Saturday, 5 January 2008

Donor's Bill of Rights

Stan Gardner has posted a proposed Bill of Donor's Rights for COG members.

You have the right to:

1. Know exactly how the funds of the COG organization are being spent, where Christian stewardship is not just a web policy for the sake of appearances, but an actual practice.

2. Know the salary and total compensation packages of key ministry, evangelists, executives, and board members.

3. Know what the COG programs you support are accomplishing or not accomplishing. Check and see if any outside ministry you are considering gifting to has a passing or failing financial transparency grade at

4. Know that the organization and its employees comply with all federal and state laws, including tax regulations for nonprofit, tax-exempt ministries, including regulations against inurement or personal benefit from tithes and donations.

5. Be able to specifically designate and permanently restrict your COG gifts to fund a specific charitable or religious cause within the organization's mission objectives, such as helping widows and orphans, the sick, or the assistance of the needy or hungry.

6. A timely and courteous response to your inquiries about finances and programs, not incomplete or misleading Orwellian doublespeak about quarterly income and budget percentages as substitutes for periodic, complete financial reports.

7. Give without being pressured by the organization, or computer donation tithe-checked for loyalty or "member in good standing" roadblocks to HQ accountability.

8. Obtain a full copy of the ministry's most recent audited financial statements and charitable disaster fund statements - not a sanitized version with meaningless categories lumped together. Third tithe collected by the ministry and spent for that specific charitable purpose should be placed in distinct, separate categories on the financial reports.

9. Know that there is a responsible, qualified, governing board of members providing oversight to the church mission, accepting responsibility for board actions; not a rubber-stamp, unincorporated church association's board of elders, controlled legally by one man and one man only.

10. Know that all appeals for funds are truthful and accurate, and that conflicts of interest are avoided. Audited financial statements are absolutely not a "clean bill of health" or CPA guarantee of fiduciary integrity. CPA-audited financial statements can also hide church assets, real estate, gold bullion in Swiss bank accounts, payouts, or loans; provide inadequate retirement funding for employees, continue to "cook" the books, or materially misrepresent your COG's financial condition.

You have a right to timely, accurate, and compete sets of financial statements from your COG, and to know exactly how your money is being spent by your ministry.

Which has got to be good advice. Click on the link above to view the full article (dated 21 Dec.) Maybe there's someone out there who would like to contact Ron Dart and other moderate COG leaders and ask them to endorse this document. If you do, be sure to let us all know what response you get via the comments section! And if there's a COG group that meets these criteria (COG Big Sandy???) then let's give credit where it's due in the hopes others will follow the example.


DennisDiehl said...

This would be a nice addition to all of the COG's "Welcome Packet."

Anonymous said...

"What is crooked cannot be made straight."

They will just start keeping a double or triple set of books.

Lussenheide said...

Since you used the US Bill of Rights as a template, how about the Declaration of Independence Preamble as well (barely changed from original so as to be relevant to our church tradition)...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, churches were instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any church becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new church, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that churches long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a church, and to provide new Guards and Ministry for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of the COG; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of church. The history of the present COG is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the church. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....

Bill Lussenheide, Menifee, CA USA

Thomas Munson said...

It will be adopted by Dave Pack's Restored Church the very same day that the lake of fire freezes over. Don't you dare try to tell him how to spend contribution money. If his son and daughter want new cars and homes at the expense of your new second mortgage, don't dare to wonder the rightness of that. Don't question, just send him the money!!!

Bamboo_bends said...

I can see it now in the board rooms across COG-dom...."rights...they don't need no stinkin' rights..."

DennisDiehl said...

"Why has Satan filled your heart to want rights...Behold (I love that word) the feet of the last person who spoke of rights. And now shall your feet, join theirs...zap"

And great fear came upon all the Churches....and they spoke no more of rights.

Samuel Martin said...

I think it is good to understand that churches are not regulated by any governmental agency at least in the USA. Having said that, churches should aspire to reaching higher levels of openness when it comes to their financial dealings. Unfortunately, though, in the real world, many do not seek this openness and that is sad.

Yes, the IRS can and occasionally does investigate churches, but such investigations are rare.

The 990 form, which is the equivalent of a tax return for non profit organizations, is often not filed by churches because they do not have to file it according to the law.

However, it would seem to me that a church that is engaged in God's work, would have nothing to hide and would welcome the ideas of transparency and accountability.

Some of the comments about audited financial statements are also relevant. One has to ask "who are the auditors?" Do they change? Are audits prepared by the same old firm who did them for the last who knows how long? Are tenders for audit issued and put out for competitive bid? If not, why not? Having the same old audit firm in place for years might cause some concern for the prospective donor.

Salary scale is also something that might be considered. Often times, organizations, who are not transparent or accountable to anyone, have no incentive to determine what might be an appropriate salary for a minister, church leader, a secretay, etc. An organization who will not provide a rationale for why they pay what they do without consideration for the market prices for similar positions is one that one might wish to rethink supporting.

Many ministries also get a fair amount of cash as donations. Small donors might give small amounts in cash. Oversight on what happens to cash donations should also be considered to ensure that those donations are properly incorporated into the works financial statements. An organization that does not have a specific policy on handling cash donations should consider getting one, if they are seeking to be transparent and accountable.

Many people today are looking at philanthropy in the same way they look at their investment strategy. They, rightly so, want to see a specifically defined return. They are now asking questions like: what are the specific results that my donations are producing? e.g. the fruit. I think that if the "fruit" that one sees from his or her donations is good "fruit" great, but if one is searching the tree for the "fruit", perhaps another tree is in order.

Neotherm said...

This all makes very good sense for organizations that are not pathological. But with Armstrongite organizations, this is nothing less than a direct attack on the "top down" form of government. As such, it would be judged to be Satanic.

But we all know from experience that this is just a religious cloak over the arbitrary and unaccountable use of the money of the "little people."

I do not think we will ever see transparency among Armstrongites regarding money. Armstrongism isn't Armstrongism if transparency is introduced.

-- Neo

minimalist said...

