Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Tithing - TWI's 'official' policy


Tom Strange
 Share

Recommended Posts

Per LG:

If someone managed to file such a suit, it wouldn't make it to trial. It would be thrown out for the same reasons the Peeler suit was. The courts are not going to consider doctrinal matters.

It's not a matter of doctrine or First Amendment issues, though certain lazy, incompetent, black robed charlatans endeavor to hide under the skirts of Lady Liberty & make such provencial 'turf and dump' dismissal decisions.

The issues are exploitative manipulation (undue influence), breach of minister-congregant fiduciciary duty, willful infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, among others.

It's common sense but please see God vs. The Gavel by Dr. Marcia Hamilton, JD, law professor.

In order to save your time, you will want to first focus on the two most pertinent chapters, which are chapters 8 & 9 (pages 203 – 272).

Chapter 8: Boerne v. Flores {pp. 203 – 237 with Conclusion on pp. 235 – 237}.

  • The net result of the Boerne decision was to foreclose religious' entities arguments that religious motivation should absolve religious actors of neutral laws governing their conduct. The burden rests on the religious believers demanding exemption from a law to prove that the conduct sought to be immunized is not harmful to the society and individuals in it. In Employment Division v. Smith, it is seen that correct reading of the Free Exercise Clause is that an individual's religious beliefs do NOT excuse him or her from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.

Chapter 9: The Decline of Special Treatment of Religious Entities & the Rise of the No-Harm Rule {pp. 238 – 272 with Conclusion on pp. 271 – 272}.

  • The elimination of religious sovereign power by definition made religious institutions private, and therefore on a more equal footing with other private entities. The constitutionally relevant question is NOT what is best for any 'church' – indeed that question is forbidden by the neutrality principle underlying the Establishment Clause. The proper question instead IS whether the liberty accorded is consonant with the no-harm principle. As the no-harm principle has developed over the centuries, it has become an insuperable barrier for the claim that the Constitution can or should place religious entities above the law.

Edited by jkboehme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm thinking that when you tie all of the "teachings" (demands?) for extra money in with the documented cases of intimidation (telling the whole group about people dying because they went somewhere without permission, threatening folks with death and bad things happening to them if they didn't do exactly as TWI told them), stepping out from under "the hedge of protection"... then... that would be "undo influence" being exercised...

Edited by Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Bible, Abraham tithed once, and not of his income, and was called the friend of God.

Well, shucks, I tithed once too. Guess I'm covered.

Right. He tithed to Melchizedek once

(from the spoils of war --- Genesis 14).

NOT from other income. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well - no physical gun was ever held to our heads.

It was a spiritual one!!

No one I know of was ever kicked out for NOT giving --

(giving the *nod* to Oldies here --)

But I do know of some who's lives were made a living hell -- beacause they did not give.

For that matter -- I got called on the carpet, for daring to consider corps sponsorship as abs.

I was told emphatically -- that "THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS ABS".

I told the BC to take a hike. I felt I was giving to the *ministry*,

and who was he to tell me how to decide to give my money??

He backed down -- but that was back in the 1970's.

Obviously -- they have grown *teeth* since then. :(

Oldies -- what happened in the 70's was different than today.

You probably know that -- but are hanging onto some concept from the past,

and applying it to today -- or overall -- I don't know,

but it isn't cutting the mustard.

It's the ostrich hiding it's head in the sand -- see no evil, there is no evil. <_<

After leaving twi in 86 or 87, and then getting re-involved in the mid 90's,

I noticed a huge difference in the ABS requirements.

Ironically -- since I was *apostate* when I started going to twig again ( in the 90's),

they were more interested in me believing what they did about doctrine,

and weren't so intense about the *fine points* like ABS.

(at least for me -- that wasn't the case with others).

I p!ssed them off enough (doctrinally), that they showed me the door,

without even entering my name on the green, or blue, or whatever colored form it was for ABS.

And as a side note -- When I was active in twig -- I always paid by check

because I didn't trust the TC to turn everything in -- if it was in cash.

Helluva-loving-giving-receiving-twig -- eh??

I couldn't even trust the TC to be honest.

That should have been my cue to leave -- right then.

And he was the one *teaching* me about giving.

I think he lived by the *left hand- right hand* rule --

*Never let your left hand know when the right hand is dipping into the horn-of-plenty*.

Nuff said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I don;t know anyone who was tossed for not tithing, I do recall a twig of senior citizens who were told by a representative of HQ they would either have to disband or stop representing the twig as part of twi. If memory serves me HQ said the twig was not diverse enough...............OH! ........did I mention none of them tithed? This was many years ago. There probably aren't too many of them still with us. I know they were quite hurt when all this took place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... stop representing the twig as part of twi. ... HQ said the twig was not diverse enough...

