Q COVER UP or Soap Opera Soft Porn Gossip Sheet

[jonmoseley]

It seems odd, because it does not make sense why this bothers people so much.

However perhaps the greatest complaint, or at least one of the top 5 complaints, on this Board appears to be charges of COVER UPs in Every Nation. These charges appear to be factually simply untrue.

HOWEVER, the important thing is the THEOLOGICAL QUESTION:

WHY DO YOU THINK -- from the Bible now -- that a congregation is entitled to the lurid details of someone's sin even a leader's sin?

Let's try to define the scope of the scenario: You belong to the "First Church of Eternal Bitterness" and you walk into church on Sunday morning.

Instead of your pastor, you see the Don't-Ever-Call-Me-An-Apostle REGIONAL LEADER of your church's denomination standing in the pulpit.

Your church's regional leader announces that your (now old) pastor, Pastor Pete, has resigned and the new pastor will now be Pastor Joe.

QUESTION:

BIBLICALLY SPEAKING -- FROM THE BIBLE NOT RHETORIC -- WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CHURCH *MUST* TELL YOU (not could tell you if they wanted to, but MUST tell) TO ACT BIBLICALLY AND CORRECTLY?

Is it imperative (or else they are guilty of a cover-up) that you (the congregation) be told:

PLEASE CONFINE YOUR ANSWER TO *BIBLICAL* AUTHORITY AND PRINCIPLES *ONLY*. If you want to be taken seriously as a genuine Christian critiquing a Christian church, you need to show us IN THE BIBLE why this is so.

THE QUESTION IS, BIBLICALLY, why should you be told anything more than "Pastor Joe is your new pastor?"

[jonmoseley]

[DETAILS & CHOICES TO BE CONSIDERED IN ANSWERING]

1) That, unknown to the congregation, Pastor Pete was accused of sleeping with his family's 18 year old babysitter?

2) That Pastor Pete denied it.

3) That for 14 months the babysitter refused to talk about it, leaving only Pastor Pete's denial as evidence and nothing more.

4) That the babysitter suddenly had a motive for accusing Pastor Pete 14 months later when she independently got in trouble, and therefore your denomination faced a dilemma whether to accept her current testimony.

5) That after 16 months (total) corroborating evidence was finally discovered such as love notes and emails, finally convincing the denomination that it was indeed true.

6) That the babysitter's family begged the denomination to keep the details secret to avoid embarrassing their daughter (the babysitter) and from harming her.

7) That your church already received inquiries from a news journalist, leading them to believe that a public announcement would drag the babysitter's name the mud in that community.

8) That the old Pastor Pete has had a mental breakdown with grief and has been receiving intensive ministry, and by all appearances seems to be genuinely repentant. Of course, they are convinced he should be permanently removed from ministry. But, simultaneously, they are looking also to his spiritual rehabilitation as an INDIVIDUAL in trying to get him right with God.

9) That the old Pastor Pete's wife begs the denomination NOT to publicly reveal the scandal, as it will harm not only her, but also her children for their entire lives, because her children will have to live with the PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE of a scandal involving their father, and also the wive's entire extended family will also be hurt.

10) ADDITIONAL FACTS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED as to whether or not they should be disclosed: SHOULD THE DENOMINATION REVEAL: Which sexual positions Pastor Pete and the babysitter engaged in?

11) Should the congregation be told how many times Pastor Pete and the babysitter got it on?

12) Should the congregation be told what the babysitter wearing that enticed Pastor Pete?

13) Should the congregation be told the babysitter's measurements?

14) Should the congregation be shown a photograph of the babysitter, so they can fully understand the scandal and what happened?

15) Should the congregation be told how many times Pastor Pete did it on the couch, how many times he did it in the car, how many times he did it in the kitchen, how many times he did it in the bedroom?

16) Should the congregation be told whether the babysitter liked it as much as Pastor Pete?

YOU GET THE IDEA....

WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU GET THE IDEA that a congregation MUST be told all about the sin of anyone, much less of a leader?

[wiseasaserpentgentleasadove]

whoever you are, YOU CROSSED THE LINE WITH THIS ONE. YOU should be rebuked...This is not some sick GAME.

[speakword2004]

"Q:WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU GET THE IDEA that a congregation MUST be told all about the sin of anyone, much less of a leader?"

Answer: Much more a leader! See the Holy Bible:

1 Timothy 5.

20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

[speakword2004]

Jon,

Further to your request above:
http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1144 675734

WHY MUST AN ADULTEROUS ELDER LOSE OFFICE?

Author: Philip Rosenthal (Philip@rosenthal.net)
Date: 9 November 2005
INTRODUCTION 2
THE CONTEXT 3
COMPROMISED HOLLYWOOD CHRISTIANITY LEADS TO MORAL CONFUSION 3
THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY FOR VARIOUS SITUATIONS 4
When did the adultery occur? 4
The alternatives for disciplining an elder 4
The degree of the offence influences the penalty 4
Other forms of sexual sin 5
MESSAGES TO THE READER 5
For those who have committed adultery 5
For those involved in church disciplinary processes 5
For Christian activists 6
For elders who have tolerated adultery of others in the pulpit 6
SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS 6
FAILURE TO MEET THE BIBLICAL CHARACTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN ELDER 6
OTHER SCRIPTURES INDICATING THE NEED FOR STRICTNESS 8
Requirements for deacons indicate further strictness 8
Other penalties for adultery in scripture 8
Old Testament requirements for priests and leaders indicate the need for strictness 9
Adultery is destructive and harmful and so should not be treated lightly 10
Exposure will normally make followers leave or pressure the leader to resign 10
God’s direct judgement 11
PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS 11
AN ADULTERER CANNOT PROPERLY PERFORM THE JOB RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN ELDER 11
An adulterous elder can’t be a good example to the flock 11
An adulterous elder can’t teach with credibility 11
An adulterous elder has no moral authority to exercise church discipline 11
An undisciplined adulterer cannot properly perform the leadership function of praying for his followers 12
An adulterous elder cannot be trusted to counsel his followers 12
AN ADULTEROUS ELDER MAY USE HIS POSITION TO HARM HIS FOLLOWERS 12
An adulterous elder will corrupt other good people 12
An adulterer is likely to be abusive to try cover up 13
The office of an elder gives a man power he can abuse to seduce women 13
OTHER PRACTICAL REASONS WHY AN ADULTEROUS ELDER MUST LOSE OFFICE 13
An adulterer will likely repeat the same offence if not properly disciplined. 13
It is in his own best interests for his spiritual recovery 13
Christians and outsiders will lose respect for all ministers’ offices 13
Adultery can have serious consequences which the elder may have to deal with 14
If a church or organisation does not get rid of an adulterous elder, its elders are responsible and guilty for his sin 14
If we tolerate adulterous elders, the gospel loses credibility 14
Getting rid of the adulterous elder publicly will cause others to fear 14
If an adulterer is not removed, all discipline will break down 14
SHOULD THE CHURCH HAVE LOWER MORAL STANDARDS THAN THE WORLD? 15
Many nations had serious criminal penalties for adultery 15
Most professions and sports have disqualification 15
Churches which tolerate sexual abusers are liable for damages 15
ANSWERING ARGUMENTS FOR KEEPING AN ADULTEROUS ELDER IN OFFICE 16
The man’s wife has forgiven him 16
The seduced woman has forgiven him 16
He will get counselling 16
His wife is also cheating on him 16
It was a momentary moral lapse and not an ongoing pattern of sin 16
But many great leaders were adulterers 17
The adulterer is the only well qualified person to do the job 17
The ministry is dependent on the adulterous leader for fundraising 17
The man has to eat 17
But shouldn’t we forgive him? 17
Doesn’t mercy triumph over judgement? 18
HIDDEN REASONS FOR KEEPING AN ADULTEROUS ELDER IN OFFICE 18
CONCLUSION 18

[freedom43]

I'm with you, Wise. I find Jon's most recent post on this thread offensive/in the gutter and not very Christian like. Seems like his mind needs some washing with the water of the Word.

