matters like visiting relatives or having a TV is entirely her choice and not something others should judge her for. If this elder manages to poison her against her own relatives, matters will become very different for me, and I will not see why, subject to legal constraints, I should not follow Jesus's instruction to "tell the whole church" or to get back in touch with the national newspaper who was interested in my story if I was willing to be named, which at the time I wasn't. None of that affects that fact that what is shared with me in confidence, remains kept in confidence, unless I have a legal obligation to pass on information to the police. I rather suspect that if you were to approach a suitably experienced Chartered Accountant and ask them "How do you audit the accounts of a church in order to achieve some degree of transparency" and they might say something like "With a certain amount of difficulty". Any large church structure is bound to involve a certain amount of central funds management but around the edges there is likely to be significant charitable work for ranging from maintaining or improving an item of property, say the local church clock, through to supporting a particular missionary on a venture to the poorer parts of the world. And many of the donations to support those kind of activities are not going to be channeled through central funds. Therefore unlike a company who makes sales of goods and services then has all those services coming back through usually a single bank account, any large church will only have a certain amount of finance going through a central account. Auditing the central account will only satisfy certain tests like how much has been spent on particular classes of expenditure ("salary", "administration", "property maintenance" etc etc), and won't cover more than a fraction of the total financial activity of that church if many donations are used directly in sponsorship of a missionary or servicing that old clock etc etc. The church of the friends and workers what with their conventions and travelling arrangements etc is unlikely to be much different. Therefore the discussion with a Chartered Accountant whether or not an audit or production or availability of accounts even achieves anything would be quite interesting. At the end of the day a lot of company accounts, especially smaller ones which by law don't have to provide much detail, have a very limited meaning to readers. As to the actions of individuals in their administration of Power of Attorney or Wills or any other situation of trust, then that is hardly an accounting matter pertaining to whatever church they attach to. But their own management of those affairs is something they always have to answer for to the beneficiaries or donors or relations thereof, and it is up to them to be accurate and honest and efficient. If they are getting it wrong then they are subject to the law, or at least to the people who are involved around the situation. At the end of the day they are taking on a responsibility which they might not choose, and if they refuse to take it on in the first place nobody should be critical of that either. Review is an incredibly sincere man, probably one of the most sincere workers I know.
|
|
|
Post by penguin on Jun 29, 2017 5:09:39 GMT -5
I rather suspect that if you were to approach a suitably experienced Chartered Accountant and ask them "How do you audit the accounts of a church in order to achieve some degree of transparency" and they might say something like "With a certain amount of difficulty". Any large church structure is bound to involve a certain amount of central funds management but around the edges there is likely to be significant charitable work for ranging from maintaining or improving an item of property, say the local church clock, through to supporting a particular missionary on a venture to the poorer parts of the world. And many of the donations to support those kind of activities are not going to be channeled through central funds. Therefore unlike a company who makes sales of goods and services then has all those services coming back through usually a single bank account, any large church will only have a certain amount of finance going through a central account. Auditing the central account will only satisfy certain tests like how much has been spent on particular classes of expenditure ("salary", "administration", "property maintenance" etc etc), and won't cover more than a fraction of the total financial activity of that church if many donations are used directly in sponsorship of a missionary or servicing that old clock etc etc. The church of the friends and workers what with their conventions and travelling arrangements etc is unlikely to be much different. Therefore the discussion with a Chartered Accountant whether or not an audit or production or availability of accounts even achieves anything would be quite interesting. At the end of the day a lot of company accounts, especially smaller ones which by law don't have to provide much detail, have a very limited meaning to readers. As to the actions of individuals in their administration of Power of Attorney or Wills or any other situation of trust, then that is hardly an accounting matter pertaining to whatever church they attach to. But their own management of those affairs is something they always have to answer for to the beneficiaries or donors or relations thereof, and it is up to them to be accurate and honest and efficient. If they are getting it wrong then they are subject to the law, or at least to the people who are involved around the situation. At the end of the day they are taking on a responsibility which they might not choose, and if they refuse to take it on in the first place nobody should be critical of that either. Review is an incredibly sincere man, probably one of the most sincere workers I know. That's a lovely and kind thing to say here. I for one would not think otherwise either.