These devious leaders pay a price though. Look how wealth and idleness has ruined the TKACH kids.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to announce the beginning a new Work of God and invite all of you to join.

I am starting, I mean, God is inspiring and moving his Work now to The Simplified Church of God.

No doctrines, beliefs, things to do, places to be, sermons, studies and all that which has previously bogged down the simplicity of all other COG's

I simply ask you send money. God will bless and protect you beyond your wildest expectations and just leave the rest to me.

Since I'm not taking any questions and don't seek any imput, that's about it and we don't need to be in touch ever again... As long as you send money, your religiousness is assured and you will be fine.

I agree with Ron Weinland on this one point.

"The end-time has come. Hundreds of millions will die in the worst time of tribulation the world has ever known. You need to be informed SO YOU CAN KNOW HOW TO RESPOND."'s important to know how to "respond" to hundreds of millions of stinking carcasses, maybe billions, and I believe it is with money.

Pretty darn simple to me.

Be good now...we don't need to be in touch after this.

Anonymous said...

The Apostles Bill of Rights

I have the right to ask anything I can dream up from the Brethren.

I have the right to check up on your contributions and compare them to Biblical injunctions on giving.

I have the right to bounce your sorry ass out of the church if you fail to respond to my admonitions.

I have the right to tell you to mind your own business

I have the right to expect you to trust me as you trust God

I have the right to share God's blessings of me through your generous tithes, offerings and loose change with my relatives.

I have to right to avoid long lines at airports by having my own jet if God says so and I think he will.

I have the right to build a House for God one year before the end of the world if I want.

I have the right to pamper myself with your money because darn it, I'm worth it.

I have the right to eat out every night for years because I'm more busy than you could ever be in Him.

I have the right to ignore the health of any employee even unto death as long as it's not me.

I have the right to give generous gifts and aid to organizations on my behalf sooz I look good with your money.

I have the right not to consult with you on any of the above gifts or aid.

I have the right to use the appropriate scriptures, no matter how lame to motivate, embarass, threaten or otherwise strike fear of God's displeasure in you as necessary on the topic of giving money.

In an emergency in the Work, I have the right to ask God, who owns the cattle on a thousand hills, to sell some or all of the herd and send it in.

Dennis Diehl

Tom Mahon said...

minimalist said...

>>>These devious leaders pay a price though. Look how wealth and idleness has ruined the TKACH kids.<<<

Their complete ruin is yet to come!

sleeper said...

Sounds like a bit of an over reach and difficult to administer.

Anonymous said...

Tom said:

"Their complete ruin is yet to come!"

Behold Tom...Do you ever have a complete thought on your own without sounding like your brain has not been infected by Biblespeak?

Anonymous said...

When you give to a COG we call them "Doh"ners Rights. :)

Anonymous said...

Of course they are known as "Doh"nations after that

Anonymous said...

after that you "doh"nt ask questions

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, I'm talking like a Homer-sexual. "Doh"n't think that!

Anonymous said...

excerpt from the following Sabbath Reading:

"Paul writes, “And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (2 Co 11:12-15).

The same terms that Paul references is not taking support from the saints at Corinth when he was there teaching them the fundamental precepts of salvation—not even asking for support, meaning no co-worker letters pressing the urgency to sacrifice financially to overcome whatever crisis the “work of God” then faced; no pleas from the pulpit for “additional sacrifice” in this or that time of need; no competitions in “well-doing” to see which Feast site would have a higher per capita offering. And those disciples who have received such co-worker letters or have heard such sermon pleas will have experienced the intended guilt-trips that a distant administrative headquarters laid on disciples to give more and more until prosperity came to the disciple. A disciple was not giving enough but was “secretly” holding back tithes and offerings if the impoverished disciple was not being “blessed” financially, or so the message came through to those who had nothing, and had nothing more to give. And eventually those secret sins caused impoverished disciples to fall by the wayside: they quit tithing, quit attending services, and felt “free” for the first time in years. They also quit keeping the commandments and returned to disobedience—they quit on God when God was never the problem. A greedy ministry that would not work on the same terms as Paul worked was the problem.
The practice of Paul to not ask for support remains the determining criteria for those ministries that build on the foundation Paul laid."

Anonymous said...

"The practice of Paul to not ask for support remains the determining criteria for those ministries that build on the foundation Paul laid."

I have never quite given an answer like this before...I'm sure you have never heard it quite like this before, so it's important you pay very important attention to the whole thing. :)

I'd like to believe there was at least on Bible Character who was a good criteria for anything the Church practices, but they are few and far between.

I'm not sure I select Paul either. Of course by now, most of you would expect that from me.

Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Jesus, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke.

This Dave Packish at it's best.

By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship. You know...Like Dave Pack.

When it comes to how often he uses words like, "I", "me", "my", or "mine", the overall rate in his epistles is almost three times that of his next closest rival.

In the book of Romans, Paul refers to himself 103 times, which is rate of about 18.2 per thousand! That is 13x greater than Hebrews. In 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to himself 175 times, in 2Corinthians 103 times again, and in the relatively short book of Galatians, he refers to himself 69 times which is a rate of 25 personal pronouns per 1000 words.

Sounds like Dave Pack to me.

Add to this...

"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2Corinthians 11:5,10

Rather Dave Packish too


"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10

Dave Packish again especially in working harder than everyone else.

and finally...

In Galatians we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him.

Need I say Dave Packish again?

If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago.

"Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips." Proverbs 27:2

I just can't bring myself to trust the story told by the Greatest Pharisee student, under the Greatest Pharisee, who trumped the Apostles of Jesus on all topics and work ethic to do or be much of what he said he was. Top student who can only get work as a tentmaker. Roman Citizen in a group that would have despised him for being so and called, not on any Damascus road, but from the womb. Which was it?

If it walks like a Dave, and talks like a Dave and thinks like a Dave, well...we can still hope he wasn't a Dave I suppose. It could happen!


Corky said...

"Donor's Bill of Rights"? Well, that's an exercise in futility.

The cults will not be interested in any kind of 'rights' for their victims. They have already deprived them of those rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and have them trapped in a spiritual dungeon of servitude to the cult meister.

