Wierwille & his flacks often said that the money from the classes was to "build committment" and that during the time when there was no fee, people wouldn't stay committed.
So? Are we really responsible for what people do with what we teach them? Was it God's will that we get people committed to an organization?
Is it wrong to make a lot of money selling "god's word"?
I almost want to yell DUH!!!!
But I know that many extwi people have no real clue about how the OT works with the NT...so I don't expect that there is an understanding that what was not good for the OT prophets is not good for the NT saints.
Has anybody read Micah lately? In Micah 3:11 the hebrew word for "money" (Keceph) has its roots in the hebrew word Kacaph, meaning to long for, yearn for, long after.
The meaning for all uses of "filthy lucre" in the NT is "eager for base gain, greedy for money".
And which prophet was it that got into so much trouble for accepting payment for his services?
Any "ministry" that charges fees for its services comes under suspicion with me. All throughout the bible that is something "that the heathens do".
Looking to Jesus for an example, there was never a charge. In contrast, however, the example of Jesus was to feed the people...something Jesus told Peter at least 3 times as the way for Peter to show that he loved Jesus.
There is a big difference between selling something to cover costs and making lots of money off of something.
Also, there's a big difference between services and products.
In twi, everything except going to twig carried a price tag. Whether that price tag was direct by way of actual charges for services, or whether that price tag was indirect via demands to attend certain functions, there was always a price tag associated with everything twi did.
And not just any old "if you want this, pay for it" price tag, either. TWI made sure that one was "humbled" properly so that one would "gladly" buy twi services...
Because buying twi services was made akin to being right with God.
I'm saying that if they had been honest about it, and came right out and said, "Yes, we're making a profit - on everything", then there would be no moral basis for a complaint.
"I'm saying that if they had been honest about it, and came right out and said, "Yes, we're making a profit - on everything", then there would be no moral basis for a complaint."
Isn't it illegal for a non-profit "church" to make a profit - on anything - much less everything??? How have they managed to escape getting nailed on that all these years?
I think in terms of the *donation* twi *requested* for their services, it would be quite interesting to see just how many folks who didn't make the donation (which was supposedly voluntary) got serviced, hmmmm.....
Isn't it illegal for a non-profit "church" to make a profit - on anything - much less everything???
The short answer is no. It's not illegal. For a not-for-profit corporation (which is what churches are) to have a profit. The difference is what you're allowed to do with the profit. If a For Profit corporation has money left at the end of the year they pay taxes on it and can keep the rest in the corporation or give it to the owners (stock holders). Also money anyone gives the corporation is not tax deductible to the giver.
With a not-for-profit, there are no "owners" so if there's money left at the end of the year it has to stay in the company. Also a not-for-profit does not pay income tax on the money left over. And some types of not-for-profits (churches are this type) if you give them a donation you can deduct it from your taxes as charity.
In exchange for this type of tax treatment, there are certain restrictions on what a non-for-profit corp can engange in and how it must conduct it's affairs. But as you can see from the history of the way it's a pretty loose set of restrictions.
By the way, salaries, buildings, grounds, buses planes and all kinds of other things are legitimate expenses to either type of corporation, if they can be shown to have a use of furthering the business of the corporation.
Thanks, $.03 . You said that better than I could have.
One of the few things a non-profit can't do is give the profits to themselves. They must put the money back into the org. (What I don't know is, how did TWI get away with investing so much of those profits, without using them for the organization?)
Also, the Board may not receive a salary for being board members. If they perform any other service, they may get paid for that, but not for merely sitting on the Board and making policy. So Wierwille just told us how little money he made, all the while reaping the benefits of housecleaners, personal staff, lavish gifts, and TWI assets. And then deprived his children of their inheritance, because he'd willed it all to TWI.
The third major thing is, they organization is not allowed to endorse a political candidate. I have recently found a copy of the letter Wierwille sent in 1976 telling us he endorsed Maine Senator Hayes Gahagan. Although Wierwille does not use TWI letterhead, and denies that the org is endorsing the guy, Wierwille nonetheless used TWI's mailing list for this mailing -- oops! He's lucky he didn't lose TWI altogether over that one.
quote:In 1981, Wierwille obtained an invitation to one of the events of Ronald Reagan's inauguration, and word filtered down through the ministry that Wierwille had access to the president himself...
...A spokesman for Reagan's Inaugural Committee, speaking to the Emporia Gazette, scoffed at reports that Reagan had personally invited Wierwille to anything. "He would not have been invited by President Reagan and ended up in the same computer lists as 175,000 others" said [a]committee spokesman...
[he] said there was no ball with only 1,000 people, and that roughly 43,000 people attended about nine balls, the average attendance was closer to 5,000.
Noting that invitations were handed out on request, [he] also said his office had extended an invitation to a man who identified himself as "King of the Gypsies"...
On Feb. 9, 1981, Kansas Sanator Bob Dole...wrote in answer to an inquiry:..."I realize that there has been a great deal of concern about the participation of Victor Paul Wierwille, leader of The Way...I want to assure you that Mr. Wierwille's presence was as a private citizen and not as an official guest. It seems that the invitation to Mr. Wierwille came as a result of a routine phone request to a Congressional office that a V.P. Wierwille attend an inaugural event. Whoever took the phone message did not recognize the name...
