Goey

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. 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. 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.

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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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? 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? 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. 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: 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. 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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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. 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,

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. What kind of evidence is needed Oldies?

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Oldies says that he doesn't know why VP had to use drugs becasue, in Oldies world, VPW had "all" the women without them (drugs). In his world "all" the women in TWI flocked to VPW for adulterous sex. Yet he doesn't deny the use of drugs. He says that VP's used of drugs was wrong ----- with a big "but". So rather than use common sense he looks for a loophole. His "but" is that VP may have used the drugs to "loosen up" the uptight ones. He never considers or addresses why some might be "uptight". He implies that being "uptight" in a situation of, adultery (at best) is is not good -- that they needed to loosen up. He implies that, in an adultery situtation, VPW would not have been wrong in giving drugs to someone without their knowledge if it served to "loosen them up sexually". That's the "but." He says that he never tried it himself. (Yet we know that people close to him probably did.) Then he says that he "heard" that some of the date rape drugs "enhance sexual desire", but he doesnt say where he heard it. His failure to investigate from a reliable source how date rate drugs work, leads to an irrational and ignorant argument. He conviently relies instead upon something he "heard" which better fits his view. All I can conclude from this is that Oldies believes that adultery is ok if the MOG gets blessed and the women are willing. Even if VPW taught them that contrary word, becasue they should have known better. He believes that ALL the women that VPW had were willing, and flocked to him for adulterous sex. He believes that it is ok for the MOG to drug these willing women without their knowledge if they are "uptight" because they needed to loosen up. He does not consider that date rape drugs are not "sexual aids" - that they are designed and used to knock-out women who might be unwilling to have consensual sex. Therefore he does not have to explain why VPW would need to knock out a willing woman who flocked to him for adulterous sex. If he honestly considered the Bible, the facts about date rape drugs, the testimony of witnesses, etc, then he would forced to consider that some women may actually have been unwilling, and therefore raped --- and that's not possible in Oldies world. He would rather hold on to these sick, unbiblical, morally corrupt, and socially abnormal views than to consider that anyone was abused or that VPW was the source of that abuse. This may be what the Bible refers to as a seared conscience. Sad.

Solomon could not within the law have any woman he wanted. In regards to the King, Deuteronomy 17:16,17 says: 16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 : Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. Only in the context of disobedience to God and unchecked power could Solomon "have any woman he wanted." The result of Solomon's disobedience was the loss of the kingdom. The scripture says Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord. The scriptures do not focus on the many wives and concubines other than to say that being idolaters, that they would turn Solomon from the Lord. The focus was not on the wives, but rather on Solomon's taking them in disobedience to God. There is no record that women "flocked" to Solomon like a rock star (the implication being groupies wanting back stage sex). However, people did flock to VPW, both men and women, not for adulterous sex, but rather to learn the Word "like it hadn't been taught since the first century." But like Solomon he did evil in the sight of the Lord by disobeying God. Not only did VPW disobey, he led others into disobedience as well -- by teaching false doctrine. VPW was certainly no king as there is no ministry of "king" in the NT church. However there is good evidence that he thought of himself as a king. The comparison of VPW to Solomon both fits and doesn't fit. It doesn't fit becasue VPW was not a real king. However, both were men of relatively unchecked within their own "kingdoms". Both disobeyed God in a big way. There is no record of either man repenting or showing remorse. Solomon lost the kingdom as a result of his disobedience. VPWs "kingdom" began to fall apart during his lifetime and eventually did fall apart for all practical purposes and became "divided" like Solomon's. Are you blind? He had to use drugs because THEY WERE NOT WILLING! These were knock out drugs - not Viagra. This is so stupid, absurd, and abnormal in the context of this discussion that it is not worthy of a response other than: Oldies, you need some serious help.