"Abandon all hope of freedom or happiness, ye who enter here" should be their motto.

A corrupt tree does not produce good fruit. Not only is the WCG a corrupt tree but all it's branches have inherited the corruption.

Of course, the whole of Christendom is corrupt when you get right down to it. It always was corrupt and was a corruption of Judaism in the very beginning.

It has a very murderous history, which should be enough to condemn it outright, for it is demonstrated by that fact that the root of the tree is corrupt.

Why would a god put men in charge of something he would have to do himself, something that only he can possibly do? That is, change the nature of the human race.

Because the god is afraid of messing with our "free will"? So, he has men to do it instead?

"Donor's Bill of Rights"? Yes, the donor has the right to not donate to corruption at all. The corrupt tree should be cut down, the roots dug out and burned.

Since that can't or won't be done, the next best thing is to deprive them of money. Without the donor's money, they'll fold up like origami.

Tired Skeptic said...

Years ago, my wife came home all excited when she had heard Gerald Flurry in Quincy, Washington where he was banished by the Powers that Be.

The message she was all excited about?

"No one has any rights!"

She thought it was wonderful because it would force people to do things "the right way" [in the Republican Dog Owner Pastard sort of way through excessive dominating force].

I cringed.

She didn't actually understand that as far as Flurry was concerned, she had no rights -- not that he ever talked with her or knew her personally, you understand, for it was all about his have "his rights" as an entitlement to be able to walk all over everyone else's rights in the name of his god.

For every false prophet with his own false god -- himself, under that sheep's clothing lies a ravenous wolf.

Anonymous said...

"The message she was all excited about?

"No one has any rights!"

Definately a Republican theology. Religion gone wild one pathetic show.

Neotherm said...

I was surfing this morning and discovered a webpage indicating that Ron Weinland's name was recently found as a "Bible Code" (skip sequences applied to the Hebrew text).

His name was discovered in association with the words "Sabbath" and "God" and "Proper".

We all better run like hell.

-- Neo

M.T.Hall said...

I coded myself and was associated with the words "ha ha, fooled ya, wrong church, too bad, so sad.."

What a bummer!

Anonymous said...

Building on Dennis Dietz's comments on Paul of the New Testament, and Stan Gardner's excellent work on financial accountability, consider these two items on Paul and money.

(1) Paul emphasizes to the Thessalonians that he supported himself by his own physical labor, not by gifts from anyone:

"Nor did we eat bread from anyone as a gift, but by labor and toil working night and day in order not to burden anyone of you." (2 Thes 3:8)

But in his letter to the Philippians, Paul thanks them for sending him money when he was in Thessalonica.

"And you know too, Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I went out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only. Because truly in Thessalonica you sent to my need, both once and twice." (Phil 4:15-16)

(2) A major theme of the second half of the Book of Acts and Paul's letters is a collection of money he is raising for conveyance to "the poor saints in Jerusalem". In Acts, Paul is portrayed as telling the churches in which he is fundraising that he expects to be martyred in Jerusalem, expects death, but he is nevertheless intent on conveying their financial contribution to the poor saints in Jerusalem. (Acts 20:23, 35-38; 21:13-14.)

However, in his letter to the church of Rome, he seems to disclose other intentions, namely to stop off and visit them on his way to Spain.

"But now having no more place in these regions, and having a longing to come to you for many years, whenever I may go into Spain, I will come to you, for I hope in traveling through to see you, and to be set forward there by you, if first I may be filled of you in part. But now I am going to Jerusalem, doing service to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia thought it good to make certain gifts to the poor of the saints in Jerusalem ... Then completing and having sealed this fruit to them, I will go through you into Spain..." (Rom 15:23-32).

There is no direct mention in Acts that the money was conveyed to the saints in Jerusalem. There are indirect suggestions, if one reads between the lines, that Paul had access to funds during his two years imprisonment or protective house arrest, whichever it was, in Jerusalem.

If Paul had not been presented by the emerging institutional Christian church as a saint and his writings added to the Bible, how would Paul be assessed? Bear in mind that most traveling evangelists or preachers of that day were scam artists, with varying degrees of sincerity and miracle-working as part of their schtick. If Paul was an honest one it would have been an exception.

Yet the New Testament preserves Paul's side of things, and very little if any firsthand writings of the critics of Paul (i.e. the original disciples and family of Jesus). HWA's Autobiography's version of HWA's early years in Oregon also has read convincingly to many. Is there sound reason to believe one of these sets of stories or origin traditions more uncritically than the other?

Greg Doudna

Stan said...

Gavin and all,

Indeed, it is time the COG leaders put their money where their mouth is, and endorse a COG Donor's Bill of Rights. Dixon Cartwright, having been thrown out of a United Church of God General Conference annual meeting for merely wanting to report on the proceedings, may augur for an uphill battle in getting a UCG council of elders endorsement of any donor's bill of rights. At least one board member on the Big Sandy Church of God, and most probably a majority, would be willing to endorse such a Donor's Bill of Rights on the local level, if push came to shove as it did before, during the receivership. Regardless of how well the COG Donor Bill of Rights is written, it is only a document. Maintaining other member rights (freedom of thought, speech, expression, petition, assembly, and association in the church) is a slippery slope, and may be slowly circumvented by various means, as HWA did in the WCG. Any Donor Bill of Rights is only as good as the financial accountability it actually requires in the COG today.

The problem is usually not so much at the local church accountability level, where income, expenses. asset and debt reporting is much more transparent, easier to report, and grasp accounting categories (mainly a matter of local pastor's local salary and expenses, hall rental or mortgage). It is at the United Council of Elders level, where meaningful financial reporting becomes obscure, vague, nebulous, and confiscatory. Exactly what does the money go for? The finance committee of the Council certainly has much more specific, meaningful financial data to draw from, but this isn't shared on the published annual financial statements with the donors who make it possible. And how along with other major categories (such as purchase and sale of major assets, payroll liability, festival costs, elder retirement funding costs) does incoming third tithe get spent, buried without a trace, in the major categories of UCG expenses, all grouped inscrutably together? At least United financial statements, of a sort, are published on an annual basis, without the members having to beg for them on an individual basis.

