I seem to recall they lost the non profit status at one point and had to jump hoops to get it back and it was a few years in the process.
I have heard of groups in NY losing the status of nonprofit , the way I understand it (of course this is NY) it is a highly regulated ordeal that isnt easy to maintain .
when The Way Inc was started, VP and Harry were not farmers, did not want to farm, and the place was becoming run down. But they did not want to lose or sell their family land.
So they incorporated, gave the farm to the corporation, but kept control of it by giving VP and Harry 2 of the 3 seats on the board of trustees- a Wierwille Majority. It was a neat way to get other people to give them money so they could keep and live on the farm. Others paid the bill, but VP got to sue it just like it was his very own. Nice, but self-serving trick.
Every time he told people there were no members of The Way, he must have thought, "the joke's on you suckers who give me money so I can do whatever I want with it- and you can't say anything about it!"
But when Wierwilles lost the majority on the board, they lost control of the land. But they never should have had control in the first place, because it was property of the corporation, not theirs. So in the long run the Wierwilles lost the family land anyway. But they didn't realky lose it- the donors bought them out and still let the Wierwilles use it and run it like their own for 40 years. A gold mine for the older Wierwilles, but probably neither a gain nor a loss for the younger ones.
"Or some one in the family is a shareholder who recives benefits, money for the trademark and all the incomes?"
The answer's no, to all your questions TMex, pretty much as Jim and everyone else stated. You're referring to some of the things that were said over the years by VPW and others, about "the Corps" and whomever "running" the Way or whatever but that's worth the air it took to say it or the paper it's written on - legally, the Way - the property, buildings, books, stuff - isn't "owned" by anyone person or group of people. The Weirwille family had members as Trustees at one time, but there's none on the Board at this time, and if there were they wouldn't "own" the Way. As long as the Way doesn't violate any laws or have conflicts of interest in it's Board members, it is what it is.
If you gave money to the Way and ever claimed tax deductions for it in the U.S., don't try to get it back. You already got what's coming to you. If you gave money to the Way and feel it was misused, you'd have to prove it. The Way would actually have lots of precedent amongst it's publications where they've stated that they use the money to "further God's Word" moving around the world, etc. etc. and that can be very loosely defined and applied. Proving misuse based on disagreement in how they used it won't wash.
Likewise "members" of the Way, past and present choosing to force change in the Way's practices and operations, or beliefs. In the U.S. as long as you don't violate the laws, you're free to believe as you choose. Social pressure can change those kinds of things, but only when it's accepted.
This is one of the reasons, a major one, as to why so many people "walked" away from the Way ministry rather than put up a big fight against the Trustees over issues. There's nothing to fight against, other than specific violations of the law in the Trustees, if they occurred. People can argue all they want but at the end of the day, processes, procedures, beliefs, all those things that make the Way what it is, don't change unless the Trustees change it. It's impossible to take control of the organization unless mismanagement, conflict of interest, violation of the law, incompetence, etc. can be proven. Looking at the expanse of religious organizations in the world today and what they all do - it's easy to see why that can be difficult to wrap around.
This idiomatic phrase originated in the novel Don Quixote, and is often used today in reference to persistent engagement in a futile activity. At one point in the novel, Don Quixote fights windmills that he imagines to be giants. Quixote sees the windmill blades as the giant's arms, for instance. Here is the relevant portion of the novel:
Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."
Jim, I think Howard Allen does(that is if he is still alive). Rosie bought her own house which is on Southland (?) Drive or Road, on the back side of the property close to New Knoxville. I think TWI owns over 2 square miles between Shelby County Road and Ohio state highway 29. From Southland to Botkins Road, or portions of that.
"Or some one in the family is a shareholder who recives benefits, money for the trademark and all the incomes?"
The answer's no, to all your questions TMex, pretty much as Jim and everyone else stated. You're referring to some of the things that were said over the years by VPW and others, about "the Corps" and whomever "running" the Way or whatever but that's worth the air it took to say it or the paper it's written on - legally, the Way - the property, buildings, books, stuff - isn't "owned" by anyone person or group of people. The Weirwille family had members as Trustees at one time, but there's none on the Board at this time, and if there were they wouldn't "own" the Way. As long as the Way doesn't violate any laws or have conflicts of interest in it's Board members, it is what it is.
If you gave money to the Way and ever claimed tax deductions for it in the U.S., don't try to get it back. You already got what's coming to you. If you gave money to the Way and feel it was misused, you'd have to prove it. The Way would actually have lots of precedent amongst it's publications where they've stated that they use the money to "further God's Word" moving around the world, etc. etc. and that can be very loosely defined and applied. Proving misuse based on disagreement in how they used it won't wash.