[dust]

Speak: AWESOME job. Thank you so much.

And, Yes, I have to agree...there is something very immoral in the way JonMoseley addressed the moral failures. It's sinister, disgusting, and an offense. We REBUKE you, Jon Moseley, because you are sexually INAPPROPRIATE and I think, in sin, for your language. No one here has ever been that base.

This is proof right here enough for me that no one on this board that is a regular poster in "in" with this guy.

[matt_hatter]

I erased a post earlier, as I do not wish to engage this person, but I found his post to be written by someone who has some strange fantasy and seemed to getting some type of gratification out of his little tale.

Dust, one thing we can agree: this is truly an outsider with a real problem. Further discussion with him will only allow him to degenerate to a further level of debauchery.

Your post was TRULY disgusting moseley, and coming from one who can push the envelope at times, that says a lot.

[speakword2004]

The accusation of "spiritual pornography" has been used by the Church of Christ-Boston sect, ad nauseum and is a discredited example of manipulation and control used by cults. Many good EN leaders and elders would refrain from such a technique.

[mcmstaff78]

Spiritual Pornography (http://www.rightcyberup.org/spiritual.html)

[wiseasaserpentgentleasadove]

Thanks, freedom, speak, dust, mcm, and matt. I felt like I was all alone on this one for a while. I know some just wanted to over look this thread, but I couldn't as a person filled with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, a Righteous indignation needs to just rise up...

perhaps this person is not really a Jon mosely. sticking by my gut. That would be too easy.

[freedom43]

wise -- there are lots of strange people and motives in this world. I am trying to figure out what motive someone would have to use a name that is not their own in this situation -- especially when anyone who spent time in the DC church during the 80s/90s would likely know him/remember him. Perhaps folks think using a "real name" adds legitimacy?

On the other hand, regardless of who he/she is, I hope he wakes up from his weekend of taunting Factnet posters, reads his posts and feels some sense of shame/remorse.

[wiseasaserpentgentleasadove]

Perhaps a trial of some sort didn't go their way. who knows.

[coppertree]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>Hi Dove
Sorry that you felt alone, I did not see this thread, I did engage with him on other threads. Does not seem to listen, thank you 78, for that it link, it helped explain things.}

[wiseasaserpentgentleasadove]

coppertree,
i was so disgusted by this thread, i had to think twice about posting what i did above, b/c there were no responses to it yet, I just thought people were just ignoring it, and then, when I decided to post something, i thought "i'm just going to be bringing this thing to the surface...should I do this? It's staying dead at least." But I had to speak out...

[40days40years]

You know lets say this person is not Jon Moseley?
I still think whoever is posting seems to have a strong knowledge of DC, MCM/MSI/EN. This person was or is a member.

If a pastor is removed, you have to give the congregation a reason and if a pastor falls into major sin you have to tell them. Not graphically but an accurate reason why so and so is on sabatical or removed outright. And yeah it does make a differance if a leader fell in love with his secretary verses multiple serial violations with many "victims". I still can't help feel that this is about Paul Daniels but hey the guy was hanging out on Philips site and there is no lack of information there.

[jonmoseley]

[This is much delayed by the computer glitch on Sunday night. Because I made the mistake of resetting my password, before reading the warning, I've been out of it until now]

I THINK THIS IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:

BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, there has been no cover up by Every Nation, correct?

According to you the Biblical principle is that a leader be publicly rebuked and removed from ministry.

THAT HAPPENED.

SO everything was done as it should have been done.

You must admit that right (if you are honest)?

EVERY NATION DID THAT in both cases. Paul Daniels and TF WERE publicly removed from their ministries, and publicly rebuked.

So BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, Every Nation did everything correctly.

40days adds one other wrinkle that the congregation must be told why.

IS THAT IN SCRIPTURE? WHERE?

But Every Nation DID say why -- adultery.

However, THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION.

Again, for the slow amongst us, THESE LEADERS WERE ALREADY REBUKED PUBLICLY, exactly as they should have been.

So the question is WHAT ELSE do you demand to know, or else you call it a cover up?

The question is why do you call it a COVER UP because you are not told what sexual positions were used, in what rooms of the house Paul Daniels did in, what parts of Phil Bonasso's daughter's body turned Pastor TF on?

Who made the first move? Was it TF or Bonasso's daughter? Inquiring minds demand to know or else they cry cover-up!

Will you be satisfied short of a photograph of the two of them doing it together? Do you need to know the girls' measurements, how long each session lasted, what she was wearing that turned him on, did they have wine or champagne, how did he perform?

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW, such that you call it a cover up?

YOU WERE TOLD EVERYTHING YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BE TOLD. Isn't that correct?

Perhaps you should be more honest and just go out and rent a porn video to satisfy your cravings to know all about it, and stop falsely accusing Every Nation of a cover up. I think God would more readily forgive you while being honest about it than when attacking a church because you did not get to hear a steamy romance novel.

How is it a cover up that you have not been told MORE THAN THAT?

[forword]

Phil was not publicly rebuked...he was privately rebuked. I know many Bethel members who have no idea that Phil is no longer part of the top EN leadership. He was a very know worldwide leader. Yet, unless you are directly involved or read FactNet, you would have no idea that anything had happened.

Your porn comments are gross and inappropriate on many levels. How does your comments line up with the scripture below? Do you live by the teachings of the Bible? Do they matter to you? How can you call yourself a Christian and make slanderous comments with no love towards brothers in Christ? These are serious questions, Jon. I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine.

Eph 4
2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

<font size="-2">New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society</font>

[jonmoseley]

What then is a rebuke to you?

TF and Paul Daniels were publicly repudiated and removed from ministry, and as far as I understand it adultery was identified as the reason.

THAT'S NOT A REBUKE TO YOU?

What, pray tell, is?

What MORE dramatic rebuke can there be to a minister then to be defrocked, publicly, and for ADULTERY for Pete's sake?

WHAT MORE is required, BIBLICALLY NOW, for the rebuke that you call for?

Should TF be publicly whipped? Beaten? Kicked?

Remember: On this slender thread hangs all of your false and scurrilous accusations of COVER UPS by Every Nation, which clearly never happened.


By bringing the discussion down to this slender thread, you must now admit that your accusations are FALSE.

It is you who are accusing elders, who have committed no sin that you identify, of being cultists and heretics for not telling you all of these soap opera details. It is you (collectively) who continually make false accusations of a cover-up, where there was none.

Having thrown knives at leaders of God's church, please do not play that coy game of not wanting to be exposed in your unfair attacks.

I merely bring out in the open what you are implicitly saying in the shadows.

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW to not accuse EN of a cover up?

[forword]

Once again, it was not PUBLIC because most poeple in EN do not know it happened. They still think Phil is in leadership.

I have never asked for details. I have asked for public repentance.

I only know what I know because of FactNet and because of others I know throughout EN because of relationships with people in leadership.

You are putting words in my mouth that I have never said. This in not an honest dialog Jon. My accusations are not false. Read them again.