To be fair, the United financial statements, published annually are much better accountability than the WCG act. Pack and Flurry are certainly in a terror category of apocalyptic financial accountability all unto themselves. But the “2007 Ambassador Reports Golden Fleece Award” amongst the reformed Churches of God is given to Pastor General Joe Tkach Jr. in his dereliction of duty, where assets sold and money sent to Glendora disappears into a bottomless WCG HQ black hole, money never to be seen again on financial statements; and where WCG members in good standing are not to be able to obtain or confirm availability of such promised financial statements through publication on the Internet, as United has been doing responsively for years.

Anonymous said...

Beginning at Joe Tkach. I wonder how far down the foodchain of WCG one would have to go before you ran into a paid employee who actually didn't know either where all the money went and how much we are talking about.

These guys are Theo-thugs at best who know what they have done.

WWJAF What Would Jesus Account For?

Anonymous said...

Beginning at Joe Tkach. I wonder how far down the foodchain of WCG one would have to go before you ran into a paid employee who actually didn't know either where all the money went and how much we are talking about.

These guys are Theo-thugs at best who know what they have done.

WWJAF What Would Jesus Account For?

Tom Mahon said...

Anonymous said...

>>>Behold Tom...Do you ever have a complete thought on your own without sounding like your brain has not been infected by Biblespeak?<<<

You may have lots of opinions, but genuine Christians say, "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God"(11 Cor.3:5). Therefore, my ability to think and speak wisdom and truth comes from God through the study of his word. I therefore make no apologies to anyone for what you called "Biblespeak."

On the other hand, your opinions are just the ignorance you express, because you don't know the truth.

Anonymous said...

Actually for the Tkaches having started this whole church of god splinter and sliver mess, they have gotten away pretty darn well even with AW. There is nothing much to say about them because they teach bullshit at a Sunday School level and think they have discovered what for most is the reinvented wheel.

They draw little attention to themselves because there is nothing left to give a rats ass about save that they actually do have millions somewhere and are doing nothing with it.

I'm sure they are hoping to lope one paid employee and minister off the payroll after another before their usefulness is expended.

It's really quite an unaccounted for crime.

But....there is the Fall Cruise for Jesus so give Ron Kelley a call and I am sure he can sign you up up for seven days of Non-Fall Festival Fun in Him.

And if you sign up early, they will send you a free copy of "Jesus loves Me, This I know" and "I'm a little Teapot, short and stout." Absolutely Free!


Anonymous said...

Tom Said:

"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God"

Behold...You seemed to have missed a previous posting outlining just how much of a braggart the Apostle Paul was and how Great a humble Apostle compared to them all he declared himself to be.

Actually Tom, while you are welcome here for whatever you personally get from being here, you contribute little of worth to any discussion save for your own brand of self promotion at the expense of others. Snarky, self righteous comebacks hardly make up an intelligent conversation or input.

Those who know you note that indeed, you have not changed over the years and do enjoy a similar reputation wherever you go.

You're what I used to term the foolishly zealous in a congregation who embarassed a congregation more than they ever inspired or encouraged one.

But there is room for that I suppose.

Now, your turn, come back with some put down or scriptural paraphrase that gets you off the hook and back on Jesus side.

Dennis Diehl

Neotherm said...

Armstrongite organizations, of any stripe, will never adopt a policy like that outlineed in the Bill of Donor's rights. The reason is that two of he principal characterisics of Armstrongism are:

1) The manipulation of information for expediency.

2) The disregard of the concerns of lay members, financial and otherwise, because this is construed as a challenge to the governmental structure.

For Armstrongites to adopt the Bill of Donor's Rights, no matter how reasonable, is the forsaking of the fundamental tenets of Armstrongism. And beyond that, it is the forsaking of the psychology of Armstrongism.

For this reason, we can safely assume that any financial dislosures, even by the UCG, have been carefully cooked and are really just advertisements meant to promote their claim to honesty.

After all, HWA was an advertising man and that psychology pervades Armstrongism. Whenever Armstrongites use the media, they use it for advertising purposes, not for disclosure.

-- Neo

Anonymous said...

"Look how wealth and idleness has ruined the TKACH kids".

I'm sure the Tkach's are multi multi millionaires thanks to Armstrongism and the blind sheep who gave and gave, and then gave some more...God's way is give, I seem to recall hearing.

But how has the wealth and idleness life of the rich ruined the Tkach kids?


Herbert W. Armstrong business philosophy - "If you want to dine with the upper classes, you must lie to the masses".

Anonymous said...

Herbal Manor For Sale - BARGAIN
Feel the need to trade up from the apartment to something more expansive? How about Manor Del Mar?

Aw..what memories. I spent my freshman, Presbyterian to WCG year on the third floor of Del Mar. I prayed under those eves that God would use me, open my eyes, bless this that and the other thing in the Church and help me end up where I was supposed to in His I am :)

So God does answer prayers...over time.


Robert said...

>>>His name was discovered in association with the words "Sabbath" and "God" and "Proper".

Forget Ron, my money is on the crazy Orthodox Rabbi who has been living in the desert for the last 30 years, that has come to a knowledge of Yeshua. Watch his great videos!

Tired Skeptic said...

Are we sure that everyone understands?

Herbert Armstrong founded his own church. It was his. He owned it. All the money coming in was his to do with as he pleased.

So it is with churches based on the one originally founded by Herbert Armstrong. Each leader founds his own church. It is his. The money is his.

In such a venue, there is no need for accountability because the people in the congregations are there solely at the discretion of the original founder -- the one who started the particular splinter of the religion.

Rights are irrelevant. The original founder and owner can do as he [or in rare cases, she] pleases. End of story. Anyone who gets the church after the death of the founder is in the same position as the founder, but a lot richer starting out.

Unless or until everyone comes to accept the reality of this golden rule -- that the original founder gets and owns everything at his or her discretion -- all the whining and wheedling in the world is totally irrelevant and useless.

Robert said...

