Something I was reading in the Weinland Watch Archives (3.25.08). I think it warrants an unearthing, in light of things.
What I read, sure rings true, and explains a lot! (Decide for yourself.) Same man different congregation! People beware!
You can read it in its entirety at A Former Member of Weinland's UCG Congregation Speaks Out, here is an excerpt: (all emphasis, that of Weinland Watch)Read more here: A Former Member of Weinland's UCG Congregation Speaks Out"Ron started giving sermons on how the minister is in charge, how God works through the minister, how God has a government and it should be followed, yada yada yada. you’ve all heard that song before. Towards the end of the year, he gave a “special sermon”. We were all to pay close attention. It was going to affect us very deeply. Well, he laid it all on the table and, to make a long story short, demanded we either follow him or get out. He even passed out a short survey which each of us had to fill out, one per household, to see what our attitudes were.At the end of the sermon he asked us all to stay while he went over the surveys. He came back after a long while and had a hand full of envelopes. He asked two of us to pass them out to the families they were labeled for. Not everyone got one. Both of the young gentlemen who passed them out got one. I got one. Inside were letters explaining how we were no longer members in good standing, based upon our answers to the surveys. The board members were disfellowshipped, however (all but the guy who ran the sound equipment, of course because he would be needed). We all had a good long time afterwards to decide how we felt, the room split itself right down the middle by ’stay’ or ‘go’. And that was the end of the day.The next day, I got a call from Mr. Weinland to tell me in person that he had misread my..."
Another excerpt:
"Here’s the side of the story from the board members: Ron was not legally allowed to take the money according to the byrules of the church corporation. Ron very loudly and angrily accused the board of insubordination and etc by refusing to go along with his order to spend the money on publications. Ron had retained a lawyer and was actively trying to take the money. In order to do that, he had to fire the board and change the byrules. This he did by disfellowshipping them. The board said phooey on the money, this isn’t about the money, you can have it and whatever curse..."
BE SURE TO READ THE COMMENT POSTED BY WEINLAND WATCH BELOW, FOR MORE INSIDE INFORMATION!
Thanks for "unearthing" this. I actually forgot I managed to acquire evidentiary proof of what this person alleged.
ReplyDeleteThe following are transcribed from hand-written notes (I have the scans of the original hand-written pages.) taken from a private meeting called by the former board members of the Church of God, Inc. the weekend after Ron Weinland disfellowshipped them.
This was February 12, 2000 as best as I can gather.
The following is the account of Elder #1:
Ron Weinland wanted to form another organization solely for the scattered [former members of the Worldwide Church of God]
The night of the social at Otsego, Ron was questioned by the board as to why he wanted the changes. He could not answer, and became upset. Terry Wrozack was to write up new by-laws.
Again, the following Tuesday [board meeting], Ron left before the new by-laws could be brought up. Elder #1 asked Ron not to cancel the trip to Texas, because Ron's doing that would cause division.
Ron again confronted Elder #1, claiming there was a “spirit” [attitude] with Elder #1 and his wife. Ron had to leave Elder #1's house. Ron disfellowshipped Elder #1 after Elder #1 told him he could not support Ron because in Elder #1's opinion what Ron wanted – and how Ron could not explain himself – was wrong.
The following is the account of Elder #2:
Terry Wrozack told Elder #2 that changes were coming.
The Tuesday night [board] meeting went on for a long time. Ron proposed an old WCG style of government where Ron had all the power, and the board was removed from its responsibility.
Elder #2 believes there is government, but government is 1) God's Law, and 2) Love.
Ron said that all he wanted was for the funds from the scattered brethren to be written into the by-laws as being under his control. Elder #2 stated that he was unsure if this was all that Ron wanted. Terry Wrozack asked if Ron believed the local structure was wrong. Ron said he hadn't thought about it. That was about the end of the meeting.
Elder #2 and Terry both helped to write the new by-laws.
When Ron left WCG, the original by-laws were intended to prevent one man's having power like in the WCG. The new by-laws are written to give Ron power like in the WCG.
Elder #2 speculates that Ron made up the probation thing [with which he declared several members of the congregation to be “members not in good standing”], based on the suspension policy of Mr. Fiedler [a former WCG minister in the Toledo, Ohio area]
Ron set a list of voters, then removed all from the list who opposed [his changes and plans].
Elder #2 mentioned that this was potentially illegal. And that Ron should call a board meeting. Afterwards, Elder #2 told Ron that he could no longer support him.
A separation agreement was put together so that both sides could have a peaceable split, time to think, and a possible reconciliation. 1) Ron would resign [as minister] from the Church of God, Inc, and form his own corporation. 2) Ron would keep $x of the banked tithes, COG, Inc would keep $x (which was the approximate amount collected from the Toledo members). 3) Ron could keep usage of the Garden Room [where the Toledo congregation met]
Ron retained a law firm to guarantee his interests.
Ron decided to send out a letter to everyone claiming the board was disfellowshipped and that all of the problems were solved, there would be no split.
Ron, on Wednesday night, said that he wasn't resigning – the board was. And Ron is keeping everything.
Terry and Elder #2 negotiated a resolution: the “splitters” [who weren't splitting, but were kicked out] keep $x, a tape recorder, and a sound system. Terry brought this to Ron.
Ron called Elder #2 asking for certain things to be delivered to him by Wednesday. Elder #2 agreed. This was good for both sides.
Ron called soon after and was abusive to Elder #2, saying if people didn't do certain things in 24 hours (and Ron was not specific about exactly what) he would not give the “splitters” $x. Ron said it was a gift, and if we didn't do as he said, he wouldn't give it.
Elder #2 then spoke to some attorneys the next day. Elder #2 got an attorney to write an opinion that according to the still existing board rules and by-laws the minister cannot do what Ron has been doing. And that the original separation agreement must be adhered to. And that the disfellowshipped board members could not be disfellowshipped. (This was Thursday night.)
Ron spent Thursday night, Friday, and Friday night with his lawyers. We do not know how he pays for them.
My feeling is.....If you are so convinced that RW is conducting business in a way that is against the law and he is willfully misleading people for the purpose of self enrichment than that would be considered fraud or extortion, rather than just blog about it someone should step up and file a complaint with law enforcment or just shut up....P.S.Charitable donations are tax deductable...This is a privledge granted churches and non prfit organizations..
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (8:49 posting)
ReplyDeleteYou obviously don't understand cult mentality. Going after their leader would only cause them to 'circle the wagons', stiffen their resolve. They'd see it as persecution.
We're more concerned with freeing minds than getting justice. I personally don't want to see Ron imprisoned - I want repentance.
You may not want to see ILFPRW behind bars, but the Feds certainly don't seem to share those sentiments.........As for repentance, don't hold your breath: Even the current crop of WCG ministurds aren't offering THAT.
ReplyDeletelol
ReplyDeleteThis is so crazy! I was there that day!!
I wonder who this mysterious "Constance DoGood" could be? I obviously know this person.