FRom The Cult That Snapped, pp124-125, by Karl Kahler.
One of the few things a non-profit can't do is give the profits to themselves. They must put the money back into the org. (What I don't know is, how did TWI get away with investing so much of those profits, without using them for the organization?)
That just means that legal title to the assetts (money, land, and other stuff) can't be in the personal names of certain people. That's an easy thing to get around in practice if the control of how those assetts are used has not checks and balances.
For example if there is a business need for a teacher to visit a certain place, it's a deductible expense for them to drive, or to fly or to fly first class or to charter a private jet. The IRS will not determine that a person should have been more frugal in how they got there as long as a legitimate business reason can be shown.
As to the second part - about investing - there's no problem with an organization taking its extra cash and investing it as long as the investments are still owned by the organization. If the investments turn out to be bad ones - that's not the government's concern. They leave that up to the internal checks and balances of the organization. But the way had none of those.
Unless there's outright and obvious shinannegans that meat the legal definitions of fraud, the governement won't get involved.
Makes sense, 3cents. I know of a non-profit nursery school that has often ended up in the black, and they were always looking for ways to spend that extra money, because they weren't "allowed" to turn too much of it over into the next fiscal year.
I guess what you're saying then is that one particular organization may decide that the money should go back into fulfilling its goals, while another might invest the profits and use the assets toward its goals instead.
I like what you said about the IRS not caring if TWI (or whoever) uses its money poorly, as long as they use it legally. Sounds like TWI to me!
"" quote:In 1981, Wierwille obtained an invitation to one of the events of Ronald Reagan's inauguration,(SNIP) ...
On Feb. 9, 1981, Kansas Sanator Bob Dole...wrote in answer to an inquiry:..."I realize that there has been a great deal of concern about the participation of Victor Paul Wierwille, leader of The Way...I want to assure you that Mr. Wierwille's presence was as a private citizen and not as an official guest. It seems that the invitation to Mr. Wierwille came as a result of a routine phone request to a Congressional office that a V.P. Wierwille attend an inaugural event. Whoever took the phone message did not recognize the name... "
FRom The Cult That Snapped, pp124-125, by Karl Kahler.""
*******************************
hmmmmmmmmm, like so many other bits o' trivia in way world, vicenheimer never actually states that he was a personal invitee of the new Pres., he just lets rumour central do the job and never sets the record straight, either...
Recommended Posts
dmiller
"Render unto Caesar ....."
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille & his flacks often said that the money from the classes was to "build committment" and that during the time when there was no fee, people wouldn't stay committed.
So? Are we really responsible for what people do with what we teach them? Was it God's will that we get people committed to an organization?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Hey, I wouldn't have a problem with it if he had been honest about it.
If they had come out and said that they were selling a product and making money from it etc, that would have been fine.
In this country, you can sell anything you want as long as it's legal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
To whom much is given, Much will be required.
I look at it this way. When I tithe I am doing what God wants.
If an organization (TWI) wastes the money. They have to stand before God, not me.
Is it OK to sell Gods word for profit? Id have to do a lot of prayer before I crossed that bridge.
But hey, I got out because of doctrin back when they didn't want anyone to leave. I didn't even need a deprogramer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Is it wrong to make a lot of money selling "god's word"?
I almost want to yell DUH!!!!
But I know that many extwi people have no real clue about how the OT works with the NT...so I don't expect that there is an understanding that what was not good for the OT prophets is not good for the NT saints.
Has anybody read Micah lately? In Micah 3:11 the hebrew word for "money" (Keceph) has its roots in the hebrew word Kacaph, meaning to long for, yearn for, long after.
The meaning for all uses of "filthy lucre" in the NT is "eager for base gain, greedy for money".
And which prophet was it that got into so much trouble for accepting payment for his services?
Any "ministry" that charges fees for its services comes under suspicion with me. All throughout the bible that is something "that the heathens do".
Looking to Jesus for an example, there was never a charge. In contrast, however, the example of Jesus was to feed the people...something Jesus told Peter at least 3 times as the way for Peter to show that he loved Jesus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
I don't think that it's necessarily MORALLY wrong to sell classes, or Bibles, or whatever, for profit.
As to whether or not it's BIBILICALLY wrong, that's another discussion entirely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
There is a big difference between selling something to cover costs and making lots of money off of something.
Also, there's a big difference between services and products.
In twi, everything except going to twig carried a price tag. Whether that price tag was direct by way of actual charges for services, or whether that price tag was indirect via demands to attend certain functions, there was always a price tag associated with everything twi did.
And not just any old "if you want this, pay for it" price tag, either. TWI made sure that one was "humbled" properly so that one would "gladly" buy twi services...
Because buying twi services was made akin to being right with God.
That's pretty filthy lucre.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
I'm not defending docvic(praise be his name).
Nor am I defending TWIt.
I'm saying that if they had been honest about it, and came right out and said, "Yes, we're making a profit - on everything", then there would be no moral basis for a complaint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Oh, no doubt and too true! But had twi been honest about anything, there would have been no twi...
IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
2fortheroad
"I'm saying that if they had been honest about it, and came right out and said, "Yes, we're making a profit - on everything", then there would be no moral basis for a complaint."
Isn't it illegal for a non-profit "church" to make a profit - on anything - much less everything??? How have they managed to escape getting nailed on that all these years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
If they had come out and said they were making a profit, they would not have been considered a non-profit organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
I think in terms of the *donation* twi *requested* for their services, it would be quite interesting to see just how many folks who didn't make the donation (which was supposedly voluntary) got serviced, hmmmm.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
Oh and Hi John Linder
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
The short answer is no. It's not illegal. For a not-for-profit corporation (which is what churches are) to have a profit. The difference is what you're allowed to do with the profit. If a For Profit corporation has money left at the end of the year they pay taxes on it and can keep the rest in the corporation or give it to the owners (stock holders). Also money anyone gives the corporation is not tax deductible to the giver.
With a not-for-profit, there are no "owners" so if there's money left at the end of the year it has to stay in the company. Also a not-for-profit does not pay income tax on the money left over. And some types of not-for-profits (churches are this type) if you give them a donation you can deduct it from your taxes as charity.
In exchange for this type of tax treatment, there are certain restrictions on what a non-for-profit corp can engange in and how it must conduct it's affairs. But as you can see from the history of the way it's a pretty loose set of restrictions.
By the way, salaries, buildings, grounds, buses planes and all kinds of other things are legitimate expenses to either type of corporation, if they can be shown to have a use of furthering the business of the corporation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Thanks, $.03 . You said that better than I could have.
One of the few things a non-profit can't do is give the profits to themselves. They must put the money back into the org. (What I don't know is, how did TWI get away with investing so much of those profits, without using them for the organization?)
Also, the Board may not receive a salary for being board members. If they perform any other service, they may get paid for that, but not for merely sitting on the Board and making policy. So Wierwille just told us how little money he made, all the while reaping the benefits of housecleaners, personal staff, lavish gifts, and TWI assets. And then deprived his children of their inheritance, because he'd willed it all to TWI.
The third major thing is, they organization is not allowed to endorse a political candidate. I have recently found a copy of the letter Wierwille sent in 1976 telling us he endorsed Maine Senator Hayes Gahagan. Although Wierwille does not use TWI letterhead, and denies that the org is endorsing the guy, Wierwille nonetheless used TWI's mailing list for this mailing -- oops! He's lucky he didn't lose TWI altogether over that one.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
ya know, we all here can make a lotta cash offerering salvation~~~I mean offering salvation according to the apostle paul blah blh blah~~~
all we have to do for world over ourSELFS is consider the benifits we reap from those we bless so that they may be blessed blessing us...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I still wonder how VPW managed to wangle an invite to Reagan's inauguration.
That usually takes a cash donation doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
I recently talked to Hayes and he said that when TWI lost their tax exempt status over this issue that TWI probably lost millions....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
That just means that legal title to the assetts (money, land, and other stuff) can't be in the personal names of certain people. That's an easy thing to get around in practice if the control of how those assetts are used has not checks and balances.
For example if there is a business need for a teacher to visit a certain place, it's a deductible expense for them to drive, or to fly or to fly first class or to charter a private jet. The IRS will not determine that a person should have been more frugal in how they got there as long as a legitimate business reason can be shown.
As to the second part - about investing - there's no problem with an organization taking its extra cash and investing it as long as the investments are still owned by the organization. If the investments turn out to be bad ones - that's not the government's concern. They leave that up to the internal checks and balances of the organization. But the way had none of those.
Unless there's outright and obvious shinannegans that meat the legal definitions of fraud, the governement won't get involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Makes sense, 3cents. I know of a non-profit nursery school that has often ended up in the black, and they were always looking for ways to spend that extra money, because they weren't "allowed" to turn too much of it over into the next fiscal year.
I guess what you're saying then is that one particular organization may decide that the money should go back into fulfilling its goals, while another might invest the profits and use the assets toward its goals instead.
I like what you said about the IRS not caring if TWI (or whoever) uses its money poorly, as long as they use it legally. Sounds like TWI to me!
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
"" quote:In 1981, Wierwille obtained an invitation to one of the events of Ronald Reagan's inauguration,(SNIP) ...
On Feb. 9, 1981, Kansas Sanator Bob Dole...wrote in answer to an inquiry:..."I realize that there has been a great deal of concern about the participation of Victor Paul Wierwille, leader of The Way...I want to assure you that Mr. Wierwille's presence was as a private citizen and not as an official guest. It seems that the invitation to Mr. Wierwille came as a result of a routine phone request to a Congressional office that a V.P. Wierwille attend an inaugural event. Whoever took the phone message did not recognize the name... "
FRom The Cult That Snapped, pp124-125, by Karl Kahler.""
*******************************
hmmmmmmmmm, like so many other bits o' trivia in way world, vicenheimer never actually states that he was a personal invitee of the new Pres., he just lets rumour central do the job and never sets the record straight, either...
typical vp flak job....
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.