Unreal!!

So it's "representative" enough when everybody is in their teens and 20s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per LG:

You can think what you want, but I'll take the courts at their word when they state their reasons for dismissal of the Peeler case and similar cases.

Unfortunately, LG, you are categorically correct in that ostensibly we must all take the courts at their (inbred, provencial, biased, dimwitted, cowardly, & lethargic) word.

Neverthess, consider a few examples.

The Roman Catholic debacle that has come to light in the last 5 years could have perhaps been largely obviated, or come to light decades sooner, by due diligence on the part of the federal and various state judiciaries if they would have willing to hear the cases.

The parents of Elizabeth Smart should have filed an undue influence case.

The 'lost boys' of the FLDS should all file lawsuits.

Others too numerous too mention.

In the USA, the overall mindset is that {pseudo-spiritual} religion is for the 'public good,' & whatever minor torts or even felonies that they commit, are acceptable in view of the tremendous amount of 'good' that they supposedly confer upon their congregants or perform in charity work. Even mensa-minded 'W' got on the wagon with Faith Based & Community Initiatives.

The court system apparently does not have the courage or integrity to pursue the small cultic bad actors, for fear of the legal food chain reaching the large denominational bad actors. Cultic casualties of small cult abuse (e.g., TWI & VPW/LCM, Peoples Temple & Jim Jones, Branch Davidians & Koresh, etc.), no matter how severe, apparently are not worth the time & effort of our taxpayer supported judiciary system.

We are legally expendable canon fodder of TWI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told the BC to take a hike. I felt I was giving to the *ministry*, and who was he to tell me how to decide to give my money??

He backed down -- but that was back in the 1970's.

Obviously -- they have grown *teeth* since then. :(

This is the exact point I was making before. If someone wanted you to tithe and you refused, that was that. There was no requirement.

What I would consider a "requirement", would be if one refused, and then ultimately got booted out because of it. Has anyone heard of that ever happening?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UH...............YEAH, OF COURSE I HAVE. Anyone involved with twi from 1994 til present will have at least a handful of stories, including one of the founder's sons.

Oh oldies, you really just don't have a clue what went on after you left.

ror

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the exact point I was making before. If someone wanted you to tithe and you refused, that was that. There was no requirement.

What I would consider a "requirement", would be if one refused, and then ultimately got booted out because of it. Has anyone heard of that ever happening?

Man, Oldies..............you're STILL laying claim to stuff from the 70's. :nono5:

Time to stop whitewashing twi, Oldies.............you live in a time capsule of twi diaperland and choose to deceive with your BS.

Hell.........wierwille pushed his policy to ABS by the late 70s. And, by the late 80s, martindale had given the corps specific instructions to check the blue forms, the absing of "the faithful."

The percentages went from 10% to..."one should be willing to give 15% in the grace adm". And, by 1997.... martindale was pushing his plurality giving doctrine. All full-time way corps heard these teachings. By plurality giving, martindale stated that one -- after paying off these bills and having their need met -- should be WILLING TO GIVE THE REST TO TWI.

As former corps (left twi in 1998).....I detest how the board of trustees (craig, don & howard) deceived good-hearted believers and extorted money for twi's coffers. All the while, taking trips to the Bahamas and southern Florida and stashing millions into twi investments. Thankfully, I refused to go to believers' homes and demand a financial reporting of their income and absing.

Oldies...........get off this thread. You have NO IDEA what twi's "official" policy is.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UH...............YEAH, OF COURSE I HAVE. Anyone involved with twi from 1994 til present will have at least a handful of stories, including one of the founder's sons.

Then please share those handful of stories. What happened? Was there ever an edict handed down from the trustees that mandated tithing, else one was asked to leave? If so, when? Is there any documentation available about that requirement? These are some questions of this thread.

Time to stop whitewashing twi, Oldies.............you live in a time capsule of twi diaperland and choose to deceive with your BS.

I'm not whitewashing anything and have no desire to deceive. I'm simply asking questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As former corps (left twi in 1998).....I detest how the board of trustees (craig, don & howard) deceived good-hearted believers and extorted money for twi's coffers.

I disagree with the extortion accusation, and I absolutely can't imagine in my wildest dreams, Don Wierwille extorting money from folks. Any specific incidents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not whitewashing anything and have no desire to deceive. I'm simply asking questions.

Check back thru the threads, Oldies.

This topic has been discussed about a dozen times in microscopic detail.

You've been around a long time, Oldies. And, you choose to keep sidestepping these issues......and try to whitewash twi's deceptive policies. Same stuff, different day.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would consider a "requirement", would be if one refused, and then ultimately got booted out because of it. Has anyone heard of that ever happening?