Likewise "members" of the Way, past and present choosing to force change in the Way's practices and operations, or beliefs. In the U.S. as long as you don't violate the laws, you're free to believe as you choose. Social pressure can change those kinds of things, but only when it's accepted.
This is one of the reasons, a major one, as to why so many people "walked" away from the Way ministry rather than put up a big fight against the Trustees over issues. There's nothing to fight against, other than specific violations of the law in the Trustees, if they occurred. People can argue all they want but at the end of the day, processes, procedures, beliefs, all those things that make the Way what it is, don't change unless the Trustees change it. It's impossible to take control of the organization unless mismanagement, conflict of interest, violation of the law, incompetence, etc. can be proven. Looking at the expanse of religious organizations in the world today and what they all do - it's easy to see why that can be difficult to wrap around.
I completely agree with you.
We here in GSC would love to think we can/could get our money back, that concept of fair, yet its a concept that gets lost in translation. Proving some kind of negligence against TWI, or misuse of funds, pretty much anything with regard to them doing something that resulted in ... well, an arduous task at best, with a time limit included. To have been on top of TWI, one, anyone, I think would have had to been a "double agent" to begin with, spending their time in TWI doing nothing but gathering evidence and facts to use later in a court of law.
My feelings about the lawsuits that have happened were more a question of how outrageous TWI became, how far they got out of the umbrella of protection of civil laws, more than anything else. I think back to some controversy while I was involved about a large donor, who ended up feeling he was ripped off and defrauded, this was around the time of the beginning of the gunnison ranch, and I don't believe he got anywhere with his civil action against TWI. regards..
mchud11 - you reminded me of why some people stay(ed) - if a person held to the basic beliefs of the Way's teaching it could make complete sense to remain and continue to work towards improving it.
As many know that became extremely difficult at times, because of how the Way is set up. It would be impossible for a non-member of the Board of Trustees to force change on the organization without their approval. So during times when the acting Prez lays down the law and makes changes those who work for the Way must follow or they can be terminated for just cause. During better times there's collaboration amongst the Trustees and others and change can be initiated as deemed appropriate. Some org's are conservative and cautious, some more liberal and fluid. The culture of the organization has a lot to do with it. Saying the Way is a "religious' organization based on biblical foundations still doesn't really direct how they do business - the bible doesn't teach people what building to build and when, land to buy or things like that. People still make those decisions.
Now - there's an odd mix here, in my mind, as to that fact and exactly what the Way "is". As a fellowship ministry they say they have no membership - yet, they have throughout their history thrown people out and not allowed them to participate in cases where they differed on how the ministry conducted business, made decisions, etc. So the same person who agrees with the ministry's teachings but disagrees with a decision can be deemed unacceptable and shunted off and out of active participation. The fact that they disagree is used to indicate that they person is somehow not safe to even be around.
That's an interesting dynamic - if the Way had churches, public buildings, they'd have to remain fairly open to those who would attend, as a non-proft tax exempt entity. A person who disagreed soundly with their practices but continues to believe the doctrine would be, I believe, legally allowed to attend their public meetings and ceremonies since technically they state to have "no members" - so how could a person be a non-member and excluded? Some restrictions would apply - like the Ohio headquarters and how they would establish reasonable controls of use - but based on how they describe themselves it could be a sticky wicket.
Home fellowships are another matter - one's home is one's property. Opening your own doors to those you invite is your perogative. You have no obligation to allow anyone and everyone through the door, while holding a personally hosted bible fellowship. So a person can, of their own decision, refuse access to anyone, legally. I that model, The Way can say "so and so is screwed up, don't have anything to do with them" when that person simply disagrees with something and has made it known.
They tend to soft soap that, and supposedly they're a kinder gentler group today. That would be nice. It would also makes sense. For better or worse, sooner or later people are going to move up the ladder that have nothing invested in past acrimony and issues and if they're basically good reasonable people, will try to make their "Christian" ministry reflect Christian biblical values of leadership and lifestyle.
Family or not though - control of the land and everything on it and everything the Way's produced is in the hands of "The Way" and it's legal trustees. That's how VPW wanted it.
Rosie bought her own house which is on Southland (?) Drive or Road, on the back side of the property close to New Knoxville. .
Rosie has a house???
That raises a few questions in my mind:
1. How long has she lived there?
2. What's wrong with her living in TWI-owned accommodation? - eg, the trailers in the grounds (many families had to); in Founders Hall (must be plenty of space there now) or in one of the other properties? Even in The Chalet? (Even LCM and family lived in TWI-owned property, the Chalet).