>>>Herbert Armstrong founded his own church. It was his. He owned it.

If we compare the church structure to a company then the managing director (founder) has the right to do anything he/she pleases with the money. They have to make decisions whether they are right ones or wrong ones accepting the consequences of their actions.

The problem is when you are taking money from people using God's name or authority, it is only then, that accountability really exists!

Companies do not claim to do the will of God but churches do! They claim biblical authority as justification for taking money from the masses.

The founder of any church has plundered their own money into the organisation, used their own skills (advertising) to increase the wealth of the organisation. It is right that the founder is properly rewarded for his efforts.

The churches of God are really corporations with their own brand, in it to make money to keep the organisation running with all of its costs. So of course they are going to demand money from people whether tithes or offerings. If we don't like it, we certainly know where the door is!

The churches of God have two options. Either the members fund them or they have to create businesses (like the Church of England does) that actually brings in profit to support the functions of the church. They will have to open a range of Christian bookshops, charity shops, invest in property, have a range of restaurants etc. They could have bought the Ambassador Auditorium putting on some great shows (and earning some money).

Tired Skeptic said...

They have to make decisions whether they are right ones or wrong ones accepting the consequences of their actions.

On spot, Robert, except in the case of the founder of the Radio Church of God. Every time he started to have to accept the consequences of his overspending in manic mode, he'd use the name of God to stir up the masses to pay for his insane profligate spending patterns. And it always worked. If your con is good enough....

The problem is that it was a one note success and people caught on. People like the sad and pathetic David Pack are now facing the consequences of overextending himself and we shall see what the result will be of plying his victims cash for guilt will be.

As predictions go, the one about a CoG vanishing in 2008 may well apply to him. If so, it will give us hope for 2009 for the next one.

Hint to the rest of the Church Corporate: Pay attention to Robert and if you are going to be a Church Corporate, run it like a corporate business, balancing the books and offering merchandise that makes a prophet... er... profit.

Stan said...


I signed on to your posting on the "Church of God Declaration of Independence" over at Ambassador Reports.

Stan Gardner

Bamboo_bends said...

Tired Skeptic said... the Republican Dog Owner Pastard sort of way.....

A new term has been born! The Pastard!

I guess it was inevitable the terms Pastor and Bastard would eventually collide....

That ranks right up there with "double breasted parasite"....

paco said...

"Tired Skeptic" is absolutely correct. HWA founded and owned the church. Per HWA, God called him and gave HWA (and maybe Loma) the Great Commission. As HWA made abundantly clear to anyone who would listen without filters to what he actually said, you and I had no part in that calling. The ONLY reason we were called was to assist and serve HWA in fulfilling his calling. I remember certain ministers in Pasadena who would get upset every time HWA said that - but that was clearly his opinion. He owed no explanations or justifications or accountability to anyone.

HWA also made clear that he WAS Ambassador College. He was the church. Therefore, from his point of view, it was impossible for him to misuse any funds because all the money belonged to him to do whatever he chose to do. He WAS the church. After all, God had chosen him and not any of the other church ministers or members or the IRS or the state of California or anyone else to decide what to do with "God's money." Your responsibility and my responsibility was to send in the cash and shut up.

It was all pretty clear for those willing to admit it but most of us were too starry-eyed, confused or intimidated to immediately declare "BS!" and walk away.

I see the same attitudes in today's prophets, healers, and word of faith groups - plus, of course, in the pitiful personality cults of the wcg remnants.

paco said...

I think Dennis Diehl has used "pastard" several times in his writings. It is a wonderful term (but does not apply to Dennis, IMHO).

Another of my favorites is "Herbvert W. Armstong" which originated on the Ekklesia group several years ago.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is, how do we know that God is working through a particular minister or "apostle"? It'd be nice if one could plainly tell that the witness of God was somehow behind these individuals, as is reported about the holy men in the Bible. But, as an example, if you asked a member of RCG how they knew that "Mr." Pack was an apostle, they'd probably just say, "Oh, Mr. Pack told us so!"

It's just all so silly, and yet people base their financial decisions and family's security on the flimsiest of "evidence". Hey, at least Simon Magus performed magic tricks!

Tired Skeptic said...

Pastard came from The Painful Truth.

Scoundrel General came from another source.

mel said...

The leadership of these churches has a vested interest in having the "lowly" members believe that they are quite deep-down-despicable, and full-o-sin. Heck, they are even taught that they can't trust their own minds.

What could possibly be of help in such a dire situation?

It's an age old sales trick: Convince someone that he is in need, then have the handy dandy product to fill that created need. Recruitment.

THE LEADERSHIP are ostensibly "anointed and inspired by God", and tell the flock how to act and which thoughts are ok to think.

Once the Leaders can get members to believe that, the financial dividends are guaranteed.
For the leaders, that is.
Classic dividend-reaping mind control.

Of course, hooks are planted making it hard to think of leaving. Retention.

In order to not stir the psychological hornet's nest, and since hooks are engineered to go in and be hard to pull out, one tends to sink into the belief system further(and accept the cult's nutty ideas).

"Holding fast" a cult member might accept as truth such a nutty idea as the one that for UCG, their buying a property near Denton, Texas, or having a little exposure via an anti-Christmas article is evidence of doing a MIGHTY WORK and fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 29:14.
(as is shown here .)

Oh and by the way, these tactics are all too common in some businesses, too, and that trend is on the rise.
Take Amway/Quixtar, for example.
I remember reading on the Merchants of Deception website, and clicking on audio links of Amway/Quixtar leaders quoting Bible verses and mentioning(in a very Dave Pack-like fashion) how terrible things have happened to all those that criticized them.

Bamboo_bends said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ripley said...

Can't buy in to this one.

Donors to churches have no rights. They have the right to walk away, which, when exercised, gives them more of a voice than they care to realize.

Remember the term? "Herbert W. Armstrong, A Corporation Sole."

In one legal maneuver, the truth came to the forefront.

Well-intentioned though we may have been, we should have realized then and there how blatantly we'd been had.

Blame it on Rader, or his alleged Svengali-like qualities, if you want. But somebody had to green-light it.

