Goey

Was cleaning up the other day and found some of my long lost collaterals .... and a couple of others. These survived the purge of '88.

I wonder what they will fetch these days on Ebay? Wonder if they would go for more sold as a set, or if sold individually.

Inventory:

Bible Tells Me So

New Dynamic Church

Word's Way

RTHST

Order My Steps

JCING

JCOP

Tell ya what ..... first $500 gets them all ( Plus Shipping and handling)

Lucy,

Welcome to the best cafe in Cyberworld. Hope to hear more from you.

Your sleeping bag story is not real surprising. That kind of stuff seemed to happen quite a bit, but more often with adults. I have heard that maried adults were encouraged or even required to share sleeping space with other married adults who were not their spouses. However this is the first time I have heard of adults ( I assume leaders) encouraging teenagers of the opposite sex to share a sleeping bag. That's just outright stupid if not criminal. Glad you came out ok.

Concerning your question about pediphillia and homosexuality .... I was in TWI from about 1975 - 1982 and was not Way Corps or any kind of TWI heavy in the know. But from my experience as a rank and file I never heard a thing about encouraging pediphillia or homosexuality. I would say that the opposite closer to true, especially with male homosexuality. If anything TWI's official stance borderd on homophobia. There was a homo purge under Martindale, but I was not very involved then. Other's here can certainly tell you more about that than I can.

There has been at least one report of a pedophile being covered for by upper leadership. But I doub't that it was becasue it was encouraged. More lilkely it was covered up in self defense- that the ministry not be blamed.

There have been reports of lesbianism being at least tolerated at certain levels. Seems quite a few men are ok with lesbianism, especially in a threesome kind of thing, and considering the sexual shenanigans that went on in TWI as far back as the 70's, it is not unlikely that it was encouraged in certain circumstances with certain priviliged leaders. However I did not see it encouraged with the rank and file while I was in.

Some folks believe that that the current President of TWI and her top assistant are lesbians and have been for years. The evidence seems to be credible, but IMO not indisputable. Your "friend" seems creepy to me too. Those gut fellings are many times right on.

In any case sex was a big deal in TWI. Some of the sexual attutides of TWI may have been rooted in that wonderful and immutable spiritual law, set forth and taught by the Teacher himself.

Again, welcome to the spot.

I've been on this chat board for a number of years and still see and often end up reading posts by the same hurting people who have also been posting here for a number of years. What I've learned is hurting people usually only end up hurting themselves and they also end up hurting others who are easily offended. They are still speaking out of hurt but they haven't dealt with their hurt honestly. Someone starts talking critically of someone, but if you were truly spiritual you would step in and say, "I see you have this brother or sister in Christ on your heart. We need to pray for them. You lead the prayer."

While it is true that some people are still hurting from their past in TWI and may speak out of that hurt, many others have moved beyond the hurt. These speak, not from present hurt, but from having honestly delt with the hurt and moved past it with an understaing how and why it happened, and knowing the source(s) of the hurt. I have noticed that when folks "criticze" the actions (past or present) of certain leaders who did dispicable things in the name of God , that certain others will almost certainly come to and try to silence the disclosure of these actions, by suggesting that it is not spiritual todiscuss or critisize the actions of these spiritual mauraders, and that if we were truly spiritual, we should only see the good and put the bad in a lock box. Nothing could be more harmful.

That doesn't work here because that would shut a lot of people up pretty quick. Of course one can always do it in a self-righteous, 'holier-than-thou' way or one can do it out of love. Doing it out of love would probably convict someone though, but it's still your choice on how to do it. The reason a lot of people are still dealing with hurt is because they haven't learned to recognize the source and answered it. They haven't learned yet how to speak back to offences and recognized it for what it is or learned how to take the 'life support' off of it.

And it's a good thing that it doesn't work. Why should anyone shut up in regards to the offenses and the people that commited them? While it is true that only focusing on the offences will not lead to getting over the hurt etc, we must first know the offences/offenders in order to understand the reasons for them so that the healing process can begin. The fact that the offences and the people that committed them are discussed a lot, is not necessarily an indication that anyone is still hurting or that they have not learned how to "take the life support" off it it. Discussion is healthy, if its purpose is to lead to understanding either for themselves or for others, even it includes critisizing ( pointing out the errors) of certain offensive individuals. Shutting up is one of the worse things we could do.

To have and lead a life of victory one has to know how to deal with an offence whenever it comes toward them, but many have never learned the lesson on how to deal with offences so they continue to nuture those offences instead of rooting them out. The bible says bitterness when it takes root will defile you. (Hebrews 12:15) Other things got planted on the inside and they watered and nurtured those things, and some people are still dealing with those things many, many, many years later. Why? Because they watered and "nurtured" those offences. They not only sprouted, but they now have become really BIG ISSUES to deal with - especially when it effects your emotions and your decisions. When people get mad or angry they say things and make a lot of wrong decisions they never would have made if those offences had not gotten on the inside and grown.

I have notice that when the offences and offenders are discussed that some will almost invariably project bitterness, judgmentalism, etc upon the discussers, assuming that these people are consumed or obsessed with hatred, etc, which is far from the truth. When we ignore/forget the past we lose the lessons it can teach us. The past is a part of who we are and should not be witewashed or put in a lock box. Whitwashing the past results in self-dececption and a skewed sense of reality. I would rather carry the scars that represent the lessons learned from the offences than to pretend to live victoriously in la la land.