Cover ups in EN are rampant and I have many examples. However, I am still waiting for you to answer my questions.

[matt_hatter]

This is a twisted, perverse individual who will only go away if ignored. I know it is so very hard to do, but it will be the only solution.

[jonmoseley]

Phil? We're talking about Paul Daniels and Pastor TF, whose name I don't recall, who were found guilty of adultery.

It was publicly announced that they were removed from ministry, as you well know.

That is a public rebuke. There is probably nothing more embarrassing than for a pastor to be removed from the minister. If you don't call that a rebuke, I don't know what is.

If now you are talking about Phil for some reason, first I know nothing about it and second any allegations must be confirmed by 2 or more witnesses and we'd have to know something pretty solid to go there.

I don't know what questions you asked that I have not answered.

[mdillon]

hey mattie i'm thinking you've got something here. as a matter of fact...i'm feelin' it....here it comes.....


thus saith the lard- "Do not ye wrestleth with swine because both of ye shall be soiled and yon swine shall cherish it"

if this double dips its a witness

dilly

[mdillon]

hey mattie i'm thinking you've got something here. as a matter of fact...i'm feelin' it....here it comes.....


thus saith the lard- "Do not ye wrestleth with swine because both of ye shall be soiled and yon swine shall cherish it"

if this double dips its a witness

dilly

[matt_hatter]

Amen brother, sounds like Bobby Tilton finally got something right!!

Hogwash for sure.

[jonmoseley]

I would note that I have asked you a lot of questions, such as what is a rebuke in your opinion, what does it take to qualify as a rebuke, and you have not answered those.

So, we're even. But I will answer your questions if you can highlight them for me out of all the discussion.

[speakword2004]

Jon

I find your comment about sexual positions to indicate a certain amount of depravity on your part. You have tried your best to put your ugly and demeaning words into people's minds with a clear agenda of putting this into the mud where I suppose people like you can continue to trample the truth underfoot.

I charge you to once again read 1 Tim 5 vv19-20.

The 2 examples you cite were both cover-ups and the dismissals both came far too late. If you go back and read the case of PD as one example you will find that he was discovered to have been in infidelity in 1996. Beacuse he was not biblically disipline (which includes none of the disgusting measures you falsely accuse people here of wanting) his marriage was destroyed, he continued for his wickedness and authoritarianism for another 8 years and many more people found it all to be a stumbling block when the prevailing circumtances finally forced the EN authorities to do what they should have done much earlier.

If youb are really a lwayer, then I find your bully boy tactics to be nothing nore than that.

I charge you to read 1 Tim 5v19 in light of 1 Tim 5v20 and to try and understand that we are not as weakminded to let let you push people around with the same disregard your former masters have done.

[robert_unknown]

by the way, i personally HAVE gone the biblical way, and contacted the involved pastors personally with questions regarding the issue.

i have, however, given NO answer on it. and this despite the fact that we know each other well, apprechiated each other over the last years and have worked together.

the strategy is always the same:

- ignore questions
- if you cannot ignore them anylonger, promise answers, but dont answer
- if you have to answwer say only nothing important
- if people are not satisfied go over to other strategies (ie slander about people, talk into their consciense,...)

its like politics. a dirty game!

the problem is, that this people want to lead US! they want US to follow and respect them. they have forgotten, that the basis of leadership is trust and relation. if there is no trust and if their is no relationship, there is no leadership.

[jonmoseley]

Speakword says:
The 2 examples you cite were both cover-ups and the dismissals both came far too late.
UNQUOTE

MOSELEY: I AM BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL TRYING TO GET YOU TO DEFINE *HOW* it was a cover up.

The only thing that was NOT done was to tell you things that the congregation SHOULD NOT BE TOLD.

I have illustrated the absurdity of your argument.


I ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN:

WHAT exactly is it that the congretation (not you) should have been told that they were not told?

BY THE WAY: If you are not a member of that congregation YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW. So we have a problem about whether or not you KNOW what was said and what was not said.

But assuming that you accurately know what was disclosed and not disclosed I ASK YOU THE QUESTION AGAIN (banging my head against the table):

WHAT *EXACTLY* WAS NOT SAID THAT YOU CONTEND NEEDED TO BE SAID.

The only things not said are the ABSURD examples I have provided, which plainly -- as you react to them -- YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW.

So, then, what is it that you DO have a right to know?

[40days40years]

jon, Paul Daniels was removed when he fell into sin a second time a decade later. It was his original adultery that was covered up from the His People congregation and members of EN knew about that before Daniels decided to unilaterally join with E/N an it appears some resent that. I can't believe you don't get that, people were kept in the dark and made decisions about their life and what they would contribute to.

That is one thing I hated about Maranatha, stuff would happen and you would'nt know why. You would get some major announcement about whatever and that was that, usually the congregation was told "after the fact". If you like to be kept in the dark then more power to you though.

I have learned a lot more about MCM/MSI/EN here then I would have ever learned in that place. That is pretty sad when you think about it.

[jonmoseley]

You still refuse to identify what it is that is being covered up. Once again, you seem to think you have a right to know things that may involve the privacy of other people and details that you simply don't have a right to know.

Once again, your example about Paul Daniels makes absolutely no sense. His People did not join EN until 2001. Paul Daniels adultery was in 1993. Paul Daniels is accused of lying to other pastors, so I guess those other pastors didn't know the truth.

It was Every Nation who removed Paul Daniels from the ministry.

Your point is really sick. You keep picking at that scab and picking at that scab and beating that dead horse.

THERE WAS NO COVER UP by Every Nation, and every fact you cite (even taking your facts as true) CONFIRMS it.

When His People joined Every Nation, and Every Nation received confirmation that it was true THEY GOT RID OF HIM.

And that's all you (if you were in the congregation) ought to be told.

As I demosntrated vividly (read the first 2 posts above) there are dozens of reasons NOT to tell you the details.

You are now to the point where you are just flat lying to yourself and others.

[jonmoseley]

And to Speak, and most of you above, let me get you all with one sweep.

IT IS YOU WHO DEMAND TO KNOW THE SORDID DETAILS, so much so that you call it a COVER UP that you did not get to hear the soap opera / soft porn details.

When a mirror is held up to you, you recoil.

BUT IT IS YOU IN THE MIRROR.

YOU ARE THE ONES who demand to know these details.

Even though it is the congregation -- not you -- who has a right to know, you have been told that Paul Daniels and TF have been caught in adultery and publicly rebuked and removed from their pulpit.

THERE IS NO GREATER PUBLIC REBUKE in church than to yank a minister out of his pulpit.

And yet you want to know more.

WHAT? WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?

I have given the only possible examples of what *YOUR* sick minds want to know.

I AM NOT THE ONE saying there was a cover-up.

YOU are the ones saying you demand to know more.

I Keep asking: WHAT exactly do you want to know?

I have given the only remaning possibilities and you recoil, as well you should.

REPENT, THEN, and admit that there was NO cover up. THere is nothing you are entitled to know that you have not already been told.

[wiseasaserpentgentleasadove]

you repent.
there is and was a cover up. My church pulled out of EN but hasn't announced it to the congregation. They only cleaned up their website of any trace of EN in their history, and this was a major part of their DNA for over 5 years.

Why not announce the exodus? Why not say why they are no longer part of this group? They know what's going on in EN, perhaps, and don't want to have any trace or part of them anymore? Or, perhaps there's another reason.

I'm getting sick of all of these discussions.