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 29, 2017 10:22:20 GMT -5
hahaha, Yes Review should be head investigating worker. He could review all the evidence before wishing everyone well on their journey. If Review is sincere, he could assist me by sending me whatever data he has himself -- lists of workers, professing people, any details he knows about 2x2 finances, etc. I've been very discreet with whatever information people have given to me in confidence so far, and have refrained from repeating the names of people who are involved in particular things (not illegal but secret) where information was passed to me in confidence. I also have not repeated the names of deceased workers who people have alleged to me molested them as children, since I was told in confidence and those people do not want this matter reported, and these workers are not here to defend themselves. If I knew of ongoing child abuse or other criminal activity I'd be obliged legally or at least morally to report it, but otherwise I will not. So Review may rest assured that what he tells me will be handled sensitively, and will only be used to try to determine whether criminal activity is or has taken place, to the point where it can be established well enough to take to the police or tax offices. And to compile statistics and to look for evidence of how the 2x2s handle money. I can't say I've been hugely discreet with talking about what a particular elder factually did in relation to my aunt, but I have not mentioned him by name on public or semi-public forums, and this whole business hit me as a shock and caused me to search for an explanation, since his attitude is that I should not dare to ask him questions. If he succeeds in cutting my aunt off from non-professing relatives, as he seems to be trying to do (unless myself and other relatives are paranoid), then I have plenty more to say about him that I've been holding back, on the assumption that he might be fundamentally honest in financial matters and just a bit mad and deceitful. I've persuaded various annoyed relatives not to call him or go over to his house and tell them what they think of him, and before I reported him to the appropriate authority, I lost much sleep over possibly causing him stress and we consulted three different organisations and I paid to discuss the matter with a solicitor (lawyer). I've accepted that no senior person in the 2x2s will reassure my aunt personally that matters like visiting relatives or having a TV is entirely her choice and not something others should judge her for. If this elder manages to poison her against her own relatives, matters will become very different for me, and I will not see why, subject to legal constraints, I should not follow Jesus's instruction to "tell the whole church" or to get back in touch with the national newspaper who was interested in my story if I was willing to be named, which at the time I wasn't. None of that affects that fact that what is shared with me in confidence, remains kept in confidence, unless I have a legal obligation to pass on information to the police. It is always interesting when the subject of money is discussed. The solution is simple - if you do not like the way funds are handled stop giving. The idea of poisoning a person against anything is also odd in that the people involved are adults. If they have diminished capacity A court can be brought into play to assign someone to look after their assets. If they decided to assign someone to look after their assets and you feel there is fraud there is a remedy for that also. In the case you just don't agree that the house should be sold and the proceeds given to the local cat shelter it might just be a difference of opinion. Although I do not claim to know the status of most people posting it appears that the concerns are brought mostly by people who have left the organization. In the case of those who have left, who cares how the funds are dealt with as long as it is not illegal? Is the phrase "poison her against her own relatives" just another way of saying that a person might decide to give her assets to someone else? Doesn't she have the right to decide? If her belief is that visiting people the organization frowns on and owning a TV is a sure trip to hell isn't she allowed to hold those beliefs? Is it the belief that is the issue or the loss of some potential inheritance? If someone was able to change her mind couldn't they be accused of poisoning her against the organization?
