Good 'ol Herman

[seajoy]

The Otten threads seem to serve the purpose of debate between RadMan and DaRev,

Which is why I'm staying out of it from now on - it's their business really. I was getting involved where I shouldn't have.

 

[RadMan]

Pr Rolf David Preus says this on LQ:

"When my father, Robert Preus, was illegally removed from office as President and Professor at Concordia Theological Seminary in 1989 and later falsely charged with wrongdoing by the Praesidium of the Synod for his efforts in retaining his position, most synodical big shots (including most seminary professors) headed for the tall grass, afraid to stand up for their friend and brother. Not Herman Otten. He did not hesitate to defend Robert Preus. He exposed the wrong done against him. He was a true brother. He printed the truth.

After my father won his cases in Adjudication (back when the LCMS had a system of adjudication) Concordia Theological Seminary, as an institution, never acknowledged that he had been done wrong. The Synodical Commission on Adjudication ruled that the Board of Regents had followed the “Jezebel method” in removing my father from office. The BOR was never corrected. After my father died, the seminary lionized him and used his name to raise money for this and for that, but CTS in Ft. Wayne never officially acknowledge the wrong done against him.

And this is from friends.

What do you expect from those who are not your friends?

My point is that seminaries do not sin. They do not err. They do not apologize. It just isn’t done. The corporate ego of the institution won’t tolerate it.

What this means is that Pastor Herman Otten, an orthodox and faithful minister of the Word for over fifty years now, will never be permitted on the clergy roster of the LCMS. The St. Louis seminary won’t allow it.

The irony is that the men presently keeping Otten out of the LCMS may not have received the orthodox Lutheran education they received in the Missouri Synod had it not been for the fearless and tireless work of Rev. Otten in shining the light on the false doctrine taught and tolerated at the St. Louis seminary."

Otten denied attendence

 

[jonathan1971]

Holocaust denial is - in and of itself - an evil lie. Therefore anyone who propagates such a position is - by default - an evil liar. It's simple math: If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

I find your defenition of evil interesting. Would you say that using money , dedicated to the puprose of bringing the gospel to unbelievers, as payment for legal fees as evil? Would that said person be considered an evil liar by your equation?

 

[KEPLER]

I find your defenition of evil interesting. Would you say that using money , dedicated to the puprose of bringing the gospel to unbelievers, as payment for legal fees as evil? Would that said person be considered an evil liar by your equation?

I didn't offer a definition of evil. I offered an example of evil.

 

[jonathan1971]

I didn't offer a definition of evil. I offered an example of evil.

So is that a yes?

 

[DaRev]

Would you say that using money , dedicated to the puprose of bringing the gospel to unbelievers, as payment for legal fees as evil?

This statement is a bit of a stretch. If you read the minutes of the district meeting, it doesn't say that dedicated funds were being used to pay legal fees. It says that dedicated funds are being transferred into the general fund because the general fund had run low, in part due to legal costs.
To say that the dedicated funds are being used to pay legal fees, or more precisely to pay to fund a particular lawsuit, is reading into it more than is actually being stated. You have no way of knowing what those particular funds are specifically being used for. Those funds could very well be used to pay for ministry needs directly related to the "purpose of bringing the Gospel to unbelievers". To say otherwise is pure speculation.

 

[jonathan1971]

This statement is a bit of a stretch. If you read the minutes of the district meeting, it doesn't say that dedicated funds were being used to pay legal fees. It says that dedicated funds are being transferred into the general fund because the general fund had run low, in part due to legal costs.
To say that the dedicated funds are being used to pay legal fees, or more precisely to pay to fund a particular lawsuit, is reading into it more than is actually being stated. You have no way of knowing what those particular funds are specifically being used for. Those funds could very well be used to pay for ministry needs directly related to the "purpose of bringing the Gospel to unbelievers". To say otherwise is pure speculation.

So you believe that if I give money to the mission fund I haven't dedicated that money to the mission fund. That I infact gave it to the general fund to be used as the synod saw fit.

Maybe your right. That the money wasn't speficfcally dedicated for a single mission. It may be legal but is it moral? When money is put into a fund such as a mission fund I expect it will be used to further the gosped of Christ. That money wasn't it was used to pay legal expenses. Taking money and using it for some other purpose than what it was intended for is an evil lie. You and Kepler know it that's why you continually spin it.

 

[DaRev]

So you believe that if I give money to the mission fund I haven't dedicated that money to the mission fund. That I infact gave it to the general fund to be used as the synod saw fit.

Unless you know specifically what that money is being used for, you can't make any assertions. How do you know that the money wasn't used specifically for a mission project? You don't, so you can't accuse otherwise.

Maybe your right. That the money wasn't speficfcally dedicated for a single mission. It may be legal but is it moral? When money is put into a fund such as a mission fund I expect it will be used to further the gosped of Christ. That money wasn't it was used to pay legal expenses. Taking money and using it for some other purpose than what it was intended for is an evil lie. You and Kepler know it that's why you continually spin it.