[40days40years]

Jon really this is Philip Rosenthals baby. They tried to shut him up about the coverup and he even said that many His People ministers, quietly admit that they were wrong about the coverup and have paid a horrible price for it.

I really think you miss the point, the guys from South Africa that post here want to know when EN leaders and those associated with them knew about Pauls Daniels earliest adultries. It appears they knew about them before His People joined E/N. Ask Philip and speak why it is such a big deal to them please.

With this church group and it's history I would want to know why my pastor is being removed. Adultery, someone else covets his position, he is not getting the job done, they don't like his hair style, he disagreed about some church policy that was unjust. If I had to name all the animals out there like Adam I would rename the Ostrich and call it a Jon Moseley.

[40days40years]

Jon why not click on the Leaders section and check out threads on Greg Ball and Greg Feste? Brett Fuller is running Champions for Christ now.

Other interesting threads there are about Rice and Phil Bonasso and others. There is also some interesting threads on CFC out there somewhere. This stuff will fill you in on what really happened in EN.

You should check out all the blog comments to Tiks multiple mini blogs at the EN Blog section.

[40days40years]

Jon let me explain it like this. Paul Daniels was messing around in 93, his church was a mega church. Bill Bennot was a major MCM pastor he went to SA in the late eighties. Eventually he joined his little church up with Paul Daniels. Pauls sin became known in 96, Bill and others tried to get Paul counseling, Pauls sin was never revealed to the large congregation they were clueless. Bill knew perhaps if he would have revealed Pauls sin problem he would have been destroyed? Bill is friends with Rice Broocks who befriended Paul Daniels. The idea of Paul Daniels joining MSI/EN was proposed to Paul Daniels, with a little cajoling Paul Daniels joined His People to MSI/EN. Now PD fell into sin again and was removed. Some don't like what happened in His People now they find out that Paul Daniels problems went back ten years earlier and the entire congregation was kept in the dark about those problems and was joined into a church movement by this compromised man and MCM guys knew about it. Cover up, now some of these guys covering up are victims of circumstances but can't you see why Philip and others in S.A are upset about it. I don't see how Rice could not have known about PD.

E/N does have a history of joining with large churches and systematically changing the board over years and taking over churches (ulyankee has verified this).

[dust]

Jon writes: WHY DO YOU THINK -- from the Bible now -- that a congregation is entitled to the lurid details of someone's sin even a leader's sin?

Dust writes: In the five plus years we were there, there were named certain members of the APOSTOLIC TEAM. They were paraded as KEYNOTE speakers at the world conferences, travelled the GLOBE to the different (at the time Morning Star, now EN) churches. They "spoke into the lives" and directed on a GLOBAL SCALE. Some of these that have since either disappeared or been removed from office are:

Greg Ball
Paul Daniel
Rice Broocks
Phil Bonasso

Others Speakers at the World Conferences (not necessarily on the Apostolic team) but also travelled the EVERY NATION GLOBE included:

Greg Feste
Rick Shelton

Rice is still around, the real truth to his congregation of his stepping down was covered up.

Phil is still around and probably going to get another church. MOST DO NOT KNOW anything he did. (the money scandal, etc.)

Greg Ball, Greg Feste disappeared..Members know nothing as to why.

Paul Daniel disappeared..Only His People knew. The rest of us who had put him on a pedestal, knew nothing. We were on ministry team, and know nothing.

Why Public rebuke necessary Globally? They travelled the world, getting GLOBAL perks, GLOBAL homage and GLOBAL paychecks. BUt most importantly laying out GLOBAL INFLUENCE. This comes with a price.

The bigger you are, the harder you fall. It may HURT to have such global rebuke, but, the protection it provides is best, especially for the leader who may then have opportunity for repentance and his relationship back to God restored.

[speakword2004]

Jon

In 1996 Paul Daniel was exposed as an serial adulterer in front a a senior leader of His People and other church leaders. Besides the other churchmen from other churches that were exposed to that confession very few persons were to discover what had transpired over subsequent years. Some 8 years later a political coup' in Paul Daniels church ended his monarchy, but such could have been prevented long before that.

Bill Bennot has aknowleged that Paul continued to make his life a misery. Well, tyrants rule because men let them. The fact that Paul Daniel faced no sanction for 8 years surely would be some indicator that such allowance for his title and position enabled him and further emboldened him to sin further. Who knows what it did to the lives of others who knew about it but saw no example of true correction and repentance?

Let me point you back to scripture, which is not pornography, just in case you still cannot discern the difference, and challenge you to explain just what is wrong with 1 Tim 5 v20.

If we were to aknowledge it and other scriptural standards of eldership we would see that the common garden variety church member or average Joe Christian, whose rights and duties you obviously despise or are ignorant of, would find certain comfortand example by the public rebuke that should have been given in the first place.

[jonmoseley]

Speakword2004 wrote:
In 1996 Paul Daniel was exposed as an serial adulterer in front a a senior leader of His People and other church leaders UNQUOTE

MOSELEY: So there was no cover up. Not by Every Nation. You say that His People should have given a public rebuke (even though you claim it was "exposed" in 1996 and commonly known). His People did not joint Every Nation until 2001.

EVERY NATION THEN REMOVED DANIELS FROM MINISTRY -- the greatest public rebuke any minister can experience short of the electric chair.

So, Every Nation acted correctly. We have established that again and again. Even taking your allegations as true, EN has done nothing wrong. Paul Daniels would probably still be in ministry now but for EN's intervention. THANK GOD for EN intervening in that situation.

[vanguard]

I do not know if EN has covered up Paul Daniel but I do know that EN is covering up the MISUSE OF FINANCES. EVEN THOUGH THEY ADMIT IT BUT THEY REFUSED TO OPEN THE BOOKS AND TELL EVERYBODY HOW MUCH WAS MISUSE OVER TEN YEARS !

HP joined EN on the year 2000. HP are REQUIRED TO GIVE THEIR TITHES TO EN. A month later,m Phil Bonasso and Rice Brookes bought their homes less than 2 weeks apart.
Phil put a down payment of his house at $300,000 , First of all HE DOES NOT HAVE $300,000, there are two things where the money come from. First from the Church building second from HP TITHES.
Phil himself has embezzled in our church, how much more EN ???
I told this to the EN asian Board and ask for an INVESTIGATION. THEY REFUSED !!! WHY ITS A COVER UP !!! EN DOES NOT WANT ANYBODY TO KNOW HOW MUCH WAS STOLEN OVER TEN YEAR PERIOD.

[vanguard]

According to the EN Board NOW, Phil Bonasso DID NOT Steal anything. Now, they are saying their books are clean. Even though they send out two communique that their books are NOT clean , Phil Bonasso have $40K to $50K unaccounted money spend. And Rice and Phil ARE OVERPAID.

Question when Phil Bonasso TRANSFERRED those PV properties to MSI WHO DO YOU THINK IS PAYING FOR THE MORTGAGE ??? The PV church certainly cannot afford that , thats why Phil Bonasso transferred the property to MSI.

Monthly mortgage of $20,000 more or less, did that come from the Worldwide tithes OR from World Partner ?

How about that overpaid of 66% and 33% , did that come from World partner or from World wide tithes ???

You cannot tell me that EN does not have cover up !

[40days40years]

Jon you should click on the Ron Lewis link in the Leaders section also and read about him to.