Waysider:

"I do recall a twig of senior citizens who were told by a representative of HQ they would either have to disband or stop representing the twig as part of twi. If memory serves me HQ said the twig was not diverse enough...............OH! ........did I mention none of them tithed? This was many years ago. There probably aren't too many of them still with us. I know they were quite hurt when all this took place."

This was about them not-tithing.

If they tithed, twi would have been just fine with their makeup.

Is anyone here a big enough fool to think otherwise?

(What am I saying?)

Radar:

"UH...............YEAH, OF COURSE I HAVE. Anyone involved with twi from 1994 til present will have at least a handful of stories, including one of the founder's sons."

Skyrider:

"The percentages went from 10% to..."one should be willing to give 15% in the grace adm". And, by 1997.... martindale was pushing his plurality giving doctrine. All full-time way corps heard these teachings. By plurality giving, martindale stated that one -- after paying off these bills and having their need met -- should be WILLING TO GIVE THE REST TO TWI.

As former corps (left twi in 1998).....I detest how the board of trustees (craig, don & howard) deceived good-hearted believers and extorted money for twi's coffers. All the while, taking trips to the Bahamas and southern Florida and stashing millions into twi investments. Thankfully, I refused to go to believers' homes and demand a financial reporting of their income and absing.

Oldies...........get off this thread. You have NO IDEA what twi's "official" policy is.

rolleyes.gif "

Oldiesman:

"Then please share those handful of stories. What happened? Was there ever an edict handed down from the trustees that mandated tithing, else one was asked to leave? If so, when? Is there any documentation available about that requirement? These are some questions of this thread."

What's the point?

When people get into specifics and eyewitness accounts,

you just move to discredit them anyway.

It gets tiresome to keep doing this same dance to EVERY tune.

"I'm not whitewashing anything and have no desire to deceive. I'm simply asking questions."

You may see it that way.

Everybody who's sat thru years of you posting-with few exceptions-

all seem to draw a DIFFERENT conclusion.

"I disagree with the extortion accusation, and I absolutely can't imagine in my wildest dreams, Don Wierwille extorting money from folks. Any specific incidents?"

Doesn't sound like "simply asking questions"-looks like spin control on the accounts in effect

even before they're shared.

Although you "can't imagine in your wildest dreams" is remarkably candid.

That's been true about lots of "this happened to me" stories so far.

=============

I'll throw in this one for free.

AFAIK,

nobody's saying that Don had two 400-lb kneecappers slam a person into a wall while Don

held a gun to their forehead until they handed over the money.

If you were being intellectually honest and communicating in good faith,

you wouldn't be so obtuse on this.

Don's complicity is PRIMARILY in the NEGLECT of his fiduciary responsibilities.

People were leaned on to give money and to follow leadership blindly.

When they hesitated, they were screamed at in detail,

and their reputations were smeared.

They were indoctrinated that leaving twi meant leaving God's Protection,

and many or MOST were told horrible things would happen to them or their

families,

including that they and their family members would DIE.

No, I'm not aware of someone speaking this "leave twi and die" in the 70s.

However, it was COMMON in the later 90s.

We've got threads mentioning this.

We have autobiographicals on this.

We have AUDIO FILES on this.

If you're still not up to speed on this one,

I recommend playing a little "catch-up."

You've only had YEARS to read/hear this stuff....

Let me rephrase this more simply, for those people who STILL don't get it:

twi taught that you had 2 choices:

obey blindly or leave God's protection and have horrible, Job-level things happen.

One of the points of obedience was money.

MUST tithe, MUST push to 15%, or you're in trouble;

STAY in trouble and you're kicked out of twi AND God's Protection.

(THIS WAS COMMON IN THE 90s.)

Public spectacles and examples were made of people who left-

which tells the rest "stay or we do this to YOU next."

The bod was well behind the shakedown of money under this

"doctrinal" and "leadership" smokescreen.

Each member of the bod either agreed to it and signed off on it,

or was so incompetent and neglectful of his fiduciary duties that he did not

and LET it go on.

Now, it sounds like others know MORE than I do,

but what I outlined is MORE than enough.

For people with HONEST questions.

Edited by WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can attest to the financial cohersion that was prevelent in the late 90's going into 2001. Also, the control and manipulation that leadership had over us twiglets back then. I call us "twiglets" because that is how they viewed and treated us, nothing more than a means to their financial end, no love or caring for our feelings, our children, our possessions. How many stories you want of their control and manipulation toward the flock - I myself could tell many many in all different areas of my life. But since this is about TWI tithing policy:

In our fellowship, my 6 year old and 13 year old were required to tithe also. Shortly after that mandate came down, it was required in our fellowship that they put their change in an envelope with their name on it. Their names were put down on the blue form sent to HQ - I know because I wrote the names down on the blue form. I'm sorry, but I thought this was just over the top a little. I began to rebel in my mind, but then tried to justify it to myself, but it never set right.