While there may be a small few who are consumed with bitterness, etc as a result of "offences", there are many many more who are not, and who have dealt the past in a way that allows them to live the "life of victory" that they choose to live, whether it is Christian or not. Part of the victory in life is being able to discuss the past and the lessons learned. Sometimes emotions come up. These emotions are part of being human and should not be errantly taken as evidence of somone being rooted in bitterness. Concerning the few who might be yet be consumed with "bitterness", I would hope that you would pray for them as much as you would have them pray for the offenders. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. The victims deserve as much, if not more compassion than the offenders.

No, I'm saying your heart could be wrong. Unless you've never been wrong about a person's motives in the past I don't think that's an unreasonable comment to make.

The motives can be inferred by the hard focus on money given to her ministry. By the disporportinate amount of time dedicated to asking for money and selling stuff vs actually teaching (does not include teaching on giving) -- By the huge salary to herself and family members. Is that "unreasonable"?

What kind of "reason" are you using to suggest that I "could" be wrong? -- That I might have been wrong in the past? That's irrelevant. -- By your "reason" we should discount our instincts, intelligence, common sense, experience, facts, scripture, etc in matters relating to another's motives, becasue we may have been wrong once in the past. Care to think that through?

It's difficult to address someone whose mind is already convinced that Joyce Meyer is a false prophet. Is that also a strawman argument? What she "sells" has helped thousands and thousands of people get closer to God (in relationship). If that's called "snake oil" then even some of the members of GS are buying it. (See the other thread about Joyce Meyer). I guess they're just being tricked by another false prophet, huh?

So you agree that you made a strawman. Good. You're getting a bit more honest. And yes, it is a strawman also. You are not arguing the actual points. And yes, if they are swallowing Meyer hook line-and-sinker, if they asked me, I would tell them that I believe Meyer to be a huckster.

*sigh* I guess you missed my point that Solomon was responsible for serving God's children. He was rewarded with great wealth. Do you think Solomon never spoke God's word to God's children and inspired confidence in his leadership? Seldom will a man (nation) support another man if they don't instill confidence in their ability to lead them. Solomon was such a man.

I seldom miss points. In the way I addressed it, it should have been clear that I beleived your point to be irrelevant, since once again you dodged the real issue with a false analogy. Once again, Solomon was the King, not a word-faith TV preacher going about pressuring folks to give money to him with the promise of healing and wealth in return.

We aren't talking about Martindale or Wierwille. This is a strawman argument. What is Joyce's "whole"? Are there not thousands upon thousands that have been brought to a closer relationship with God? Isn't that what God wants?

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what a strawman is. Mine was a simile/ analogy, illustrating that because someone "says" they do something, doesn't make it so. I used VPW and LCM as examples. This was to counter your bogus argument that implied that because Meyer said "xxxxx" that it should be taken as true.

Wether or not folks are coming closer to God through Myers' ministry is arguable. The rank unbeliever might get saved and get a basic understanding og God, and therefore be closer. Someone who already is saved and has a bit of understanding of God/Christ but who falls for the "word-faith message" may get further away.

YOU don't have to take it all. YOU aren't the one needing a stronger relationship with God. THEY (that support Meyer's ministry) are the only one's whose "faith" matters.

Strawman again. Don't you get tired of fallacious arguments?

Regardless of who or who may not benefit from Meyer's teachings, the real issues are whether or not Meyers deserves an extremely huge salary f a true minister of God. Whether or not her's is a for profit business. And whether to not the "Church" tax breaks should be allowed.

Well, I suppose you'll have to ask all those who have benefited from her ministry if what she does and says is credible evidence her ministry being of God. If it's not of God, then Satan sure does have knack for making idiots out of a bunch of people.

If you ask David Koresh's followers if they benefited, some would still say yes. Same with many other groups later to be discovered to be corrupt at the top. If you asked the same thing to many of us when we were were involved in TWI we would also have said yes to your question. Experience should tell us that our perceived benefit does not always reflect honesty and good motives at the top of the groups we may choose to follow or associate with. For many, the then perceived benefits were later found out to be a delusion or a detraction. However, I do agree that Satan does have a knack for making idiots our of people. The Bible is full of examples and warnings. You should consider them sometime.

I don't recognize the Didache as being authoritative on this subject any more than I recognize the authority of the Gospel written by Mary Magdalene.

I didn't present it as authoritive, didn't I make that clear? -- I asked you if you thought it was wrong, and if you thought the early Christians that followed it were wrong. Instead of addresing that, you evaded answering the questions with the above.

Considering that you refuse to address the actual points and insist upon strawman arguments, dodges, false analogies, redirection and evasion, it is increasingly apparent to me that this discussion cannot go any further in an intelligent and thoughtfull manner.

I'm done.

Since you've already concluded that ministers who live lavishly are living immorally I can understand why you consider them "hucksters". Despite that conclusion, the defense that "you don't know her heart" stands because you really don't know it. You know what your heart says on the issue -- and yet, your heart could be wrong.

So you are saying then that the heart cannot be seen by actions and words?

I bring up Solomon (and Job -- and I could bring up many other examples) wealth because the Bible clearly states that his wealth was given to him by God. Are you now judging that God is wrong to give such great wealth to a man who serves Him?