When a young person is caught in sin in EN they are dealt with quickly and severely. Are they allowed to cover up their sin or are they told to take responsibility for it immedeatly ? --- Cover Ups by the top guys and Double Standards ----- Give so these guys can live like kings in wonderful houses many times when the congregation is still meeting in a school or rented room for many years? Have the congregation baby sit your kids for free, fix your house for free, move your furniture when you upgrade. After all that tell your congregation that they need to be more generous with their tithes and offerings. Throw parties for the big E/N bigwigs and use the money that the congregation gave sacrificially to spread the gospel to pay for it (oh and don't invite those to the party who paid for it).

Jon are guys like you going to fight this? or are you going to say the Lord will bless the giver as if he is giving to the Lord? You kind of justify their behaviour, you may be an enabler.

[robert_unknown]

"EVERY NATION THEN REMOVED DANIELS FROM MINISTRY"...

3 months BEFORE his confession...

... this makes me wonder... http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/proud.gif

[jonmoseley]

We have conclusively proven again and again, going round and round, that there WAS NO COVER UP by Every Nation, although apparently by His People before HP jointed EN.

Even your own statements and comments again and again make it clear that no cover up occurred. That is, assuming your allegations are correct (and allegations rarely check out as 100% true but are often wrong when investigated) you admit in fact, if not in rhetoric, that EN did absolutely nothing wrong.

Robert_unknown for example describes exactly what we would expect to occur, but refuses to admit the correctness of EN's actions. When EN became aware not merely of rumors BUT OF EVIDENCE their correct response, once convinced enough of the probable accuracy of the accusations, would be to suspend Paul Daniels from ministery in the final stages of their investigation. THEN, do you think he wanted to make a public confession? After hiding his sin for a decade? Clearly it took that long for them to convince him to publicly confess.

So what you describe is 100% appropriate and right. NOthing you describe is in any way wrong.

EXCEPT... that you demand to be a fly on the wall and hear all of the SORDID, SOAP OPERA DETATILS.

The only remaining things that THE CONGREGATION (not you who are not entitled to know anything as non-members) have not been told are the things that you all recoiled at when I held up a MIRROR TO YOUR SOUL: You demand to know about sexual details, when, where, how. THe only things you do not know are things YOU SHOULD NOT KNOW.

[jonmoseley]

Vanguard raises very serious allegations against Phil Bonasso. As I wrote elsewhere IF these are true, they are very serious and should be acted upon. Although I do not know if they are true or not, I suggested that if he has reliable evidence that he contact the FBI and I provided the website link for reporting tips. He answers that he did contact the FBI but they seemed to be too busy.

So I also gave Vanguard some advice on finding an attorney, because that can be very difficult. He said the attorney they talked to already wanted $20K, and I said don't be discouraged. Keep shopping around.

(HOWEVER, you should also note that you need to have a good faith basis for belieiving yourallegations are accurate. I had to defend a young man against charges of making a false report to police, a misdemeanor crime. So don't do that because you are mad... make sure you have some solid basis for at least believing it to be true).

However, we have to start with the question IS IT TRUE?

SUPPOSE hypotheticlly (for rhetorical purposes) I (falsely) claim that Vanguard is covering up all those banks he robbed. WHAT, you say? HE DID NOT ROB ANY BANKS, he tells us? Ah ha! More evidence of the cover up!

You see the more he denies it, the more we accuse of him of a cover up. IS THAT FAIR? No.

Once again: I am speaking hypothetically and purely for rhetorical purposes, and I am in no way being serious saying this only as an example about Vanguard. I am just trying to make a point.

For example, two friends buy a house near each other, together. So what? That could indicate something sinister or sincere. Either way.

AGAIN LET'S TURN TO THE BIBLE: It tells us not to receive an accusation except upon the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses.

If you (Vanguard and others) sincerely believe that you have evidnece of wrongdoing by Phil Bonasso, I suggest you cut as closely as possible to the Biblical pattern.

Have 2 or MORE WITNESSES prepare SWORN affidavits (under oath) with all the back-up material attached as exhbits to the affidavits and discussed in the affidavits so that they are made clear. AN affidavit is SWORN under oath usually before a Notary Public in the U.S.

It would be better for a church to receive live witnesses in person, but I think in today's world this is the closest thing you can do to what the Bible says.

Be careful that things like two people bought houses near each other at about the same time is NOT WRONG and is only a conspiracy theory... UNLESS closely tied in to very hard, solid evidence of why there is something wrong with that.

You say they did not have the down payment. Do you KNOW that? Did someone give them a gift?

Do you know that a couple of years ago a member of Metro Morning Star (formerly all the way back to Maranatha Church on Capitol Hill in D.C. and POOR back then) SOLD HIS BUSINESS FOR TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS???? Do you know if this man chose to tithe in part by buying two leaders a house ?

You see "evidence" is more than just conspiracy theories.

ALSO... I think it is fairly serious if a leader cannot account for $40,000 to $50,000 of money -- and arguably as much as $800,000.

I think a leader simply "losing" that much money in terms of keeping good records IS a significant fault in itself.

But that does not necessarily mean that the money ever left the church or ever went to Phil Bonasso. It can also mean that 100% of it was spent properly for the gospel, but the records are bad.

[freedom43]

If EN were transparent about pastor's salaries and housing allowances, there would be no need to have this conversation or guess or have theories about any of this. Most churches/congregations have a say in setting salaraies for their pastors -- not pastor's keeping the flock in the dark. If EN has nothing to hide, they should open the books to members. Not how much each person in the church gives as I do believe the NT says there should not be fanfare about that/i.e., do your giving in secret -- but how much the pastor is being paid and if he has substantial gifts, like a house given to him. That should be something no church member should have to guess/be left in the dark about. I especially think this is important given the situation I described in the other thread where you have a church member abusing other church members and the pastor is not doing anything about it because he is personally benefitting financially from the abuser. That is unethical/immoral to me.

[jonmoseley]

FREEDOM43 write: Most churches/congregations have a say in setting salaraies for their pastors

MOSELEY: IS THAT TRUE? Can you go to a Catholic church and tell the Catholic church how it should be run? How many churches actually run that way? You may be right as a moral principle that things OUGHT to be as you describe. But can you call a church ILLEGITIMATE for being the same as (in my view) MOST other churches on this point? I think it is simply not true that "most" other churches are as you describe.

[freedom43]

It's called ethics, standards -- get some, Jon. What is so wrong, unbiblical about transparency in the two areas I have mentioned? We know that tempation is strong, the devil attacks, love of power and money can corrupt. Why not instill a little accountability into the system? Why are you so against that? It's not for me. I quit giving my money to them a long time ago. It's for the current members. It would certainly silence their critics.

You seem to love our form of civic government -- which is full of checks and balances. Why not have some checks and balances in the church?

[vanguard]

jon ,
The fact is I HAVE THE EVIDENCE AND I GAVE IT TO THE EN BOARD ! And the rest of the people in the church , WITNESS THAT PHIL BONASSO HIMSELF SAID THAT THE BUILDING IS PAID OFF !!! THATS HUNDREDS OF WITNESSESS !

Those EQUITIES , We even asks the administrator of the church if he knows about this ?? he said NO ! Nobody knew about it . And I KNOW I CAN BE SUED FOR SLANDER IF ITS NOT TRUE. BUT Since ITS THE TRUTH , I CAN SAY IT AS IT IS !
HE STOLE THE MONEY !

Phil Bonasso EVEN RAISED BUILDING FUNDS IN OUR church for the RENOVATION . Those ALSO DISAPPEARED ! yes there is RENOVATION BUT not at $2 million !

EN BOARD COVERED IT UP !!! YOU CAN NEVER SAY THAT THE EN BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY COVER UP !!

AND I TOLD YOU I have SUBMITTED THIS TO THE FBI AND THE IRS !