3. How come she has the money to buy a house?
4. If it's from what she's paid with TWI, wow, she must get paid a lot. More than just on a "need" basis.
5. If they gave her a loan to purchase it - she must have been in debt!
6. If it's from previous savings/former marriage or other private income, how come she wasn't pressured to surrender it or a significant amount of it to TWI - as have many others? (Maybe she did surrender surplus funds after the purchase of the house she now lives in - no idea.)
If true, it seems seriously inequitable to me that she owns a house and yet compelled so many (especially WC) to sell their homes and move into rented accommodation, possibly paying more than they were in mortgage repayments.
If she lives in her own purchased home, speaks volumes to me that she doesn't trust the b*s at TWI! And she runs the joint!
2. What's wrong with her living in TWI-owned accommodation? - eg, the trailers in the grounds (many families had to); in Founders Hall (must be plenty of space there now) or in one of the other properties? Even in The Chalet? (Even LCM and family lived in TWI-owned property, the Chalet).
3. How come she has the money to buy a house?
4. If it's from what she's paid with TWI, wow, she must get paid a lot. More than just on a "need" basis.
5. If they gave her a loan to purchase it - she must have been in debt!
6. If it's from previous savings/former marriage or other private income, how come she wasn't pressured to surrender it or a significant amount of it to TWI - as have many others? (Maybe she did surrender surplus funds after the purchase of the house she now lives in - no idea.)
If true, it seems seriously inequitable to me that she owns a house and yet compelled so many (especially WC) to sell their homes and move into rented accommodation, possibly paying more than they were in mortgage repayments.
If she lives in her own purchased home, speaks volumes to me that she doesn't trust the b*s at TWI! And she runs the joint!
Socks, any info??
Twinky.....to answer a few of these questions.
1) Rosie's house was under construction in 1987. Some on staff helped......like me.
2) Rosie has money.....land in North Carolina.......etc. Old threads on this.
3) Like some others on staff, Rosie has money, investments, etc.
4) Much or most came from Rosie's past.....divorce? / whatever.
5) No, I don't think that this was a loan from the Credit Union.
6) Pressured to surrender it??..........hahahahahahaha
1. She had it built, specially for her? With the use of TWI staff/WC? This results in the outreach of God's Word - how, exactly?
2. She has "land" in SC? As well as a house in NK? Hmm, so she has abundance, that she doesn't use? Examples from the 1st century church: Joses, a Levite had land and put it at the feet of the apostles (NOT so that they could build themselves houses); "as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4:34-37). TWI so emphasized the "lands" (plural) part.
3. Good for her, obviously doesn't feel the need to share her surplus. Money not where her mouth is.
4. Ditto.
5. Not applicable.
6. Examples speak louder than words. Do as I say, not as I do. Ah wait, it was the immediate two predecessors who said it. Dunno what Rosie says. Have things changed so much?
1. She had it built, specially for her? With the use of TWI staff/WC? This results in the outreach of God's Word - how, exactly?
More clearly to the point.............yes, this house was built to her specifications.
Much of it was contracted out......but some of us did help T3rry B@der, who was the way builder coordinator after h0bbs. After 5 pm work hours and saturdays, mostly.
Yes......she had the money and obviously did NOT want to build on twi property. Perhaps, she saw how the Re@hard home was "gobbled up" in those years after bo and stanl3y left twi.
Twinky, I believe the land is in North(not South)Carolina in eastern part of the state(family owned). Howard and Imogene live in the old farmhouse(that is if they are still alive). yes, the Reheards house was quickly purchased after Bo and Stanley left TWI and moved to Atlanta.
Recommended Posts
themex
Yes with VPW, but in relation with Don he could choose one member of the Wierwille family to be on the board, but he choose Rosie.
Once I heard that The Way Corps are or will be the responsibles to run TWI, thats maybe why all the board now is form with Way Corps.
But they are other members of the Wierwille family that are Way Corps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
I seem to recall they lost the non profit status at one point and had to jump hoops to get it back and it was a few years in the process.
I have heard of groups in NY losing the status of nonprofit , the way I understand it (of course this is NY) it is a highly regulated ordeal that isnt easy to maintain .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
when The Way Inc was started, VP and Harry were not farmers, did not want to farm, and the place was becoming run down. But they did not want to lose or sell their family land.
So they incorporated, gave the farm to the corporation, but kept control of it by giving VP and Harry 2 of the 3 seats on the board of trustees- a Wierwille Majority. It was a neat way to get other people to give them money so they could keep and live on the farm. Others paid the bill, but VP got to sue it just like it was his very own. Nice, but self-serving trick.