|
|
|
Post by johnfields on Jun 29, 2017 16:53:08 GMT -5
If Review is sincere, he could assist me by sending me whatever data he has himself -- lists of workers, professing people, any details he knows about 2x2 finances, etc. I've been very discreet with whatever information people have given to me in confidence so far, and have refrained from repeating the names of people who are involved in particular things (not illegal but secret) where information was passed to me in confidence. I also have not repeated the names of deceased workers who people have alleged to me molested them as children, since I was told in confidence and those people do not want this matter reported, and these workers are not here to defend themselves. If I knew of ongoing child abuse or other criminal activity I'd be obliged legally or at least morally to report it, but otherwise I will not. So Review may rest assured that what he tells me will be handled sensitively, and will only be used to try to determine whether criminal activity is or has taken place, to the point where it can be established well enough to take to the police or tax offices. And to compile statistics and to look for evidence of how the 2x2s handle money. I can't say I've been hugely discreet with talking about what a particular elder factually did in relation to my aunt, but I have not mentioned him by name on public or semi-public forums, and this whole business hit me as a shock and caused me to search for an explanation, since his attitude is that I should not dare to ask him questions. If he succeeds in cutting my aunt off from non-professing relatives, as he seems to be trying to do (unless myself and other relatives are paranoid), then I have plenty more to say about him that I've been holding back, on the assumption that he might be fundamentally honest in financial matters and just a bit mad and deceitful. I've persuaded various annoyed relatives not to call him or go over to his house and tell them what they think of him, and before I reported him to the appropriate authority, I lost much sleep over possibly causing him stress and we consulted three different organisations and I paid to discuss the matter with a solicitor (lawyer). I've accepted that no senior person in the 2x2s will reassure my aunt personally that matters like visiting relatives or having a TV is entirely her choice and not something others should judge her for. If this elder manages to poison her against her own relatives, matters will become very different for me, and I will not see why, subject to legal constraints, I should not follow Jesus's instruction to "tell the whole church" or to get back in touch with the national newspaper who was interested in my story if I was willing to be named, which at the time I wasn't. None of that affects that fact that what is shared with me in confidence, remains kept in confidence, unless I have a legal obligation to pass on information to the police. It is always interesting when the subject of money is discussed. The solution is simple - if you do not like the way funds are handled stop giving. The idea of poisoning a person against anything is also odd in that the people involved are adults. If they have diminished capacity A court can be brought into play to assign someone to look after their assets. If they decided to assign someone to look after their assets and you feel there is fraud there is a remedy for that also. In the case you just don't agree that the house should be sold and the proceeds given to the local cat shelter it might just be a difference of opinion. Although I do not claim to know the status of most people posting it appears that the concerns are brought mostly by people who have left the organization. In the case of those who have left, who cares how the funds are dealt with as long as it is not illegal? Is the phrase "poison her against her own relatives" just another way of saying that a person might decide to give her assets to someone else? Doesn't she have the right to decide? If her belief is that visiting people the organization frowns on and owning a TV is a sure trip to hell isn't she allowed to hold those beliefs? Is it the belief that is the issue or the loss of some potential inheritance? If someone was able to change her mind couldn't they be accused of poisoning her against the organization? The issue is absolutely not one of inheritance. None of her relatives want her money. The issue is more that she is very anxious to avoid ending up in a care home if at all possible (she has Alzheimer's), but in that case she will need escalating levels of care in her own home and will need her money for that. And with an elder doing bizarre things with her bank account and talking about how one day she'll get lost in the street and will have to go into a care home, that's a worry. Fortunately a government department is now sorting that out. I don't think she will be left with any assets when she eventually dies, which I hope will not be for a long time. More likely I'll have to contribute financially to ensure she can get the care she needs, which I'd like to do. Regarding TV, she in herself would quite like to try having one (or on occasion thinks so), but can't because of fear of the judgement of others. She's alone most of the time, and yet there appear to be people implying to her that seeing people she loves seeing -- particularly my sister and I, who uncovered what this elder had done with her bank account -- are people she ought not to see, and that's placed a lot of stress on her. There should not be stress or pressure on someone who has Alzheimer's, and mental stimulation (if not TV then at the very least the company of relatives that she enjoys seeing) is very important to slow her decline. Regarding the 2x2 faith as a whole, none of her relatives are trying to stop her attending meetings or seeing whoever she wants to. People in the 2x2 faith ARE trying to stop her seeing her relatives, on the other hand. We find this quite disgusting. Especially since they don't have much time for her themselves. They are placing a lot of stress on her for absolutely no good reason that makes any sense to any normal person. She is frightened. My interest in 2x2 finances generally has stemmed from the fact that the elder at the root of all this is close to the UK overseer, and I wonder whether the hidden nature of the 2x2's financial structure is acting as an inadvertent enticement to fraud. Some elders might just think "this widow is better off in a care home and we can use whatever money is left over when she dies to spread the gospel, which she might have wanted anyway". That's pure speculation, but in the absence of any other explanation, I've got quite worried that this might be a possibility. The lack of questioning and clarity in the 2x2s regarding child protection has led to high levels of CSA, and I'm not sure that the same lack of questioning and clarity regarding finances might not have led to quite a bit of fraud as well. I hope not! But now I feel it's worth checking into a bit.
|
|