And the money rolled in. What saps we were.

Anonymous said...

There is one sure way that you can know exactly how how the money you give to charity is spent. Take complete control of your giving. Don't give a penny to any religious institution. Or even any none religious charity. Become your own charity. Than you have complete control. I am not a religious person but for those who are dosn't scripture say,"pure religion is giving to the widows and orphans in their affliction" . We don't need to give to any institution to do that.

M. T. Hall said...

I still fault the Bible itself for it's ability to be used by anyone, sincerely or insincerely so, to extract money for any kind of God work one can imagine.

It promises if you give, you get the windows of heaven opened. It promises, whatever you ask in my name, I will give it. It promises, protection in bad time, It promotes specialness of some over others.

These and hundreds of other Biblical concepts can be used to extract money, properties, resources, loyalty and compliance and install fear guilt and shame for control. Some do it sincerely because "it's the Bible" while others use the book to get what they want. It's all kinda sick.

You can motivate, correct, strike fear into, guilt, shame and control people with a 1000 bible stories and "their lesson for us today." It's all in the book.

Think how much better a world it might be if we had NO Bible to promote everything from Taliban Evangelicalism to One man cults who are God's chosen few.

Jesus evidently got to be his authentic self. The Apostles did, Paul certainly unique a thought that everyone was entitled to be their true authentic self without religious expectations from an archaic book that has been edited, redacted, full of additions and deletions and whether we see it or not, is not one coherent story of salvation from Genesis to Revelation.

The Polytheistic God of Genesis is not the one we end up with as the gods evolve thru the text into the NT that's for sure.

And so the sincere and the insincere use the book to whatver ends they imagine.

There is abook about living one year by the Bible. How about one year without it. Two? Five? A whole new way of thining and being might open up.

M.T. Hall said...

I Know this is long as it's from my article The Church Members Basic Bill of Rights written awhile back.

Dennis Diehl

The following are basic human, religious and spiritual rights any person has as a member of any and all religious organizations or church congregations.

You have the right to expect the church to keep your personal contributions private and should be able to expect that any who deal with such things for accounting purposes will do the same.

You have the right to expect that your membership in any church or congregation is not contingent on how much you give or do not give.

You should also expect that jobs, positions, opportunities or offices are not given based on the amount anyone gives to the church.

You have the right to say I can only give this even if it is not a tithe of your income gross or net.

You have the right not to be spiritually judged or have your loyalty or sincerity questioned based on what you are able or unable to give financially to the church.

You have the right to ask a Pastor if he checks tithes and offereings for any of the above reasons before giving to a church.

You have the right to say “I'm tired and won't be there, “ to any and all activities, plays, fundraisers, studies, seminars, prayer groups, rehearsals, practices and sermons.

You have the right to say “I don't care about that.”

You have the right to question the advice, counsel or sermon of any minister, elder, deacon or any other person in authority.

You have the right to question authority and to still expect to be allowed to attend your church.

You have the right to question a minister who declares himself one or both of the Two Witnesses of Revelation, a Prophet, the Supreme Watcher of Mankind for God, The Only True Apostle in this Age and any other title or position he can come up with to impress you as to why you need to support him.

You have the right to suggest a pastor get spiritual or psychological help should the need arise.

You have the right tell him that the congregation is noticing a trend here.

You have the right to ask why the church believes what it does when the Bible might say otherwise, or why the Bible says something that the church practices that seems scary, weird, inappropriate for this time, out of date or controlling.

You have the right to notice that ministers often quote scriptures out of context or fail to enforce or address the rest of the story that does not agree with the point they are trying to make.

You have the right to ask all the “how can that be,” “how could that happen,” “why does it say this here and that there,” questions you can come up and expect an intelligent answer. If you are told that you are using human reasoning, ask the pastor what kind of reasoning he uses. If he says “God's,” find another church.

You have the right to not want elders, deacons or your friends accompanying the minister on visits to your home to talk to you.

You have the right to discuss or not discuss your life with the minister as you see fit.

You have the right to expect absolute confidentiality and for your story not to show up in the sermon next week, even though “I won't say the name.”

You have a right to be called ahead of time when the pastor wants to ask about stopping over.

You have the right, when he calls to say, “I'm tired,” “I'm busy,” “No, but I appreciate the call,” without repercussions.

You have the right to keep a dirty home, grass not mowed perfectly, an older car, red in color and kids that don't say “yes sir, nice to see you sir,” in just the right way.

You have the right to watch and read what you wish even if the pastor just got done bashing that particular program, movie or book from the pulpit in his sermon on “Demons in Your Home—Six Ways to Assure Your Eternal Death.”

You have the right to ask the pastor not to call on you at work, even if you own the business.

You have the right to say, “I can't afford to take you to lunch.” “I can't afford to give you free wood or brick.” “I can't afford to fix your house up free,” “I can't fix all your teeth,” to your pastor should he expect professional courtesies, even if he offers to do your funeral free.

You have a right to expect free use of your church for weddings and funerals.

You have the right to expect these usages are not dependent on you, your parents or children living a sinless life six months prior to the date of the event.

You have the right not to answer questions your pastor may ask you or your children about your sexual practices. If he insists, then insist that you all share together.

You have the right to not let the pastor inform you as to who you can and cannot date or marry.

You have the right to enjoy your sexuality free of church or pastoral approval. Something that is wrong for the pastor is not necessarily wrong for you in how you express yourself to your partner. There is no Bible prohibition against....well you know. And if there were, you'd have the right to disagree with that too.

You have the right to not share which or if you are taking medications of any sort with the pastor.

You have the right to take such medication and not be judged as having a lack of faith or trust in God to heal you.

You have the right to seek professional help without informing your Pastor of the nature of the help and you have the right to not be helped solely by the pastor under threat of repercussions.

You have the right to insist the pastor get professional help should the need arise and the man is causing more harm than good.

You have the right to remind him that God does not directly speak to him nor express His will only through the mind of the pastor and that makes you uncomfortable if he thinks that is so.

You have the right to be wrong about a many things.

You have the right to believe you are correct about many things without repercussions.