Every time he told people there were no members of The Way, he must have thought, "the joke's on you suckers who give me money so I can do whatever I want with it- and you can't say anything about it!"
But when Wierwilles lost the majority on the board, they lost control of the land. But they never should have had control in the first place, because it was property of the corporation, not theirs. So in the long run the Wierwilles lost the family land anyway. But they didn't realky lose it- the donors bought them out and still let the Wierwilles use it and run it like their own for 40 years. A gold mine for the older Wierwilles, but probably neither a gain nor a loss for the younger ones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"Or some one in the family is a shareholder who recives benefits, money for the trademark and all the incomes?"
The answer's no, to all your questions TMex, pretty much as Jim and everyone else stated. You're referring to some of the things that were said over the years by VPW and others, about "the Corps" and whomever "running" the Way or whatever but that's worth the air it took to say it or the paper it's written on - legally, the Way - the property, buildings, books, stuff - isn't "owned" by anyone person or group of people. The Weirwille family had members as Trustees at one time, but there's none on the Board at this time, and if there were they wouldn't "own" the Way. As long as the Way doesn't violate any laws or have conflicts of interest in it's Board members, it is what it is.
If you gave money to the Way and ever claimed tax deductions for it in the U.S., don't try to get it back. You already got what's coming to you. If you gave money to the Way and feel it was misused, you'd have to prove it. The Way would actually have lots of precedent amongst it's publications where they've stated that they use the money to "further God's Word" moving around the world, etc. etc. and that can be very loosely defined and applied. Proving misuse based on disagreement in how they used it won't wash.
Likewise "members" of the Way, past and present choosing to force change in the Way's practices and operations, or beliefs. In the U.S. as long as you don't violate the laws, you're free to believe as you choose. Social pressure can change those kinds of things, but only when it's accepted.
This is one of the reasons, a major one, as to why so many people "walked" away from the Way ministry rather than put up a big fight against the Trustees over issues. There's nothing to fight against, other than specific violations of the law in the Trustees, if they occurred. People can argue all they want but at the end of the day, processes, procedures, beliefs, all those things that make the Way what it is, don't change unless the Trustees change it. It's impossible to take control of the organization unless mismanagement, conflict of interest, violation of the law, incompetence, etc. can be proven. Looking at the expanse of religious organizations in the world today and what they all do - it's easy to see why that can be difficult to wrap around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Tilting at windmills
This idiomatic phrase originated in the novel Don Quixote, and is often used today in reference to persistent engagement in a futile activity. At one point in the novel, Don Quixote fights windmills that he imagines to be giants. Quixote sees the windmill blades as the giant's arms, for instance. Here is the relevant portion of the novel:
Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
Yes, most of the time we are fighting against windmills.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Is anyone currently living in the Wierwille farmhouse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Jim, I think Howard Allen does(that is if he is still alive). Rosie bought her own house which is on Southland (?) Drive or Road, on the back side of the property close to New Knoxville. I think TWI owns over 2 square miles between Shelby County Road and Ohio state highway 29. From Southland to Botkins Road, or portions of that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
I completely agree with you.
We here in GSC would love to think we can/could get our money back, that concept of fair, yet its a concept that gets lost in translation. Proving some kind of negligence against TWI, or misuse of funds, pretty much anything with regard to them doing something that resulted in ... well, an arduous task at best, with a time limit included. To have been on top of TWI, one, anyone, I think would have had to been a "double agent" to begin with, spending their time in TWI doing nothing but gathering evidence and facts to use later in a court of law.
My feelings about the lawsuits that have happened were more a question of how outrageous TWI became, how far they got out of the umbrella of protection of civil laws, more than anything else. I think back to some controversy while I was involved about a large donor, who ended up feeling he was ripped off and defrauded, this was around the time of the beginning of the gunnison ranch, and I don't believe he got anywhere with his civil action against TWI. regards..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
mchud11 - you reminded me of why some people stay(ed) - if a person held to the basic beliefs of the Way's teaching it could make complete sense to remain and continue to work towards improving it.
As many know that became extremely difficult at times, because of how the Way is set up. It would be impossible for a non-member of the Board of Trustees to force change on the organization without their approval. So during times when the acting Prez lays down the law and makes changes those who work for the Way must follow or they can be terminated for just cause. During better times there's collaboration amongst the Trustees and others and change can be initiated as deemed appropriate. Some org's are conservative and cautious, some more liberal and fluid. The culture of the organization has a lot to do with it. Saying the Way is a "religious' organization based on biblical foundations still doesn't really direct how they do business - the bible doesn't teach people what building to build and when, land to buy or things like that. People still make those decisions.
