What happened to the day school? Mr. & Mrs. U & Mr. & Mrs. Mc invested their whole lives into building that youth center and now another church owns it. Several of the businessmen in the church donated their expertise to remodel the building and bring it up to the current code so could be used as a school. What happened to the money?

Swindle?

swin·dle /ˈswɪndl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[swin-dl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -dled, -dling, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to cheat (a person, business, etc.) out of money or other assets.
2. to obtain by fraud or deceit.
3. to put forward plausible schemes or use unscrupulous trickery to defraud others; cheat.
4. an act of swindling or a fraudulent transaction or scheme.
5. anything deceptive; a fraud: This advertisement is a real swindle.


Why did they need to donate it (the property) to the church?
Why couldn't the church just use it?
Did the money get used in the desired way of the givers?
Were they told that they had no say in how it was used?
Why weren't they encouraged to sell the building themsleves and donate what they felt led to?
How come LGM didn't offer at least half the money back to them, since they didn't use it in the desired way of the givers?
Why would a godly church, pastor, and board of elders prey on elderly folks like this?
Why is there another elderly couple planning on giving another large chunk of money to support a deceptive and sinking ship?

Deuteronomy 14 describes giving to take care of the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow.

That is old testament. In the new new testament such people are to give & care for LGM.

There are elder laws in Washington state designed to protect seniors from such abuse. Of course they are of sound mind, but I think their family would become much more interested in protecting their assests if they had even an incling of the fishy history that encompasses LGM.

What this precious couple doesn't realize is their handsome monetary gift may work a little while to protect the loss of a building, but the church is dead. The pastor said so himself. The twisted abuse of the scriptures to control & manipulate people still linger on. Why else would an elderly couple who have been good stewards of God suddenly think in their retirement years that they should donate the proceeds of their home to LGM?

I have a brilliant idea! Why doesn't Tom Powell put his home up for sale in Gem Heights & give the proceeds back to the church what is dutifully theirs?? After all, not a penny of it was put forth by Tom--right? The money is rightfully the church's if that home sells. Tom can then move into the dorms that he promotes so well & produce more mini me's. He led another couple to think their family was called by God to move into the dorms. It fits perfectly.

At the Saturday morning meeting recently, didn't Tom use the fact that CHS "lived in a dorm" as proof that he was a humble, spiritual giant, or something like that?

There ya go! More proof that Tom approves of humble abodes. After all he could be available to all the dormies night & day. Instead of the church funding a residence for him AWAY from the church, they can fund him right at the center where all the action is. Prophet why didn't you come up with this one?

A prophet only speaks what he has heard, though I fully agree with what you say.

I thought LGM split from Baltimore???? Why is TP still using CHS as an example????
I am a little confused here! :huh:

They split from gg church in Baltimore as it's presently operated. As best as I can determine (TP, correct me if I'm wrong), many of the former gg pastors who formed iagm don't like Tom Schaller, so didn't want to "under" him. But they still seem to be infatuated with the Carl Stevens legacy.

There aint a dimes worth of difference. Just call him Tom Powell-Schaller-Stevens.

Enough reason to avoid GGWO, LGM, and the IAGM altogether!!!

John, a bit of an understatement. The entire 2 hours (all i could stomach) of the saturday monologue were used to exalt Carl Stevens and his ministry. The answer to every 'accusation' was explaining how wonderful Carl was, while down playing the questions and brushing over any uncomfortable things like the Martin report, or the trial as if they never happened. :wacko:

SPIN
In public relations, spin is a usually pejorative term signifying a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor of an event or situation. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, "spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics. Politicians are often accused of spin by their political opponents.

The techniques of spin include:

• Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position (cherry picking)
• Non-denial denial
• Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths
• Euphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda

See also:

• Apologetics: colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning.
• Code word: a word or a phrase designed to convey a predetermined meaning to certain listeners while sounding inoffensive to other listeners not aware of its true meaning. The use of this particular rhetorical device in a knowing attempt to deceive large groups of people is disingenuous.
• Doublespeak: language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a communication bypass. Such language is often associated with governmental, military, political, religious, secular, interest group and corporate institutions and its deliberate use by these is what distinguishes it from other euphemisms.
• Propaganda: a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience.
• Weasel word: used to avoid making a straightforward statement. Weasel words are also used to deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience.

I believe words have meaning. As the above definitions indicate, training and experience enable professional speakers to communicate almost as much with things intentionally left unsaid, or merely implied yet not overtly stated. Stevens was a master at using emotion, tone of voice, volume, etc. to lead listeners to his desired conclusion. It's what preachers do for a living.

If the conclusion he KNEW you would draw becomes inconvenient, he would blame the listener for misunderstanding! Example:

Boston Globe, April 9, 1987
On the stand earlier yesterday, Rev. Stevens denied Dovydenas' allegation that he had declared anyone who criticizes him or his church would be punished by God.

Attorney Eric Dannenmaier of the heiress' legal team then played a tape of Stevens speaking to his congregation, one of hundreds of tapes the minister made available to his followers.

In it, Stevens says to anyone who criticizes persons in authority, "I will guarantee you will become weak and sick and die in the future months."

Pressed by Walker, the minister said he was not talking about physical death but "spiritual death," which, he said, is one of "six kinds of death" mentioned in the Bible.

Thanks John, I think this pretty much describes what I meant.

The elderly women in question was promised by TP himself that half the money from the sale of the day school would go to missions. I wonder what she would say about the way the money is being used?

I think I'll be a little presumptuous and answer my earlier questions. This is just my opinion on these matters.

"Were they told that they had no say in how it was used?
I don't know if they were told such a thing, but i do know that a certain doctor told us in the boardroom that she had no say and that TP had no right to promise her anything."