[vanguard]

2 or more witness ??? what a JOKE ! There is hundreds of WITNESSES who will be willing to testify that they heard Phil Bonasso saying that the building is paid off !

[mcmstaff78]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Moseley: But can you call a church ILLEGITIMATE for being the same as (in my view) MOST other churches on this point? I think it is simply not true that "most" other churches are as you describe.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Jon, you keep posting what "most" other churches do, but the fact is that you have no experience with what "most" Churches do. In my experience, only in those "churches" that are spiritually abusive the people have no say in the salary of the pastor and cannot even find out what the pastor's salary is.

You simply speak from ignorance because that is what you've been brainwashed to believe. You have no frame of reference to even judge what is "normal" or "acceptable" in religious circles because you've been brought up to believe in the abusive system fostered by MCM/EN and the like. Like an abused child, you think this is normal ("doesn't every father beat his children prior to passing out drunk each night?").

This is typical pathological reaction to being brought up in abuse. You even equate the abuse to love, to commitment, to following God. I feel for you and will pray that God may truly open your eyes. I know it will be hard because it will take recognizing that you have devoted a great portion of your life to a lie, but many here have done just that. It will take courage, like an abused spouse leaving her means of support, but people here are willing to help. Hang in there, keep reading, God will deliver you if you will just follow Him rather than the deceptive, abusive spirit behind MCM/EN.

[vanguard]

If I lose $20 in my account I would be mad , BUT MILLIONS ??? And you call it bad record keeping ?? what a crock ! ITS A COVER UP !!!!

NOBODY CAN SAY THEY LOSE MILLIONS of Dollars and slap it as a bad record keeper. its not a fault Jon, its CRIMINAL !

[jonmoseley]

VANGUARD: 2 or more witness ??? what a JOKE ! There is hundreds of WITNESSES who will be willing to testify that they heard Phil Bonasso saying that the building is paid off !

MOSELEY: That is only one small part of the story. And if there are hundreds, name 2, who will testify under oath (by affidavit).

But if you are right, then puruse it.

As to millions, I am only going by your allegations. You have never alleged millions, nor could you possibly support such a claim.

[jonmoseley]

Also, because the paperwork does not show where the money went DOES NOT MEAN anyone "lost" it! The fact that the accounting is not in order (which is NOT good and is a defect in leadership) DOES NOT MEAN that one dime has been mis-spent.

BECAUSE you (and everyone else) continually engage in such loose facts and sloppy logic, I am inclined to DOUBT all of your allegations.

The fact that the books don't show what happened DOES NOT MEAN that anything bad happened.

Anyone entrusted with the funds of another *IS* responsible to give a good accounting (NOT to you if/when you are outsiders, but to the congregation).

In fact such a person has a "fiduciary duty" under the law even apart from spiritual or Biblical authority, with well-defined obligations. You can bring a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty, and I think there is no statute of limitations (not exactly, but a more fuzzy concept of just waiting too long).

HOWEVER, can you then sloppily leap from bad books to the accusation that money was "lost" or went to someone personally? NO! Could it be true? YES! Maybe all the money went into Phil Bonasso's back pocket.

But have you proven it simply from poor bookkeeping? NO, NOT AT ALL!

So when I hear such sloppy "evidence" and logic, I RETAIN AN OPEN MIND that MAYBE YOU ARE INDEED RIGHT about Phil Bonasso. I do not close off any possibility arbitrarily. BUT you would need to have solid evidence that is NOT simply things like (a) two people bought houses at about the same time, or (b) the books don't tell us what happened.

If I go on a mission trip to Uganda, leading 30 people, and people are getting saved right and left and we are so busy that I can't remember how all of $10,000 was spent for the team of 30, does that mean that the money was not used properly?

LET ME GIVE YOU SOME TOUGH LOVE, VANGUARD:

If you approached EN with the type of explanation that you have given me here, then:

A) You might be absolutely correct, sitting on a mountain of solid evidence that is conclusive, that you are correct, WHILE MEANWHILE...

B) Your PRESENTATION to EN (not what you actually know but HOW you said it) sounded shaky and insubstantial, and indeed like a conspiracy theory. Maybe they blew you off because of how you presented it.

It could be that you were not listened to because of HOW you presented the facts.

HECK, I KNOW THAT STINKS and is annoying and is hard to hear. NO one likes that sort of situation. I have been in that situation many times. AND NO I am not excusing them for doing that. I am just stating the situation.

But IF YOU INTEND TO PURSUE THIS -- and if you really believe I think you MUST as a Christian and a citizen -- I just say consider how to refine your presentation to stay away from coincidences and unclear ideas.

[jonmoseley]

MCMstaff78 again persists in his/her fantasy bubble of assuming that no one who disagres can have any experience, and must have been brainwashed.

As I write elsewhere, I left Maranatha (then Grace Covenant Church) in 1993 and sought a church home for 10 YEARS from 1993 to 2003. As I describe elsewhere NONE OF THOSE CHURCHES,including big ones in the D.C. area I could name, were ANY DIFFERENT from what you describe.

It is precisely my 10 year search for a better church, seeing that NONE OF THEM were any different, that motivates my calling you on the carpet for your false and misleading accusations.

FREEDOM43 WRITES:
It's called ethics, standards -- get some, Jon. What is so wrong, unbiblical about transparency in the two areas I have mentioned? UNQUOTE

MOSELEY: That's great. When you design your own church you can design it any way you want.

But there is nothing in this that allows you to call another church ILLEGITIMATE because they DO NOT CONFORM TO YOUR BELIEFS.

Once again, do you not see in your words ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME -- everyone must agree with ME!

You accuse another church, to which you no longer belong, of not merely having different views than you but being ILLEGITIMATE, even a cult, FOR NOT AGREEING WITH YOU.

Freedom, let's cut to the chase: EN is GUILTY of not believing everyhing you believe.

Does that take care of it?

Can we put it to rest?

[upcase20]

Why are you picking on Freedom43 ? This board is composed of many members not just Freedom and from what I've seen no one else is agreeing with your observations. Does EN conform to anyones beliefs except to those who still attend, apparently not to yours because you left.

[mcmstaff78]

Jon, you need to get out of DC, come where there are still people who seek to follow God in humility of heart as servants and not as "leaders". DC isn't the real world, it's certainly not the rest of world. Come out from among them, son, you'll find rest for your weary soul.

<font color="ff0000">Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.</font>(Matthew 11:28-30)

My guess is all the "churches" you explored held the same theology and practiced the same abuse that EN does. Kind gravitates to kind. But you can break that vicious cycle. You've just got to realize that what you been taught the bible teaches is not really what it does. A leader is to be a servant. God's blessings are not primarily material. Worldly success is irrelevant. Humility and love are the most important things to God and that "gifts" and "callings" and "anointings" are worthless when they come from the self and don't display love for God and one's neighbor.

Quit looking for a church that will "change the world" and start looking for one that will help you change.

God bless, Jon.

(Message edited by mcmstaff78 on October 26, 2006)

[vanguard]

What bookeeping ? The equity ? its not even in the church books. Those equities simply disappeared and I can get several people to sign an affidavit and I am also pursuing this legally.

[vanguard]

Jon, you can stop presuming what my fomer church is like. You were never there. I was there for 10 years. And It is corrupt under Phil Bonasso.

[miltietoast]

hey vanguard I think mosely is looking for a job ,kind of like chasing internet crashes.

[jonmoseley]

UPCASE20 ASKS: Why are you picking on Freedom43 ?