My young teen daughter had just taken the new WAP class and since she was now a "grad" she had to have her own subscriptions to tapes, magazines etc. So I was paying double for everything they expected people to purchase from the bookstore. I knew one family with a single mom with three teenagers that had to buy 4 sets of tapes and magazines subscriptions (as I am sure others can attest to or probably already have on this forum). Now you really want me to believe that it was "present spewth" that God wanted everyone to have their own copy so they could prevail in the Promised Land, or is it more common sense to say that they were "fleecing the flock". I began to rebel in my mind some more, tried to justify it to myself but it just never set right.

There is more..........................It took me finally rebelling in my mind and saying "enough is enough". How much more does the true God have to show me in so many different areas of my life that I finally saw the con.

Edited by outofdafog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, an important point that's been brought up I think is that Craig's public statements could constitute a policy in TWI. As then acting President, CEO and Boss El Grande, what he said in public to Way members would establish policy.

Once he said it, said "this is the way this is", that established it. That was the rule, new, restated, whatever. He clearly expected that whatever his latest pronouncements were would clarify or even change whatever the previous teaching or policy was.

As acting Way Le Presidente, all he had to do was say once - "if you're not giving over 5/10/15/50 per cent to the Way don't expect for God to bless you" - and that was it. As CEO of the Way he made that the policy fo the Way by the fact he said it. If the Way mambers decided to not respond to that or conduct their fellowships in that light, they would be out of step with Way policy as determined by the Way President. A standard was established, by him.

Not meeting that standard, not acting on it, meant something. The quetion might be - what did it mean? What would happen if you didn't?

By his own statement, he believed a person "wouldn't get blessed", whatever that means.

Within the group's structure it could filter down to a lot of things, different things. Anyone can see that, in his mind, the mind of the Gold Standard of Doctrine as it were, a person wasn't living up to what they were being taught and wouldn't be a "true" Way member in good standing.

Some members might blow that off, "so what?" People might disagree. He didn't though, he took it rather seriously, he believed what he said by all accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all my being, I wish I still had a letter that I received from Craig years ago.

I had applied for the 9th Corps, but circumstances, all financial, prevented my ability to enter that year. I was required to write a letter to Craig explaining why I would not be entering the Corps. I racked my brain for reasons which would "be acceptable" to the MOG wannabe. I came to the conclusion that my reason was simple: I had not tithed appropriately.

Now, the fact I was on the WOW field at the time working a part-time, minimum wage job, of course had nothing to do with it. Neither did the fact that all my friends were Wayfers, and they were WOW or Corps themselves, and couldn't pony up sponsorship for me.

No, there was only one conclusion-I had not received God's blessings because I had broken the spiritual law of not tithing enough. I mean, there could be no other explanation. Right???

So, with great trepidation, I fell to my knees and poured out my sin in the letter, and sent it off. Two weeks later, I received my response. I can only recall a couple of phrases from the letter, but believe me, it stuck with me for years.

He was gleeful that I had "admitted that I had blown it". He was "sick" of receiving letters from others that contained nothing but excuses, but I had come right out and said, flat out, that I had blown my chance to enter the Corps because I did not tithe enough. Oh, how he wished that others would be as honest!!!

Guess I musta hit the right nerve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at the end of the "tithe" article, there is a reference to an upcoming article in twi's mag that would reference going above the tithe. I seem to recall that such an article exists...I believe it was post 1996. I don't have my mags anymore.

Surely someone must...

qt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it. :) Just haven't gotten to it yet. I THINK I have posted on it before, but can't remember. I DO know I've sent copies of it to not a few lawyers and others considering lawsuits for various reasons.

It's with my stash at the office, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, you choose to keep sidestepping these issues......and try to whitewash twi's deceptive policies. Same stuff, different day.

Skyrider, if you don't knock it off with the whitewashing rhetoric, I'm going to have to resort to some rhetoric of my own, regarding your posts.

Posters should be able to post their opinions on a topic, without the fanciful labelling.

I've been guilty of that myself in the past, but more and more, have tried to eliminate these things from what I write, and keep the debate to a higher standard if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point?

When people get into specifics and eyewitness accounts,

you just move to discredit them anyway.

It gets tiresome to keep doing this same dance to EVERY tune.

Nobody's forcing you to respond to my posts Wordwolf.

What's the point? The point is trying to answer a question Tom asked in his opening remarks.

As far as discrediting, I probably get more of that than anyone else here except maybe Mike. It's all part of the game. When folks post, their ideas/opinions may be discredited. And you do plenty of discrediting yourself for you to talk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...