You have the right not to care about everything that others think you must care about to be a good Christian.

You have the right to tell the pastor he is wrong, mistaken or exaggerating.

You have the right to dress as you wish, wear the jewelry you wish and make up you wish or not wish without being labeled a whore or a goody goody.

You have the right to feel that dressing as if it was still 1957 and only watching Disney Movies or How the West Was Won as proof of your pureness is baloney.

You have the right to not be told that the best times for entertainment, movies and TV was when the Pastor was a boy. You have the right to like the food he does not like and to not like the foods he does.

You have the right to like the schools he doesn't and not like the ones he does.

You have the right not to bear your soul to the ministers wife.

You have the right to like or not like, agree or not agree with the ministers wife.

You have the right to not view the world through the pastor's eyes morally or politically.

You have the right to hate the war while he believes the war in Iraq is God's will and thinks it's all in the Bible.

You have the right to expect him to speak clearly where he thinks the Bible speaks for us today and to walk slowly and drink cool water where it doesn't.

You have the right to tell the pastor that that is his opinion and not necessarily the only true opinion on earth.

You have the right for you, your children, your partner and your friends to be themselves.

These are but a few of the rights any member of any Church, congregation or religious organization has.

In short, you have the right to not be required to check your brains, your insights, your perspectives and your free will at the door to be welcome and a member of any church.

Article Source:

Anonymous said...

The rumor is that UCG closed on the Texas property. Most of the tithe slaves are against the purchase.

The Texas property will become the "Donors Bill and Burden."

Donors only have the right to pay the bill.

Anonymous said...

"Donors only have the right to pay the bill."

Well the let's drop all this stuff about "doh"ners not having rights. You just named one! :)

Anonymous said...

"Donors only have the right to pay the bill."

Well the let's drop all this stuff about "doh"ners not having rights. You just named one! :)

Tom Mahon said...

DennisDiehl said...

>>>Behold...You seemed to have missed a previous posting outlining just how much of a braggart the Apostle Paul was and how Great a humble Apostle compared to them all he declared himself to be.<<<

In fact I didn't miss it. I read the whole post with astonishment, but I didn't know that you wrote it using your anonymity.

However, it is quite bewildering how a former minister can be so ignorant of the teachings of the bible. But I suppose you fall into the category of those who didn't come through the door, which is Christ, but climbed up some other way into the sheepfold. And are therefore described by Jesus as, "A thief and a robber." Which means you had the title, minister, but not the substance. Hence your ignorance.

>>>Actually Tom, while you are welcome here for whatever you personally get from being here, you contribute little of worth to any discussion save for your own brand of self promotion at the expense of others.<<<

I believe Gavin is the moderator of this Blog, and though he probably, vehemently disagree with everything I say, he never said I was wasn't welcome.

In addition, if you review my posts, you will find that I have not abuse anyone. I have been very critical of the inane or absurd opinions of almost everyone here. But I have not accused anyone of being self righteous, I have not called anyone a bigot, a jackass, a moron or a mud slinger, etc., etc.. But I have been called all these things by various people here. But I am not complaining or offended, you might be surprised to learn!

Now if I had joined this forum, spewing out venom against Mr. Armstrong, by referring to him as, Herbie or Harmstrong, I no doubt would treated with courtesy and respect. And if I had gone on to believe and disseminate the gossip and rumour that he was guilty of incest and financial impropriety, I would have been inducted into The Painful Truth hall of fame, which is reserved for those who hate Mr. Armstrong with a perfect hatred.

>>>Those who know you note that indeed, you have not changed over the years and do enjoy a similar reputation wherever you go.<<<

No doubt these are another anonymous group of cowards, who have email you with comments about me. If I was a gambling man, I would bet that none of them have the courage to openly post any comments about me here and sign their name to it! Whereas, if I had anything say about them, I would not be afraid to say it publicly, for it would be the truth. Still, what they have to say is of very little concern to me, for all my enemies are dead or dying!

Bamboo_bends said...

When it comes to these cults......there's no donors, only enablers.

I mean if you don't look at it all for what it really is and take back your own personal God given power, and unplug the Pastard-ego-machine then God help you.

Anonymous said...

"However, it is quite bewildering how a former minister can be so ignorant of the teachings of the bible"

Only to you. Don't kid yourself, I know all you know, plus what you filter out in your reading.

I'm very content with the kind of Pastor I was in WCG with no string of regrets over giving the party line when it hurt people more than helped them on many topics. I came to WCG from a Liberal Dutch and Presbyterian background which proved to have provided me with some common sense not found by those that grew up in WCG and went on to be ministers who let others do all their thinking for them.

"To be played in all the churches" was an option to me, not an edict since I had to deal with all the lousy attitudes generated by second rate pep rallys via tape to keep the locals thinking of HQ once in awhile. My call and no regrets in hindsite.

You're temperament here on AW indicates to me that you would have been the kind of minister we had all grown to hate see coming and the kind I always prayed would never replace me and undo all I done for the people as their pastor.

After I left an area it was not uncommon to field months of calls from my previous location asking me to help them with the fool who came in and had a heart of stone and a forehead of flint with my way or the highway as his theme song. I suspect you would engender that type of reaction with your own way of defending what you think you need to defend.

"Still, what they have to say is of very little concern to me, for all my enemies are dead or dying!"

This comment alone would indicate to any psychologist some rather troubling aspects to your self image. Anyone ever said that to me in a counseling session and A. no you might need to not attend for the sake and safety of the church for now, and B. I'd like to see you talk to a professional about that concept in your mind. I'd also expect whatever excuse not to you just passed through your own mind when you just read this.

Either that or you really are Dave Pack who has made similar statements about those that question him. However, since the death of his wife, I am not sure he would say that again.

Some are capable of having bowels of tender mercy but others only bowels. If I had to guess....

PS any annonminity of mine is a google problem and occasionally I fail to put my initials at the end of a posting. I don't avoid anything.


Anonymous said...

PS Tom: If you really understood the depth of Jesus, you would have no enemies. Only those you had to put a little more effort into loving. You statement is assinine in the extreme concerning them either being dead or dying.