Strawman argument. Neither Solomon nor Job sold what they claimed to be the word for God for personal gain. I am not against wealth. I am against false prophets selling snake oil in the name of God while getting a tax break.

Address the actual issue please.

You must have missed my previous reference to Job. He wasn't a king and yet after Satan took away all that he possessed it says the Lord doubled back his loss. How do you think God gave to Solomon or Job (or any of the others mentioned) their great wealth? Did He whip out His checkbook and write them out a blank check? I believe there's a verse that says something about "pressed down, shaken together and overflowing shall MEN give unto your bosom."

In your zeal to defend Meyer, you seem to have missed my points completely or you ignored them. Once again neither Solomon's nor Job's personal wealth came from selling the Word of God. Solomon got his wealth through taxes, being the King. Job worked for his through legitimate business - sheep/cattle business. Your analogies are missapplied.

Well, Joyce says she loves God and spends all her time telling others how to live for God. I think those words and actions are in harmony with each other.

That's only a small part of what she says, and is unrepresentative of the whole. Martindale and Wierwille also said that they loved God. Look at their fruit.

I suppose then that because someone says they love God that we must take it on faith? And because Meyer SAYS that she " spends all her time telling others how to live for God" that it is actual credible evidence ALL all she does?

Have another sip of Kool-Aid.

Given the type of persecution many of the Christians suffered during the early years of Christianity I doubt many of us posting on GS would have done too well back then either.

Nice dodge/redirection. The context was prophets asking for money as describe in the Didache . Why not address what was written in the Didache instead of redirection. Do you disagree with it? Do you think the 1st/ 2nd century Christians that relied upon this teaching were wrong?

Yep, it's John Hendrix group, now run by his daughter Ra****e since his death. They are having advanced class right now in Destin. I Have 2 brothers attending it.

They seem to be mild compared to TWI and other ofshoots, but they still have that know-it-all, you can't tell me nothing, thing going on. They hold VP's teachings in high regard with some minor modifications on the "law of beleiving" and a few other things but VPW is still the "Father in the Word" -- at least for my brothers, but it falls somewhat short of Wierweille worship.

On the positive side, they don't seem to be money mongers. Control freaks possibly, but not money mongers.

I wonder if this guy's experience was directly with the organization, or just with a group of folks that subscribe to the tapes and newsletters.

The reason I say this, is that according to my understanding, the organization does not control or lord over the fellowships. My older brother runs his own and does whatever he wants to.

My guess is that this guy got invovled with an autonomous fellowship of Ex-TWI folks that subscribe to the Hendrix tapes and newsletters and that these ex-TWI's, not knowing any better, still use some of the same methods and carry some of the same attitudes of TWI folks from way back when. (old habits are hard to break)

The scriptures you cited can also be looked at with greater scrutiny than looking at them and thinking they support your pov. In any case -- again -- you have to know and show evidence that Joyce's heart is only to get rich off of others in order for those scriptures to fit. I don't think you can.

It's easy to pull out the old "you don't know her heart" defense suggesting greed cannot be "proven". -- And the old "who are YOU to judge?" defense, suggesting judgmentalism -- And the old, "it's between them and God" thing (another form of "don't ask - don't tell). This is the kind of thinking that allows these "Christian" hucksters to continue. This is the same kind of thinking that contributed to allowing the abuse in TWI to go on for so long.

Then someone invariably brings up the Solomon factor as a defense, comparing the modern day TV minister with an OT king. Meyer, Copeland, Hinn and others others are not kings, although they try to live like kings with their lavish lifestyles, huge salaries, and unchecked power over their organizations. Like kings, they answer to no one within their organizations since they domintate their coprorate boards by stacking them with family members and close friends who they employ. In any case, the Solomon factor is irrelevant - apples and oranges.

A persons heart is reflected by their words and their actions . We no more need to be God in order to see greed and corruption, any more than we need to be God to see love and kindness. If we can see a heart of love, we can also see a heart of greed. Being God is not necessary. Opening one's eyes is.

Did I say that "Joyce's heart is only to get rich off of others" ? Keyword "only". I do not discount the possibility that she believes she is doing a good thing, and that she is justified in her huge personal gain. It's possible that she may not see her own error and may be deceived herself. It is also possible that she is just in for the money. Either way there is error.

The Didache is an old Christian writing dating back to between 100 - 200 AD. While is is not generally considered God breathed, it was the only writing that many Christians had during that time and they held it in high esteem. Here is a portion of it.

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets.Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges.

If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.

But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets.

But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

Chapter 12. Reception of Christians. But receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, and prove and know him afterward; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you more than two or three days, if need be. But if he wants to stay with you, and is an artisan, let him work and eat. But if he has no trade, according to your understanding, see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep away from such.

Chapter 13. Support of Prophets. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment. (Didache- Roberts)

While not offered as supremely authoratative, the Didache gives some insight into early church teachings that addressed the problems they had with "prophets" that came teaching false doctrines and asking for money.

I don't think Meyer, Copeland, etc would have done too well back then.

There's always exceptions to the rule.

I think monks pretty much fit the same description.

The question is: Is it immoral for someone who preaches the gospel to be supported for doing so? And then the next question would be (if the answer is no) -- How much should they be paid? I'll consider what the Bible says on the issue. If it's silent then, I'll hold my tongue. But if it's not immoral then the amount they are paid is purely a subjective opinion. You're entitled to it but, on the flip side the opinion of those on the other side of the equation are entitled to theirs. In chess that would be considered a stalemate.