Now - there's an odd mix here, in my mind, as to that fact and exactly what the Way "is". As a fellowship ministry they say they have no membership - yet, they have throughout their history thrown people out and not allowed them to participate in cases where they differed on how the ministry conducted business, made decisions, etc. So the same person who agrees with the ministry's teachings but disagrees with a decision can be deemed unacceptable and shunted off and out of active participation. The fact that they disagree is used to indicate that they person is somehow not safe to even be around.
That's an interesting dynamic - if the Way had churches, public buildings, they'd have to remain fairly open to those who would attend, as a non-proft tax exempt entity. A person who disagreed soundly with their practices but continues to believe the doctrine would be, I believe, legally allowed to attend their public meetings and ceremonies since technically they state to have "no members" - so how could a person be a non-member and excluded? Some restrictions would apply - like the Ohio headquarters and how they would establish reasonable controls of use - but based on how they describe themselves it could be a sticky wicket.
Home fellowships are another matter - one's home is one's property. Opening your own doors to those you invite is your perogative. You have no obligation to allow anyone and everyone through the door, while holding a personally hosted bible fellowship. So a person can, of their own decision, refuse access to anyone, legally. I that model, The Way can say "so and so is screwed up, don't have anything to do with them" when that person simply disagrees with something and has made it known.
They tend to soft soap that, and supposedly they're a kinder gentler group today. That would be nice. It would also makes sense. For better or worse, sooner or later people are going to move up the ladder that have nothing invested in past acrimony and issues and if they're basically good reasonable people, will try to make their "Christian" ministry reflect Christian biblical values of leadership and lifestyle.
Family or not though - control of the land and everything on it and everything the Way's produced is in the hands of "The Way" and it's legal trustees. That's how VPW wanted it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Rosie has a house???
That raises a few questions in my mind:
1. How long has she lived there?
2. What's wrong with her living in TWI-owned accommodation? - eg, the trailers in the grounds (many families had to); in Founders Hall (must be plenty of space there now) or in one of the other properties? Even in The Chalet? (Even LCM and family lived in TWI-owned property, the Chalet).
3. How come she has the money to buy a house?
4. If it's from what she's paid with TWI, wow, she must get paid a lot. More than just on a "need" basis.
5. If they gave her a loan to purchase it - she must have been in debt!
6. If it's from previous savings/former marriage or other private income, how come she wasn't pressured to surrender it or a significant amount of it to TWI - as have many others? (Maybe she did surrender surplus funds after the purchase of the house she now lives in - no idea.)
If true, it seems seriously inequitable to me that she owns a house and yet compelled so many (especially WC) to sell their homes and move into rented accommodation, possibly paying more than they were in mortgage repayments.
If she lives in her own purchased home, speaks volumes to me that she doesn't trust the b*s at TWI! And she runs the joint!
Socks, any info??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Twinky.....to answer a few of these questions.
1) Rosie's house was under construction in 1987. Some on staff helped......like me.
2) Rosie has money.....land in North Carolina.......etc. Old threads on this.
3) Like some others on staff, Rosie has money, investments, etc.
4) Much or most came from Rosie's past.....divorce? / whatever.
5) No, I don't think that this was a loan from the Credit Union.
6) Pressured to surrender it??..........hahahahahahaha
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
1. She had it built, specially for her? With the use of TWI staff/WC? This results in the outreach of God's Word - how, exactly?
2. She has "land" in SC? As well as a house in NK? Hmm, so she has abundance, that she doesn't use? Examples from the 1st century church: Joses, a Levite had land and put it at the feet of the apostles (NOT so that they could build themselves houses); "as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet, and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4:34-37). TWI so emphasized the "lands" (plural) part.
3. Good for her, obviously doesn't feel the need to share her surplus. Money not where her mouth is.
4. Ditto.
5. Not applicable.
6. Examples speak louder than words. Do as I say, not as I do. Ah wait, it was the immediate two predecessors who said it. Dunno what Rosie says. Have things changed so much?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
More clearly to the point.............yes, this house was built to her specifications.
Much of it was contracted out......but some of us did help T3rry B@der, who was the way builder coordinator after h0bbs. After 5 pm work hours and saturdays, mostly.
Yes......she had the money and obviously did NOT want to build on twi property. Perhaps, she saw how the Re@hard home was "gobbled up" in those years after bo and stanl3y left twi.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Twinky, I believe the land is in North(not South)Carolina in eastern part of the state(family owned). Howard and Imogene live in the old farmhouse(that is if they are still alive). yes, the Reheards house was quickly purchased after Bo and Stanley left TWI and moved to Atlanta.
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.