- Topic
WMS member are encouraged to tithe as a stipulation for their salvation. So, if they have paid for it then they should have it but what about when they find the truth and leave the WMS? If salvation is taken back then the money that was paid for it should be refunded.
would be nice
I'm pretty sure there is a law that will prove what the WMSCOG did is illegal thus rendering us a full refund plus punitive damage. The problem, however, is that people are lurking in the shadows and won't speak.
I cheered in high school so I learned how to project my voice without straining my vocal chords. I, alone, can be very loud. But when the entire cheer squad projects together it cannot be ignored. All of this we're doing separately, not in synch with each other, will not get us a winning case. It can happen. It just won't as long as we continue to be OFP.
For those who aren't familiar with the military, when someone is OFP that person is on his own fucking program..
Is there anyting in writing that your tithe was paid to buy your salvation? If not, I don't suppose you can do anything about it.
Even if it was tied to salvation, I'm sure there would not be a specific time frame mentioned. If you then leave before the end time, then you cannot claim that the service you paid for (salvation) was not provided because you did not wait until the occurence of the event.
Theres the fact they never intended to provide it.
If you could demonstrate that your donations of tithes were used for non-profit purposes, then you would have a good case for a refund.
I guess we'll just have to find out how they've spent our money. Since they havent been very forth coming about their financial records sounds like we need to do some legal snooping
In humble response to Emil:
Not necessarily.. As long as 2 parties agree to have made a verbal contract then it may stand in court. For example, I had a roommate who paid part of the rent and nothing else. Nothing was in writing though. There was an issue and the state says that as long as we agreed to an amount and can show proof that this agreement was being kept in the past, it still stands unless we both agree to a change. Because I was able to prove with her previous monthly payments that we agreed on a certain number amount, she either had to pay or move out. If she didn't pay I had grounds to sue even though nothing was in writing.
Yes, it is better to have everything in writing but that's not always the case. The contract, so to speak, was if I were to keep with the laws of the New Cov't I would receive salvation from Zahng. These statements can be found in various places on the internet. I can also prove that I was a member. If the Pastor in San Diego Zion didn't shread everything, I would have proof that I paid my tithes for a number of months. Being proven that Zahng is not God, she cannot give salvation [whether or not I obeyed every law exactly] therefore I obeyed the rules of tithes in vain. It's like me promising a room for rent to a residence that doesn't exist. The renter paid the deposit in vain.
It's a very difficult case to win because God, to some people, isn't tangeable. Residences are. You can see them without reasonable doubt. However, if you lack "faith" there's no way you could see God. But if you have a compassionate Judge then there's a chance.. I think.
Here is a hypothetical example to better illustrate. Church A asks its members for donations to build a new church in some location. Church A collects some sum of money but then turns around and does not build the church in the previously said location. Instead Church A's pastor invests the monies collected in real estate (for personal use), purchases a car (in his name and not for church use), uses the money to start up a business for himself, etc. That would give rise to a claim for fraud and therefore, one could sue for their money back.
Well here's what we do know…the church isnt using our money to purchase new church buildings. Most of the new locations they have are "house churches". I dont know who pays the rent/mortgage on someone's private residence being used for the church. It is curious that some of the pastors have "unrelated" personal businesses. Wouldnt be surprised to know if they started up their businesses with church funds.
Emily wrote:
Here is a hypothetical example to better illustrate. Church A asks its members for donations to build a new church in some location. Church A collects some sum of money but then turns around and does not build the church in the previously said location. Instead Church A's pastor invests the monies collected in real estate (for personal use), purchases a car (in his name and not for church use), uses the money to start up a business for himself, etc. That would give rise to a claim for fraud and therefore, one could sue for their money back.