Greed is immoral, is it not? - I don't think the Bible is silent about that.

greed - WordNet ® 2.1 (2005) :

greed

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially

more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth

(personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice,

greed, covetousness, rapacity, avaritia]

From Titus:

Tts 1:10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,

Tts 1:11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. (NKJV)

Tts 1:10 For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation.

Tts 1:11 They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money. (NLT)

Tts 1:10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group.

Tts 1:11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach–and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

Meyer then delivered her sermon for giving. She told them that some Christians are worried that if they give it all, they will end up with nothing. If they give, she said, they can expect much more in return.

"Sowing and reaping is a law," Meyer told the Buffalo audience. "If you sow, you will reap. I believe stingy people are very unhappy people. I want you to give your best offering. I believe one person could write one check to cover all of the expenses of this one conference."

A middle-aged man wearing worn jeans pulled a wad of $20 bills from his pocket and placed them in an offering envelope. An elderly woman in a wheelchair wrote out a check for $100.

So Meyer gives a sermon for "giving". Giving to whom? Suprise ! Give to Joyce of course. Then shes says that sowing and reaping is a "law" puting it in the same category as the 10 commandments - law. Then she says that stingy people are unhappy - all of this implying that if you don't give you are not only breaking a law, you are stingy and unhappy. So "give your best offereing she says". Then after telling them that they would be breaking a law and will be unhappy if they don't give ( to her), by playing on the fears which she created, she attempts to get someone to write a check for tens of thousands of dollars. Hey, worth a shot huh?

By Bride of JC:

Right here is what I was speaking about. "Meyer delivers sermon...(1 snippet)" "Sowing and reaping...one person could cover expenses....(2nd snippet)" Now here they focus on middle aged man (who cares what age they are?) and no less he's wearing worn jeans (again, whether you choose to buy worn jeans or they simply wore out, this journalist is attempting to highlight and make it seem that this man (whether he can or not isn't the point) is giving money to Joyce when perhaps he should be saving for retirement and buying himself new clothes. Next part of the same snippet, "an elderly woman" (again why highlight the age? Part of setting it up to look bad for Joyce. She's conning the middle aged and the elderly into giving her money. No, once again the inference is obvious.

Typical Word-Faith sermon. However, a once sentence statement (man in jeans) cannot honestly be construed as the focus. It is a small part of the context. More was written about the sermon, which you conveniently gloss over. I take it that you must believe in that that twisted word-faith swill?

This journalist knows the right tactics to color his target. If the journalist was going to be fair about the whole thing...leave out the age and their dress OR also point out in your article the rich executive businesswoman wearing 5th avenue clothing and impeccably coifed hair etc etc.

The journalist does not need to use any special tacticts other than stating simple facts. The con job is self-evident even if the statements about the man in jeans and the woman in the wheelchair were completly ommited from the article. But, it seems if it were up to you, you would supress or alter the facts by ommission to pain your lady in a more positive light . Leave out the fact that someone is in a wheelchair, or that a man happens to be weaing jeans. God forbid, that someone might accidentally get the wrong impression! You focus on trivial facts such as the man in jeans or the lady in a wheelchair in your zeal to portray the journalist as evil, while you ignore or condone the spiritual and monetary con job going on.

If you don't like Joyce...don't watch her or bother to follow her. I do the same on my TV...if I don't like the program, I click my remote to another channel. All done...no more problem. Whether or not Joyce has money or not, I'm not the one who will stand and be judged because of her...she'll have to stand there herself. Perhaps, she is doing the Lord's will. I don't know. That's between her and the Lord and no one else.

I totally disagree that "It's between her and the Lord and no one else" . That kind of thinking suggest that we should turn a blind eye to evil and injustice. Would you defend a murderer in the same manner? -- A rapist? -- A burglar? -- A shoplifter? -- A crooked politician? - Corporate fraud? --- Oh, that's beween them and God - none ya business!

Or........ are only women preachers that bilk their flocks exempt?

BrideofJC posted:

But you have just made my point for me. Do you know what is in Joyce Meyers' heart? Isn't that the Lord's domain? And yes, when people wantonly flame someone because they have a successful ministry...where is their heart. Why don't they just say, God Bless, I hope you're really doing the work of the Lord, and then just leave it at that.

No, I don't know what's in her heart. But I do know about how much money her and her family are taking out of the ministry. And by several accounts, in her conferences, more time is spent pitching/selling books & tapes and asking for money than is spent actually teaching/preaching. One does not have to see directly into the heart to understand a big focus in her "ministry" .

On the other hand, YOU seem to know what's in folks hearts when they question the legality, ethics and morality of TV ministers making huge personal profits by selling what they say is the Word of God. You say that those that raise concerns and questions have a "spirit of jealousy". Isn't that the Lord's Domain? You exempt yourself of course. Not surprising.

Look at the other snippets surrounding that....i.e. (paraphrase) Joyce gets rich while those who are her donors basically get poorer and poorer. No the inference was correct. I didn't lift it out of its context.

I looked several times. It's simply not there. Your inference is bogus and unrelated to the actual content of the article. The fact that you made the inference and conjured up images of a poor, destitute, street woman in your mind is telling.