MOSELEY: Well, frankly, because Freedom43 is making remotely relevant comments, although I have reactions to them.

Those who are not even in the ballpark do not offer the opportunity for much response.

So, unfortunately, Freedom43 is getting the most responses because at least he/she has something to say that is in the general vicinity of the issues. SORRY ABOUT THAT, but that's the way things work out.

When I was in law school, law professors would challenge those who were actually making the best points, because at least there was something worth talking about. One law professor admitted this once, saying that the people making the best arguments drew the most attention, so it seemed like the prof was disagreeing, but actually the student was making GOOD Points WORTH discussing.

[mdillon]

moseley-One law professor admitted this once, saying that the people making the best arguments drew the most attention, so it seemed like the prof was disagreeing, but actually the student was making GOOD Points WORTH discussing.

and this brings me to something on my mind for days ever since you showed up, whoever you are, and for whatever reason you are here, one thing is becoming ever so apparent: your drivel has encouraged, embolden, unified, solidified, clarified many people of multiple backgrounds and experiences over the past 30 years as to our purpose here to expose the crap that poses as Christ and to bring those that have had the hellbeat out of them by false shepherds to a place of sanity and healing. And for all this I can say thank you. Keep it up. You're doing a helluva job.

have a double on me

dilly

[mdillon]

moseley-One law professor admitted this once, saying that the people making the best arguments drew the most attention, so it seemed like the prof was disagreeing, but actually the student was making GOOD Points WORTH discussing.

and this brings me to something on my mind for days ever since you showed up, whoever you are, and for whatever reason you are here, one thing is becoming ever so apparent: your drivel has encouraged, embolden, unified, solidified, clarified many people of multiple backgrounds and experiences over the past 30 years as to our purpose here to expose the crap that poses as Christ and to bring those that have had the hellbeat out of them by false shepherds to a place of sanity and healing. And for all this I can say thank you. Keep it up. You're doing a helluva job.

have a double on me

dilly

[matt_hatter]

Ya know dilly, fussin over bunny trails seems small potatos when you are slapped back in the face with something you haven't been around for 25 years. It's a shame, but it IS still going on.

Dude, take that Carribbean vacation. Find the island girl and let her give you a foot rub. It will cure all your ills. At least get off the computer to take a shower, your religion is starting to smell ripe.

[mdillon]

damn hatter, I thought I was the "Dude" you were talking to for a moment until I read the 'religion' part. Crap, now I gotta cancel those tickets......

dillybuffet

[matt_hatter]

just thinkin' dilly, we could bombard this gothic relic with bunny trail stuff until he hollers "UNCLE BOB AND JOE!!" just thinkin...

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[matt_hatter]

Oh and moseley, your second post of this thread is still disgusting. Leave the island girls alone.

[mcmstaff78]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

dilly: and this brings me to something on my mind for days ever since you showed up, whoever you are<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> You know, I've been wonderin' about this myself, Mark. I mean, this guy sure doesn't write with any of the precision one might expect from a lawyer. And when was the last time you saw a practicing attorney with the time to post during the business day the way he has? Also, while there are ways to mask it, his IP address doesn't come back as being located in DC.

All in all, I'm thinking Mr. Moseley is not quite who he presents himself to be.

[dust]

MCM
I don't know how I did this now, but I was checking IP addresses and when it doesn't automatically show up such as using internet frog, somehow some have hidden their location (ask J2) and it will locate them to a server geography. So, I don't think his location is North Carolina. J2, please come out and shed some light.
in Gainesville, well you almost have to feel sorry for them. Veil of deception and perverse loyalty.

Trust me on this....EN would NOT send this guy here. They would do a much better job discussing/debating, but they will NOT do that. I almost feel sorry for anyone who spent time in Gainesville with Bob W. They are like a dog that returns to his vomit. This is much more maranatha loyatly roots to Bob W. And, I think you might want to connect those dots.

1. EN would not use vulgarities.
2. EN knows what they are teaching; he does not. He has no clue as to the problems/heartaches of the leaders in last year,
3, EN wouldn't be stupid enough to draw so much attention to the very things they are hoping will go away.

The board was fairly quiet, not a lot of united PASSION. They wouldn't want this new dynamic.

Moses just took a nearly dying spark and unleashed a forest fire.
EN would NOT want this.

[freedom43]

There are lots of churches I don't really care for/agree with that I do not think are cults. I don't think Maranatha/Grace Covenant/MSI/EN is/was a cult because they won't open their books. I just think that is stupid on their part -- if they have nothing to hide -- if they have something to hide, it's smart -- and leaves open the door for misuse of funds, financial abuse and unethical behavior. Well, I take that back. Maybe that is a factor in them being a cult. No transparency in finances. Placing money above people. Or maybe they are just schiesters. In fact, I never would have asked a question about Grace Covenant's finances if Brett hadn't appointed someone who was abusing his flock through financial retribution to his "financial board." Anyway, to me the primary issues that make them a cult have to do with manipulation and control.

Jon -- you need to get out more -- there are lots of churches that are not like that. I don't think any church is perfect. But, not all churches are manipultive, controlling and secretive about their finances. And, please know, that when I talk about being open about their finances, I am in no way saying that I believe that former members or the general public deserve to know. It's the current members. They deserve to know. Unfortunately, unlike corporate America, all my past sacrificial giving does not make me a stockholder who should be privy to the pastor's salary or housing allowance -- or what they have done with all the money they raised in capital campaigns to buy a building. But, I can certainly talk about my experiences there so others may know the mire (or should it be snake pit?) they are stepping into. As I just said on another thread: show me some reform, and I will shut up.

[freedom43]

jonmosely: Do you know that a couple of years ago a member of Metro Morning Star (formerly all the way back to Maranatha Church on Capitol Hill in D.C. and POOR back then) SOLD HIS BUSINESS FOR TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS???? Do you know if this man chose to tithe in part by buying two leaders a house ?

me: I am not a betting person, but if I were....okay, who wants to take bets that this person gave the money technically to the church; so he could have the tax benefit?

This is when I wish I had ulyankee's smarts and could do the research. Because now we can ask the question (except Jon, he asks no questions of EN), who owns those houses? Does the church or the ministers? If the minister leaves, does he get to keep the house? Oh yeah, that's right the minister IS/OWNS the church in EN; so of course, he gets to keep the house. Would that be legal/ethical, Mr. Attorney -- for someone to get a tax write off for giving to a charitiable organization but it really (wink wink) is for the minister and he gets to keep it? Or does he later BUY it from the church for a reduced rate? (In the real world, I think that's called money laundering or some such thing-- Rep. Cunningham may be going to jail for a variation of that.) Now, you see why we ask questions, Jon. Open the books!

[coppertree]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>Hi Freedom 43,
I think that you do fine. One can look these things up on the public record. If you have the address, tax # for the parcel, legal description, ie subdivison, lot #. You only need one of these, and then you can see the deed and how the ownership is stated. Good Hunting!!} Some counties, an townships, cities put these on line

[jonmoseley]

Freedom43: Your questions are all fine questions and I don't disagree with your curiosity. What I was saying is that IF Vanguard wants to make a presentation that the courts or the FBI will take seriously it can't be based on mere coincidences and conspiracy theory type of logic. Asking a question is not evidence. Asking a question is perfectly fine. It's just not the sort of evidence that would prompt the FBI or a lawyer to take action.

A prosecutor can't go into court and say "I have a lot of questions about where Joe Bloe was when the bank was robbed." Those questions might be legitimate. Joe Bloe may IN FACT have robbed the bank, and be guilty as sin. But to activate the legal world, you have to show them something concrete.