But that's not why [some of] the people [I've spoken to] want their money back. Your example obviously, without a doubt, shows grounds for a lawsuit. From the people I've spoken to, they want their money back because the church tricked them to think they were going to receive salvation, not because they thought they were donating to charity, the building of a church, what have you. Now, we could go to court for a different reason and still get the money back but that's going through the back door. If it were possible, which I think it is, I would like to sue for what I'm actually suing for… false advertising.
Disturbed wrote:
Well here's what we do know…the church isnt using our money to purchase new church buildings. Most of the new locations they have are "house churches". I dont know who pays the rent/mortgage on someone's private residence being used for the church. It is curious that some of the pastors have "unrelated" personal businesses. Wouldnt be surprised to know if they started up their businesses with church funds.
I remember speaking to some people about holding services in their home. I'll ask them if they received any money from the church for using their home for religious purposes. I would think not because wouldn't it have to be approved before you could legally hold services? The house churches I heard of appeared spontaneously which didn't provide time for inspection.
@Renita – Good points. Is there anyway you can show that your tithes were in any way conditional? That you were paying them because you had been told that it was for your salvation? I'm not sure that might have been the case. Even if it was, they can always say you left before time and so the breach has occured from your side.
If members mistakenly believed they were paying for their salvation but were never actua;lly told so, then it becomes even more difficult to claim it back. Not sure what it is like there in the US.
There's a bible study about the Tithes and Offering explaining how it's a mandatory command. The WMSCOG ends almost every subject with a conclusion telling us we need to obey all of God's commands if we want to go home. The church keeps a record of every bible study you have and how many of each.
But how can I receive salvation from someone who has proven themselves not to be God? In other words, I don't need to wait until I die to see if they'll give me salvation because Zahng and Ahn don't have that authority. That's like me arguing that you didn't wait for me to build the residence.. You don't have to wait if you can prove that I wasn't even planning on building anything. And even if I was planning on it, you could prove that I couldn't because of financial issues or whatever.
The preponderance of evidence would demonstraite shes not the god she claims so.even if she were a god shed still be lying about everything
YoMomma SoFat wrote:
There's a bible study about the Tithes and Offering explaining how it's a mandatory command. The WMSCOG ends almost every subject with a conclusion telling us we need to obey all of God's commands if we want to go home. The church keeps a record of every bible study you have and how many of each.
But how can I receive salvation from someone who has proven themselves not to be God? In other words, I don't need to wait until I die to see if they'll give me salvation because Zahng and Ahn don't have that authority. That's like me arguing that you didn't wait for me to build the residence.. You don't have to wait if you can prove that I wasn't even planning on building anything. And even if I was planning on it, you could prove that I couldn't because of financial issues or whatever.
I don't believe that the secular courts would entertain this argument because of the separation between church and state. There will never be a trial (in the US at least) about whether or not someone is really "god". Besides, according to the wms, paying tithes doesn't guarantee your salvation, even if there was salvation to be gained there. There is a plethora of other requirements that need to be fulfilled as well.
YoMomma SoFat wrote:
There's a bible study about the Tithes and Offering explaining how it's a mandatory command. The WMSCOG ends almost every subject with a conclusion telling us we need to obey all of God's commands if we want to go home. The church keeps a record of every bible study you have and how many of each.
But how can I receive salvation from someone who has proven themselves not to be God? In other words, I don't need to wait until I die to see if they'll give me salvation because Zahng and Ahn don't have that authority. That's like me arguing that you didn't wait for me to build the residence.. You don't have to wait if you can prove that I wasn't even planning on building anything. And even if I was planning on it, you could prove that I couldn't because of financial issues or whatever.
I don't believe that the secular courts would entertain this argument because of the separation between church and state. There will never be a trial (in the US at least) about whether or not someone is really "god". Besides, according to the wms, paying tithes doesn't guarantee your salvation, even if there was salvation to be gained there. There is a plethora of other requirements that need to be fulfilled as well.
Actually fraud isn’t protected they’ve rescinded protections for cults before
Actually fraud isn’t protected they’ve rescinded protections for cults before
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.