The sentene before spoke of a middle aged man in "worn jeans". Does that neccessisarily mean the man couldnt afford new jeans? No, Lot of people, myself included, prefer to wear worn jeans. We can ever buy the pre-worn. It seems to me that if the writer of the article can describe a man in "worn jeans", then that writer, if a "yellow journalist" would have been much more descriptive of the woman in the wheelchair. The writer was not.

I challenge you to make an intelligent and cogent argument showing how and where that article implied or suggested that the lady in the wheelchair was either poor, unable to pay her bills, or living on the streets as you inferred. Make your case. Don't just declare it by fiat.

Im betting that you won't do it becasue you can't do it.

It seems your writing here is more "yellow" (biased) than journalist you accuse of such.

I wonder why some people question the way the church spends money more than the way the government spends money. A church spends 20K for a toilet while the governent spend $3000 for a coffee pot and $500 for a hammer - and the government thinks a church's spending is "out of line?"

So, are you saying that since the government wastes money, that for profit organizitions masquerading as churches should be allowed to operate tax free?

I wonder why "some people" miss the point so often.

Maybe the very fact that mustard doesn't grow that big is an integral element of the parable.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

In Bible times, the mustard plant wasn't even allowed to be planted in a garden. and, if the fowls occupy this plant, they will soon mess it all up. According to some, the fowls are the ministers of the wicked one from Verse 19.

Makes sense to me.

Sunny, it seems the other folks are wrapped up in tradition and don't want to even consider another view. Their loss.

But is this a battle you can win with them? -- I have found that many times it's not worth the effort.

Some folks are so "right" on certain things that they won't even look. -- Debate over.

Minister's wives can be tought nuts to crack.

Good luck.

I agree that accusing a poster of having a spirit of jealousy is a personal insult and should be avoided as it detracts from the issue being discussed.

Ok then, we agree that it was personal. But what if that person actually believes that another really does have a "spirit of jealousy" based upon what they beleive to be an honest understanding of the Bible for example. Would it be fair to prohibit them from expressing that belief? -- In a Doctrinal forum ?

The meaning of "please don't make it personal" is very simple. It means that posters should be able to communicate opinions without adding personal details about or insults against another poster.

Show where personal details were added and show the "insults".

And while you are at it, explain how it is NOT personal in suggesting that those who question Joyce Meyer's salary & lifestyle have a "spirit of jealousy". And then explain why are you are not complaining about that also.

It asks posters right on the forums page "please don't make it personal".

Many things we discuss here are personal by nature.

I am not so sure that "don't make it personal" means what you think it means.

Oldies Posted:

A posters occupation or even personal bias, has nothing to do with discussion and debate of the issues. Keeping the debate about the issues and not getting personal makes for much better and fairer posting.

I disagree.

Personal bias and occupation have quite a bit to do with some discussions/debates. It can affect the credibility of the data presented or left out. It can have even more relevance when the poster is using strawman argumets, red herrings, misdirection, etc, when it is also known that the debater could reap financial gains as a result of their position.

It is interesting that Oldies and Larry only protest the so called ad hominem fallacy, and do not protest the strawmans, misdirection, and many others.

George Posted

When simply giving one's opinion, I think that showing the bias of the source of that opinion is fair game, sorry...

I agree.

And .... when a poster uses strawman arguments, misdirection, and almost never directly addresses what was actually stated, I think the poster's motives/bias become suspect and therfore fair game as well.

I object! --- It goes to credibility your honor. --- Allowed.

Bias is the reason a Judge or potential juror should recuse himself from the trial of a close friend or family member. While the judge or juror may be sure that he can rule objectively, history has proven that it seldom the case.

Another term that might apply is conflict of interest.

Seems Oldies and Larry have no problem with it.

One must wonder why someone without a basic understanding of either scripture or logic would set out to start a ministry.

If would be nice if you guys would use the quote feature in a manner that allows us to know who said what.

Thanks in advance,

Bias? No my concern came from the original poster of this thread who posted a link to some snippets of what journalists purportedly investigated about Myers. Some of these snippets is plain yellow journalism. The assumptions of some were that when they 'saw' a woman in a wheelchair writing a check to the ministry, the inference was that she must be poor and unable to even pay her utility bills, or her medical bills and probably was living on the street type attitude. Where is the documentation for such assumptions?

This is laughable. I read the article. This is what was stated:

"A middle-aged man wearing worn jeans pulled a wad of $20 bills from his pocket and placed them in an offering envelope. An elderly woman in a wheelchair wrote out a check for $100."

Nowhere is there anything that assumes or implies that the lady was poor, unable to pay her bills, or living on the street. It was a simple statement of fact of what was observed. " A lady in a wheelchair worote out a check for $100." That's it, nothing more.

A statement cannot make an inferrence. By definition the "inferrence" is made by by the person hearing the statement. A statement can only imply something. You apparantly don't understand the difference between imply and infer. (Critical Thinking 101). What seems to have happened is that YOU inferred an implication based upon nothing at all, except possibly your own zeal to errantly or falsely portray a simple statement of fact as "yellow journalism".

This is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty or errant logic. Whether intentionally dishonest or not, only you would know.

They are public records...so what's the problem...is she trying to hide something? My only point throughout this whole thing has been this: it's easy to flame someone else whether you have an inside view or not. Yellow journalism was used on the original poster's link which is why I responded in the first place.