NOW, if you go to a lawyer and say I want to investigate, I have 5 things solid and 15 more things I think are suspicious YOU CAN start a lawyer investigating, you might even be able to file a lawsuit and then use "discovery" to develop the remaining issues in the case. So once you have the bare minimum showing something wrong you CAN use the legal process to discover the rest.

But my point was that if Vanguard (or anyone else, including some of my own past clients) make an unconvincing presentation, you might not get anyone to help you... EVEN IF IN FACT YOU ARE RIGHT. You may be absolutely right, but not presenting it in a convincing way.

By the way.... We've talked about the FBI. They're not the only ones you can talk to. I don't know where PV is. I thought it was in a foreign country, but I guess it is near San Diego? You can go to the local police and the State police as well.

YOU MAY even be able to go to the IRS. If tax-deductible donations were received and the money was diverted to personal use I know for a fact that THE IRS IS IN FACT INTERESTED IN THIS AND DOES IN FACT HAVE JURISDICTION, no question. But I also know they are very, very slow and years behind in taking action.

MOREOVER -- here's a teaching moment -- THE IRS WILL NOT TELL YOU THEY ARE INVESTIGATING!!!!!!

I know for a fact that the IRS was investigating one Christian charity -- that I tipped them off to -- although officially denying it.

SO... EN doesn't tell you what they are doing about problems and you call them a cult. The IRS does the same thing and that is just good government.

[ginger1]

That is what the FBI told me, even if I have direct evidence, it will take years to even look at them. The IRS and the FBI will not tell me if they are investigating.

Palos Verdez is in los Angeles Ca. Million dollar homes.

I know an acquaintance who got arrested by the FBI even though he is already out of the scam business for three years. So that was a big surprised for him.

[jonmoseley]

And maybe there will be surprises here, too. It is said that "the wheels of justice grind slowly" because it is such a common experience that the law takes forever.

However, I talked to someone who is still in an EN church and asked what is being said about all of this and what is EN's take on these issues.

I am told that in respnose to these concerns about Phil Bonasso and finances in Palos Verdez, EN brought in an outside auditor.

So when you say that EN leaders do not listen to criticism, apparently that is false. And I think you know it from what I understand.

I understand that all of you KNOW this as it was specifically talked about in your past discussions. Apparently you KNOW while making these accusations here that an outside auditor was appointed, that previously you were predicting that the outside auditor would find all of the problems you describe here, and then the outside auditor FOUND NOTHING OF THE KIND, NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU DESCRIBE here.

If you are the honest ones, compared with EN, why would you be making these accusations here and not mentioning that an outside auditor has already looked into these matters and found no missing money and no diversion of EN finances to personal use? If you KNOW that your concerns have already been investigated, don't you think you might mention that in making your accusations?

I gather that there may have been poorly-kept records. But the outside auditor found NO evidence of missing money or money diverted to personal purposes.

Remember that after ENRON in which auditing firm Arthur Anderson was basically destroyed (was it completely shut down as I recall) because it did not aggressively uncover and expose financial wrongdoing, I highly doubt that an outside auditor would look at the books of a CHURCH -- given that charitable donations are a hot button with state governments -- and cover up outright theft of money. Not after the ENRON scandal inreased the liability and scrutiny on accounting / auditing firms.

Furthermore, it is suggested (I merely pass this along because I don't even know what documents this refers to, much less the particular language involved) that some of you here have misunderstood the financial documents you are basing this on. What exactly that means I don't know. However, I say that because it is something that can be concretely identified and confirmed or denied.

I would suggest that you take any such documents to a CPA (unrelated and neutral) and ask for a professional evaluation of what you are looking at.

[robert_unknown]

"If you are the honest ones, compared with EN, why would you be making these accusations here and not mentioning that an outside auditor has already looked into these matters and found no missing money and no diversion of EN finances to personal use? If you KNOW that your concerns have already been investigated, don't you think you might mention that in making your accusations"

if you would take your time READING what is written in this board, instead of starting one flamewar after the other, you would have SEEN that these things have been mentioned, and that even the communique from Palm Springs has been posted.

however - people still have a problem that LEADERS who selfadvertice themselves as APOSTLES, leaders who wanted OUR submission have acted inmoraly and taken more than 600k/annum without the knowledgte of the church out of the different ministries.

there is a LOSS of TRUST (i wonder if you know what trust is) in the leadership because of this and because of an authoritarian and arrogant and abusive style of leading people.

these are facts.

even IF PB has done nothing criminal it has been INMORAL what he did. a church leader shall NOT love money, and shall not berich himself. a churchleader shall not abuse. PB has been in the wrong position. He should NEVER have been in leadership!

How does he or the church want to keep their moral competence with things like this happening?

and why is it irritating you, that people talk abiout this things, like the people are doing it here on FactNet?

[ginger1]

JON , How many times DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU ITS NOT IN THE BOOKS !!!!

THE EQUITY OF THE CHURCH IS NOT IN THE BOOKS !!! WHEN THE AUDITOR CAME , THEY DID NOT AUDIT THE BUILDING FUNDS NOR CHECK THE EQUITY OF THE CHURCH. THEY Only check the tithes AND OFFERINGS of the church and IT IS NOT IN THERE !!

THE EN LIED TO YOU IN THEIR OWN COMMUNIQUE , IN THEIR OWN WORDS , THEY CANNOT BALANCE THE BOOKS !! I KEPT TELLING PEOPLE HERE , MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO MISSION MOST DID NOT GO TO MISSION , WORLD WIDE TITHES ALL OF IT WENT STRAIGHT TO THEIR POCKETS !! THEIR OWN WORDS PHIL IS OVERPAID BY 66% !!!!

THEY ARE CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES WHEN THEY SAID THAT THEY GOT CLEAN AUDIT VS. WHAT WAS SAID IN THEIR OWN COMMUNIQUE.

AND IF THEIR BOOKS ARE CLEAN , WHERE IS THE LETTER FROM THE AUDITING FIRM ????

In 1998 when Phil is giving a party, honoring the donors < BRett Holman showed us that the VCM FUNDS. ONLY 25% WENT TO VCM while 75% WENT STRAIGHT TO THE ADMINISTRATION , in other words their POCKETS !!

WHY DO YOU THINK EN STILL REFUSED TO OPEN THEIR BOOKS ??? YOU said you are a lawyer and you believe EN for what they say without proof ??? even after the communique was sent publicly ?? do they have proof that their books are clean ???

(Message edited by ginger1 on October 28, 2006)

(Message edited by ginger1 on October 28, 2006)

[philiprosenthal]

Hi Jon

I don't have time now to respond to all of above, but to give you a short answer: The congregation has a right to know information that is important to their being able to discern whether their leaders are spiritually worth following, what is relevant to the church discipline of leaders and whatever sins the ministry needs to repent of before God. They also have a right to know what discipline is being done etc. Main scripture here is 1 timothy 5:20. The congregation does not have a right or need to know all the sordid details of the sin. Furthermore the congregation does not for example have a right to know the identity of the non-leaders involved in the scandal, since 1 timothy 5:20 is not applicable to ordinary church members. I further don't think the congregation has a right to know all sorts of information of about what a leader is up to after he has resigned from office. I know plenty information more than what I have posted in the scandal exposes, but I don't want people to get hurt where there is no scriptural warrant to reveal such information.

More detail of arguments here:

http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&amp;action=display&amp;thread=1146 820045