Anonymous said...

Tom: Here's a little teaching of the Bible I have held my ignorance at bay with...

"You have heard that it was said, " You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." (4) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward to you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (5) And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles (6) do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Now this may be the ignorant part, and I could be wrong, but I think it says after this...

"but if you can't and it doesn't work for YOU, then shall I the Eternal, smite dead thine enemies or sicken them unto death over time, times and half a time....sooz you may feel special.."

I think that's in there somewhere..


Anonymous said...

If you're the same Tom Mahon of "Vessels of Mercy" you need to change the title of your blog or pray that someday God will call things that aren't as though they are, but they aren't, but we can hope.


Bamboo_bends said...

Tom Mahon said....

....what they have to say is of very little concern to me, for all my enemies are dead or dying!

At your hands? People die who don't agree with you? Yikes. I hope Scotland Yard pays you a visit.

Or are you like that weird little kid in that Twilight Zone episode that scares the entire town into submission because he can will people to die?

What a hellacious and rather remarkable "Christian" outlook! I don't recall seeing that one in the beatitudes.

The Buddhists have a saying about enemies that really irritate us, they bother us because they reflect something about ourselves. In that sense, they can often be instructive. But I doubt anyone brought up in the disfellowship the disagreeing one mindset could even begin to grasp that.

Job 33:14 NIV

For God does speak—now one way, [ and then] another — though man may not perceive it....

...and sometimes it can from even the cheeks of an ass!

Tired Skeptic said...

In addition, if you review my posts, you will find that I have not abuse anyone.

Save for calling them cowards and having deficient vocabulary (one I know who was tested to be in the 99% percentile in the United States -- far above at least one poster here) among other things.

A would certainly call that a liar and a deceiver, but then, we can't call people names here.

Still, what they have to say is of very little concern to me, for all my enemies are dead or dying!

Vengeance is mine, saith the Tom. Delighted in that is he? Two Proverbs spring to mind: the one about how if your ways please the Lord, even your enemies will be at peace with you. I guess death would satisfy that one. The other is about taking delight in the wicked being punished and the Lord withholding the punishment because you were so happy with the treatment.

I do believe that we are dealing with quite a sick, vengeful, dysfunctional person here. Just a slight suspicion....

No one seems to have addressed the core reason why cultmeisters found cults. It's all about freedom. The freedom to enforce your own crazy and silly ideas on others. Herbert Armstrong used to take such delight [as mentioned in his autobiography] about how he made someone "eat their words". He was a small and petty man full of vengeance, wanting revenge upon those who looked down on him. The best revenge he got was being chancellor of a college without even going past the eighth grade. He was often mean spirited and demeaning to those who did not agree with him. He had a very high quotient in the "pride of life" department as well as the lust of the eyes. It does appear that he was a hero to Tom and Tom is following in his footsteps -- footsteps where angels fear to tread: Even Michael the archangel dare not bring railing accusation against Satan but said, "The Lord rebuke you". Perhaps Tom should consider this....

Tired Skeptic said...

Hi there!

Have any of you received spam e-mail from Nigeria lately? Most of us have and by this time either have it blocked, delete it or otherwise ignore it.

It may surprise some of those here, but there are some of the smaller Churches of God which do not have paid ministers, nor is any of the money pocketed. Instead, the money goes into publishing the gospel [according to Herb] in various ways, whether by slick full color magazines, TV programs or Internet Websites.

But behind the scenes, there is somewhat a lack of accountability for the money that goes certain places. It develops that for some CoGs, up to 95% or more of the money contributed to the church ends up going to one group or other in Africa, where there is absolutely no accountability of how the money is spent.

Some of us are painfully aware that the leaders of the Churches of God, though they might be sincere, are being ripped off and the money is going to con men, no less certainly than if it had been sent as a response to a spam e-mail from Nigeria.

Some of us are aware that some groups have caught on: If you but pretend you keep the Sabbath and Holydays [with whatever calendar your sponsoring CoG in the US supports], you get money. One group actually had three different CoGs giving them money without the other two CoGs knowing about it -- and at least in two cases with two different "tribes", the Holydays that were supposedly kept by the group were at different times, ranging from two days up to a month.

Moreover, some of the small groups sigh and cry that they can't give more to these "brethren" and have sent money to them so they could buy Bibles, or shipped the Bibles overseas themselves. We know what happens to any publication from a CoG in the United States when it falls into the hands of those in third world countries: The recipients sell it for the money. Those who have more money will buy almost anything, particularly Bibles, but Plain Truths, Good Newses, Tomorrow's World is also good for a few bucks.

If we want accountability amongst the Churches of God [and face it, it's never going to happen], then the CoGs must hold those they give the money they receive accountable too, so the "Lord's money" is not misspent.

Stop laughing! Stop! Stop, I say!

Anonymous said...

I knew a of "sure we'll keep the sabbath" tribe who had no food. So we sent them fish. But then they had no shoes, so we sent them shoes, but we noticed they had no wait, I'm getting confused..Anyway, so we sent them fishing poles to learn to fish and they sold the poles. Then we found out they met on Sunday with the Mormons and on Saturday with the SDA's. So we told the brethren a tribe of holy day keepers got in touch with US and we went to visit them. Over 144,000 shifted over to UCG.

They told us they were hungry and had no feet, so we sent them poles, but no shoes, which they sold to Dave Pack because they had the "send it in" sermon. So we said, "screw it" and had a district family weekend in Louisville and good time was had by all

Lussenheide said...


Im convinced that Tom actually loves getting dumped on here.

It gives him strokes and attention and a sense of "Im being persecuted for righteousness sake".

I believe that if we TOTALLY IGNORE HIM that he will lose interest.

So, start today, no matter how idiotic Tom is, DO NOT RESPOND AND ACT LIKE HE IS NEVER READ!

Bill Lussenheide, Menifee, CA USA

Anonymous said...

Tom who?


Tired Skeptic said...

You all know what I think: Persecution isn't persecution until it becomes a martyrdom. And just to be clear, a martyr isn't a martyr until they're dead.