Goey: First of all, Meyer did not choose to release the records. They only became public records after she sued to regain tax exempt status. Then after the records became public and her salary known, she took a large cut in salary due to the pressure of public opinion. my guess is for appearance sake. However, at the same time she took the pay cut, she started collecting huge royalties from the sale of her books and tapes, basically bringing her personal income back up close to the 900K per year range.

When someone else has something you are not willing to work for or take the risks, then just flame them and knock them around a bit...thus you feel better about your own inactivity.

Goey: You have no clue at all what anyone is or is not willing to work for or what their calling may or may not be. All were not "called" to be mnisters that live a lavish lifestyle made possible by the tithes and donations of their "flock". Some have certainly been called to other things, so it is errant and might I say unthinking to assume that because they are not striving to run a world wide ministry that they are "inactive" or "unwilling" or have a spirit of jealousy.

There are other Christian activities beside being a rich mass media "minister", many of which may be even more noble. So it does not necessarily follow that inactivity/ jealously is the cause of the alleged "flame". Have you ever actually considered that it may not please God for someone to become weathy by selling his Word for personal gain? And that it may be even more unpleasing to sell something other than his Word in His name for personal profit? Or does pleasing God even matter to you as long as the coffers and pews are full and the money is rolling in?

I recall a verse that says something like: Freely you have received so also give freely. It seems that modern Christianity has become so twisted that many now believe the opposite. Something like: Pay and make 'em pay and make a nice profit while you're at it .

If your ministry is of God and you are truly called, I wish you well and Godspeed. However if you seek to gain personal wealth from your ministry and /or knowlgly teach something other than God's Word to itching ears, I hope your ministy fails miserably and God deals with you justly.

Yah, the bride's business is ministry - http://newcovenantchristianministries.org/ according to her profile.

I wonder if she is the author of The Common, the Holy and the Despised.

Thanks Belle,

That certainly explains her rather obvious bias.

The fact that donations are openly solicited on the home page is quite interesting and may be somewhat telling.

It appears she is after a piece of the same pie that Meyers is feasting upon.

I wonder if the books are open. I bet not.

The About "US" page only lists one person. Jan*** Rob******, yet it appears to be a one horse(mare?)show.

She names herself as a Reverend. It would be interesting to know where and by whom she was ordained.

The mission seems to be a noble cause, but then again, so does Joyce Meyer's.

Goey: I think that Christian minitries should hold themselves to a higher standard than secular busninesses. It is not so much an issue of "is it illegal" than it is one of "does it please God". Christian ministries should not only obey the law, they should also strive to please God - (assuming that God is actually involved)

Goey: I think that churches should be fully transparant to ALL , especially if they are claiming that by tithing to them, it will be multiplied back to the giver. These ministries are recruiting "secular jerks" and thier cash so I think the "secular jerks" should know where the money goes. What good reason could they have for not being fully transparant? I think I know. On the other hand, detailed financial information is readily available on any publically traded corporation, so I don't get your point in that area.

Detailed? When my mutual funds send me their annual report, it comes as 5 color pie charts showing bland %'s, if it does have any further break down, it doesn't reveal if the CEO's bought suits with company money, how many bottles of champagne were written off as business expenses et al.

Goey Again: We are not talling about mutual funds are we? That is totally irrelevant to my point above and to what I was saying. (Strawman argument) I said "publicly traded corporation", didn't I? -- We can hardly compare a mutual fund made up of many different entities with a single corporation can we? Of course not. Apples and oranges. However, FYI - The Edgar Database is open to all who want to look at detailed finances of publically traded corporations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Goey: And I would add, please don't overly defend them either if you don't have an inside view. Since you don't know Meyer's salary or how much she has personally gained from the donations she solicits, you would certainly not have an inside view. Given the track record of TV ministries in the past, I would be reluctant to run to their defense without some really good info. I don't really think they deserve the benefit if the doubt. Been too many scams.

BC: What I was defending, is a ministry that is being blatantly accused with YELLOW journalism. It would also behoove those who are villainizing her to have an inside view as well. The street runs two ways.

Goey Again: The "inside view" comes from financial statements and minutes of boards meetings that became public records when Joyce Meyer sued to maintain Church status. Her lavish lifestyle is public record. And once again, pointing out Joyce Meyers' lavish lifestyle and huge salary is not "villanizing". I don't see it as "yellow journalism" at all. Just getting the facts out in the open. Facts that you seem to think should be either suppressed or go unquestioned.

What is blatent to me is Ms Meyers' huge personal gain from a not for profit corproration, which BTW is illegal.

BTW you said you had a NFP corporation, is that right? It wouldn't happen to be Christian Ministry of any kind would it? Just asking.

Look, I don't want her to stop her "ministry" er , business or have it shut down. Quite a few people seem to like her stuff and she seems to do some people some good. ( it's not my cup of tea) .

However, no way is this truly a not-for-profit charity, considering how much Meyer and her family have personally gained. It's a very profitable business masquerading as a church. Therefore it should be taxed like the profitable business that it is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Goey: Unfortunatley, since so many TV ministers have been exposed over the years as frauds, thieves and money-mongers it is understandabe that folks like Meyers get "back slaps" when they are seen living a life of extreme wealth and privilege. Fancy houses, fancy cars, etc. We know where the money comes from. The question I have is how much do they actually deserve? If they are getting wealthy off of the tithes, then it seems to me it is a business for profit and not actually a "ministry" and there should be no tax exemptions. This would be especially true if the Board of Directors is made up only of family members and lackies that are yes people to the charismatic leader.