If TP knew he had no right to make promises like this, then he was telling the person what he wanted them to hear to get what he wanted.

Isn't that "Undue Influence"?

TP learned well from his guru.

From law.com

Undue influence

Definition - Noun
: improper influence that deprives a person of freedom of choice or substitutes another's choice or desire for the person's own
compare coercion duress necessity
It is a doctrine of equity that a contract, deed, donation, or testamentary disposition can be set aside if the court finds that someone has exercised undue influence over the maker at the time that the contract, conveyance, or will was made. To establish a prima facie case it is usu. necessary to show a susceptibility to undue influence (as from mental impairment), the opportunity and disposition on someone's part to exercise such influence, and that the transaction would not have been made except for the undue influence.



comment: The most common cases of undue influence involve the elderly usually to change their wills.

I'm shocked, are people actually telling me our beloved pastor whom we trusted with the word of God actually was an expert in tail spins? No. no, he couldn't have learned this from his CHS master of destruction, now could he?

I had someone recently ask, well what if he says he was wrong, then what? A very interesting concept to ponder. First of all, he may tail spin you into thinking he is acknowledging his participation, or not. He'll do whatever is most convenient to get sympathy. The false doctrines & tail spin conduction he has learned over the years is http://www.answers.com/topic/ingrained.

He isn't ready to stop living in minion gossip about his flock. It's what keeps him looking all knowing. Wow, how did pastor know to speak on that topic. He learned it from his mastor he so verbally still esteems so highly as his spiritual father. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwExDG7n7Zg
he still likes the heritage he is from. He stands FIRM on this heritage.

There is too much to do in the kingdom than to worry about 90 whining cry babies that left the fold. Let's just go on to get new meat. More innocent souls seeking God who can be contorted into our minion dominated world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY

In other words, the top priority is raking in more people into the church in order to take advantage of them so that the inner circle may benefit. Forget about and ignore the many that get stepped on and have to pick up the pieces of whats left of their lives. Then discredit and slander those who speak out about the abuses. Its all about the inner circle of leadership that does whatever it wants in the Name of Christ!!!

sidethorn has never been to Tacoma. He must be clairvoyant.

“It’s for the children!” Yea! How many times have we heard that one from Tommy Powell? Yikes, but how many times has Tommy let the children down? I had a conversation with an ex-LGM’er yesterday after attending our church service (which, by the way, is like going on a short trip to Maui—you come out of service totally refreshed and built-up in Christ’s love and not befuddled and subtly condemned as we were by Tommy Powell’s manipulative preaching). It was pointed out by this ex-LGM’er that if the Powell children were still young, there would be no way that LGM would have situated the day school at its present location. I wonder if Tommy P would like to debate that one. The Sunday school was promised the rooms on the upper floor (six classrooms)—yea for the children--but these were taken away and given to the Bible college. I wonder, where do the children play on a hot summer day? Outside in the potholed driveway or on the freeway?
Oh I’ve got it, some very generous seniors with loving hearts donated a building off of 72nd St. for the day school. It was to be used for the children. That didn’t last long. Two years after having been given this building, LGM sold it for a tidy profit. What happened to all that $? Was it the intention of the givers of that building that it be sold in order to keep the church (with its lousy financial management and decisions) afloat? Was the money used for the children? Was it used for souls? How is Sunday school doing? Who’s supporting it? And how about CAP? I imagine the funneling of $ from the sale of the day school back into the general fund helped keep your lofty paycheck up to the magnificent heights to which you are accustomed, right. After all, you alone are worthy. Are you still giving the children candy Tommy? I guess you think in doing so, that’s enough to say you did it all for the children!

Luke 20:46 & 47
"Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation."
Sincerely,
Jesus of Nazareth
aka
God Almighty

I see a similarity here...

A moral theft! As I think back over the way things went down with the dayschool property, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than a moral theft. Legally, I'm sure all the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted so that as one well respected board member said in one particular board meeting, "she has no say in how the money is used, and TP should not have promised her anything on how the money would be spent". So legally their butt's are most likely covered. BUT. It is unspeakable to think that a group whoes main commandment is to love, and one of the actions prescribed to reveal this love is to take care of the widows, would take advantage of a very godly widow. To receive that property from her with the promise that it would be used for children, then only two years later quickly decide to move the children out of there without consulting with the parents of the children who support the school or consulting with the members of the church who labored at that school to help get it in shape for classes as to whether this was a good idea or not, is not right. There were excuses made as to why it had to happen. I call BS. on those excuses. It was all about money. Now when the classes moved down to the church and they started talking about selling the property, she was promised that half would go to missions. A LIE. Why didn't they just give it back to her to do with as she pleased? Why didn't they give the half that was promised to missions back to her? Disgusting and wicked.
I wonder, do they have a conscience?
Do they lay awake at night in cold sweats wondering what God thinks about these actions?
Do they feel like they should find a way to make it right.
When they sell the church, will they give her back her money or just move on and leave her in the past since she saw the light and left that place for a place that includes God?
Astounded, can you answer these questions for me since your leaders are to scared to come on here and debate any of these issues. (they're to busy having meetings to figure out how to squeeze blood out of turnips).

Dan,

That move is right out of the Carl Stevens handbook. Even Betsy Dovydenas thought she was giving money for reasons that weren't true (Barbara's headaches, missionary's release from jail). Don't forget all those folks who donated their own HOMES. Yeah, this is a classic.

What frosts me is that the men that did this were happy to do it and may do it again in the near future!

R******'s headaches?

Sorry, wrong name. I corrected it.

And here is the link:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/DiscussGGWO/in...p?showtopic=105

Bump