BC: Ok, does Joyce personally own these cars? Maybe her home perhaps, or is it listed as a parsonage? Therefore, owned by the ministry...I can't remember. I looked at the articles last week.

Goey Again: Whether or not she personally "owns" the cars or property is irrelevant. She is getting free use of them which is bascially the same thing when you consider that she presides over the Board of Directors and controls the whole corporation. It's income plain and simple. She has no car note, no insurance and no maintanence expenses. No housing exenses - no mortage. This is actually better than owning a car or a home. She runs the place carte blanche and uses the not for profit "corporation" as a holding company for property that her and her familly have exclusive use of.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goey: I say, if you are gonna claim the church tax breaks, open the books for all to see, otherwise close them and then be honest that it really just a business and that a few insiders are getting very rich off of the tithes and donations.

Goey: I take strong exception to this. Why would it necessarily be spiritual jealousy? I think it is more of a case of folks wanting to be taught and to learn from someone that is not getting filty rich off of their donations - where the greater part of the donations (minus reasonable expenses) goes to real charitable causes - rather than to support a lavish lifestyle for someone who claims to be a minister for God. How is that spiritual jealousy?

Goey: If it is a for profit business, then modern merchanidizing techniques are fine. Just be open as say its a business and that you are getting rich off of the tithes and "love offerings". At least that is honest.

BC: Maybe you are not aware of this. When I applied for my FEIN, the IRS asked me if I ever intended selling books, tapes etc. At such an early stage I naturally said "not at this time." I wouldn't be surprised to find out you have to actually re-incorporate under a business identity (albeit the same/similar name of ministry), after all, Uncle Sam wants his cut to be sure.

Goey Again: Looks like the IRS has gotten wise to the tape and books scams from some so called non-profits. The tapes are produced and marketed with money from donations and then the leader gets to personally keep all the royalties, then claiming that this royalty income has nothing to do with funds from the ministry.

But ummmm .... what does that have to do with what I posted above? Can you address my points please?

Why don't you expound upon your comment/accusation about "spirit of jealousy?"

-------------------------------------------------

Goey: What today's so-called prophets and evangelists do is irrelevant to the issue. There is a big difference in a love offering to meet the basic needs of a minister, etc and a high tech marketing campaing that brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars which is used to keep a minister in a lavish lifestyle. Maybe you need to "get real" on this.

BC: Again, who actually owns the things, or is Joyce only using them? If she were to ever leave and they replaced her (and I know...) she would not be able to take it with her. If a NFP fails for whatever reason, you must dispose of any materials, lands, vehicles to another NFP. It is not allowed to sell it, give it away privately etc. There are laws that govern such things.

Goey Again: Let's not be naive. Ownership is irrelevant. She has no personall expenses at all. Everything is paid for. Just like it was for VPW and LCM down to the personal servants. Therefore, her salary and book royalties can go straight to savings and personal investments. . She has no personal debt at all and multiple millions in personal savings and investments. So she will never really need to take anything with her if the NFPC fails

And let's not be naive about that either. If the main NFP "fails" it can be liquidated to another NFP controlled by the same folks. Kinda like a reorgainzation. -- Like TWI Inc. and Gunnison Inc. Two completely separate NFPC's controlled by the same folks. IF TWI ever dissolves, its assets can be given to Gunnison Inc. or vice versa. In either case the same folks will control and can have exclusive use of the booty.

The way I see it, it isn't the accumulation of wealth that matters, but how one uses it. Money is not the root of all evil; it is "the love of money" that is the root of all evil.

Does Joyce Meyers put wealth ahead of God? Is wealth her God? This is what Jesus was warning against... not that one has wealth but does it keep one away from God. In Joyce Meyers case I haven't seen any evidence of same.

So then Oldies, tell us how Joyce Meyers uses her personal wealth. How much of her salary and compensation do you think she donates back to the ministry? Gives to the poor, etc ? I'm not talking about money before she is paid, but the money that comes directly to her.

By Carolyn Tuft

Of the Post-Dispatch

©2005 St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Saturday, Apr. 30 2005

The ministry's board of trustees, which is headed by Joyce Meyer, agreed to pay

her a $900,000 annual salary in 2002 and 2003.

The board agreed to give her husband, Dave Meyer, the board's vice president,

an annual salary of $450,000 in each of those same two years.

The board agreed to provide the couple with free personal use of a corporate

jet and luxury cars, a $2 million home where all bills are paid by the ministry

and a separate $50,000-a-year housing allowance.

The ministry paid $1.475 million to buy three houses for the three Meyer

children.

The board authorized Joyce and Dave Meyer to control a $790,000 fund to be used

at their discretion for bonuses to "executive management."

The job duties of seven employees of the ministry include sorting gifts

"personally received" for Joyce and David Meyer, including cash and jewelry.

Entire Article Here

What kind of evidence is needed Oldies?

I read it or rather looked at the flow charts provided. The IRS may frown on it, but it is not illegal. As any good accountant will tell you (and this applies to secular businesses) "it is not illegal to AVOID paying taxes, only if you EVADE paying them. A NFP won't even come up on the IRS crosshairs until they start bringing in $100K per year at which time they must begin filing 1090's and declaring what they bring. So, if you are a qualifying church with active services on a regular basis and are tax exempt because of it, again why should the church apologize. Secular businesses AVOID paying taxes if they can as well. I think most of the shareholders of ENRON stock would have wished they could have looked at the books ahead of the catastrophe and then not just the CEO's etc. could have been allowed to dump their stock into the market as well.

Goey: I think that Christian minitries should hold themselves to a higher standard than secular busninesses. It is not so much an issue of "is it illegal" than it is one of "does it please God". Christian ministries should not only obey the law, they should also strive to please God - (assuming that God is actually involved)

I personally think that churches should be upfront and open to their congregants and adherants as a matter of integrity before the Lord...but to secular jerks? Just try and get a detailed analysis, completely open... of notable businesses and if there's a way to force a legal injunction against your desires, I'd bet they do it...even if it's just as simple as saying you're not a shareholder, etc.

Goey: I think that churches should be fully transparant to ALL , especially if they are claiming that by tithing to them, it will be multiplied back to the giver. These ministries are recruiting "secular jerks" and thier cash so I think the "secular jerks" should know where the money goes. What good reason could they have for not being fully transparant? I think I know. On the other hand, detailed financial information is readily available on any publically traded corporation, so I don't get your point in that area.

Please don't knock on ministries that you do not have an inside view of. Since I have a NFP myself, I watch what I do and constantly ask myself, "Will this look all right or would someone question my integrity?

Goey: And I would add, please don't overly defend them either if you don't have an inside view. Since you don't know Meyer's salary or how much she has personally gained from the donations she solicits, you would certainly not have an inside view. Given the track record of TV ministries in the past, I would be reluctant to run to their defense without some really good info. I don't really think they deserve the benefit if the doubt. Been too many scams.

Well, enough. I don't listen to her as much, but it bothers me when people just take back slaps without knowing the whole story. Because you can know this...secular newspapers will always write with their own slant and color whatever with the color they wish to paint with that day.

Goey: Unfortunatley, since so many TV ministers have been exposed over the years as frauds, thieves and money-mongers it is understandabe that folks like Meyers get "back slaps" when they are seen living a life of extreme wealth and privilege. Fancy houses, fancy cars, etc. We know where the money comes from. The question I have is how much do they actually deserve? If they are getting wealthy off of the tithes, then it seems to me it is a business for profit and not actually a "ministry" and there should be no tax exemptions. This would be especially true if the Board of Directors is made up only of family members and lackies that are yes people to the charismatic leader.

I say, if you are gonna claim the church tax breaks, open the books for all to see, otherwise close them and then be honest that it really just a business and that a few insiders are getting very rich off of the tithes and donations.

Ok, so far, unless I'm missing it somewhere, I haven't seen the actual yearly salary for Joyce Myers. I've seen what the ministry brings in and when she asks for money she mandates that the checks be made out to the ministry and not to her personally. SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM???

Sounds like a spirit of JEALOUSY to me.

Goey: I take strong exception to this. Why would it necessarily be spiritual jealousy? I think it is more of a case of folks wanting to be taught and to learn from someone that is not getting filty rich off of their donations - where the greater part of the donations (minus reasonable expenses) goes to real charitable causes - rather than to support a lavish lifestyle for someone who claims to be a minister for God. How is that spiritual jealousy?

She also uses merchandizing techniques and I ask you what is wrong with that. I do not know of one travelling prophet or smaller evangelist who does not do the same. The only difference between the two is the size of the ministries. When the evangelist/prophet is still small....let's just call it a LOVE OFFERING...however, when they become well known...OH, NOW THEY ARE FLEECING THE FLOCK. Please, get real!

Goey: If it is a for profit business, then modern merchanidizing techniques are fine. Just be open as say its a business and that you are getting rich off of the tithes and "love offerings". At least that is honest.

What today's so-called prophets and evangelists do is irrelevant to the issue. There is a big difference in a love offering to meet the basic needs of a minister, etc and a high tech marketing campaing that brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars which is used to keep a minister in a lavish lifestyle. Maybe you need to "get real" on this.

It is always easy to villainize those that are above you. It is always easier to pull down rather than to lift up.

Goey: It is not villainizing to expect those who claim to be Christian leaders to hold themsleves to certain standards. It is not villainizing to ask these leaders to give an open accounting of finances and how much they personally gain from tithes and offerings.

The TV ministers that have fallen, fell because of their own doings, not because they were "pulled down" unjustly. I don't think anyone here is trying to "pull down" Joyce Meyers. Seem more like folks just want some answers and some facts.

Belle so kindly found Billy Graham's flow chart or whatever you call those wheels...Belle, could you find one for Joyce's personal salary? That would be very helpful if you could. Let's compare apples to apples. $400K for Billy is nothing to sneeze at either.

Goey: 400K seems quite high to me - even for Graham. I thought is was more like 200K. But regardless, what is it that leads these ministers think they should make so much money and live lifestyles far and above those they claim to serve?

FYI, as I understand it John Haggee is one of the higest paid TV ministers today. His 2003 compensation package was reported to be about 1.2 million. The Copeland's seems to be raking in quite a bit as well. Not sure what the 990's say.

Why don't they go after these folks ?

http://www.churchoftheway.com

http://www.tcotw.org

http://www.pcotw.org/

I wonder who has the most $$ for attorneys ......

It seems that they only go after the small fry that they can bully.