Who's doing the spinning here? I actually read the minutes of the meeting. It said nothing about using dedicated mission funds to pay legal expenses. Not one word. It stated why the general fund was low. I'm sure that the general fund of a district goes to more than paying legal fees. A district is involved in many aspects of forwarding the Gospel in the greater Church. Unless you have documented evidence from a credible source that states specifically what that money is used for, you really have nothing to say on the matter. It is not I who is casting spin, it is you and those who insist that dedicated mission funds are being used to pay legal fees. No such evidence exists that I am aware of. The burden of proof falls on you as the one making the accusation. Show me your evidence, and we can discuss it further.

 

[RadMan]

.

 

[Zecryphon]

Unless you know specifically what that money is being used for, you can't make any assertions. How do you know that the money wasn't used specifically for a mission project? You don't, so you can't accuse otherwise.



Who's doing the spinning here? I actually read the minutes of the meeting. It said nothing about using dedicated mission funds to pay legal expenses. Not one word. It stated why the general fund was low. I'm sure that the general fund of a district goes to more than paying legal fees. A district is involved in many aspects of forwarding the Gospel in the greater Church. Unless you have documented evidence from a credible source that states specifically what that money is used for, you really have nothing to say on the matter. It is not I who is casting spin, it is you and those who insist that dedicated mission funds are being used to pay legal fees. No such evidence exists that I am aware of. The burden of proof falls on you as the one making the accusation. Show me your evidence, and we can discuss it further.

Quick question: Were funds taken from the Missions Fund and put into the General Fund to pay for... whatever, be it legal fees or something else? If the answer is yes, then I believe that is wrong. If the General Fund is low, take steps at the next budget meeting to make sure that doesn't happen again. You don't just take money from another fund and transfer it, simply because you have it. That's financial irresponsibility. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone who donates money to the mission fund, to expect that the money they donated be used for missions and not to pay in part for legal fees, whether it's connected to the Oakland Four case or something else.

 

[RadMan]

I'm getting g'old' but if my memory serves me I remember something like $300,000 coming from district for just this litigation. Wish I could remember where I read it at.

 

[DaRev]

Quick question: Were funds taken from the Missions Fund and put into the General Fund to pay for... whatever, be it legal fees or something else? If the answer is yes, then I believe that is wrong.

It would depend on what exactly those funds will be used for, and what procedure the district has in place in their constitution/by-laws for such practice. We would need to know what further expenses the district has that the money is needed for. This is simply not known at this point so questions regarding whether it's legal or ethical cannot be answered at this point.

If the General Fund is low, take steps at the next budget meeting to make sure that doesn't happen again. You don't just take money from another fund and transfer it, simply because you have it. That's financial irresponsibility. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone who donates money to the mission fund, to expect that the money they donated be used for missions and not to pay in part for legal fees, whether it's connected to the Oakland Four case or something else.

Again, there is nothing to suggest that the funds being transferred are specifically being used to pay legal fees, just that the general fund was low due to legal fees and other expenses. It could very well be that the expenses the district now faces are mission related, thus the funds transferred would be used specifically for what they were intended. We just don't know this at this point. And whether or not it's fiscally responsible depends on their financial procedures. It may or may not be perfectly appropriate to used funds from one account for another account in certain situations. To make claims of illegality or unethical practice is premature right now.

 

[Zecryphon]

It would depend on what exactly those funds will be used for, and what procedure the district has in place in their constitution/by-laws for such practice. We would need to know what further expenses the district has that the money is needed for. This is simply not known at this point so questions regarding whether it's legal or ethical cannot be answered at this point.



Again, there is nothing to suggest that the funds being transferred are specifically being used to pay legal fees, just that the general fund was low due to legal fees and other expenses. It could very well be that the expenses the district now faces are mission related, thus the funds transferred would be used specifically for what they were intended. We just don't know this at this point. And whether or not it's fiscally responsible depends on their financial procedures. It may or may not be perfectly appropriate to used funds from one account for another account in certain situations. To make claims of illegality or unethical practice is premature right now.

I don't think it's premature at all, if we're focused on the right thing. What I'm saying in my post is that anyone who takes funds that are intended for one thing, in this case Missions, and transfers that money to another fund, in this case the General Fund, is unethical and there is no speculation about this transfer occurring. You said it yourself in post # 66 when you were talking about the meeting minutes:

It says that dedicated funds are being transferred into the general fund because the general fund had run low, in part due to legal costs.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

[/color][/size][/font][/font]

It would depend on what exactly those funds will be used for, and what procedure the district has in place in their constitution/by-laws for such practice. We would need to know what further expenses the district has that the money is needed for. This is simply not known at this point so questions regarding whether it's legal or ethical cannot be answered at this point.



Again, there is nothing to suggest that the funds being transferred are specifically being used to pay legal fees, just that the general fund was low due to legal fees and other expenses. It could very well be that the expenses the district now faces are mission related, thus the funds transferred would be used specifically for what they were intended. We just don't know this at this point. And whether or not it's fiscally responsible depends on their financial procedures. It may or may not be perfectly appropriate to used funds from one account for another account in certain situations. To make claims of illegality or unethical practice is premature right now.

This is not my concern as I am LCC; however Rev. is correct. I think it would be reasonable to expect that the new administration of LCMS will be looking into this situation.

However, if it was my Synod, I feel that it is indeed reasonable to expect that funds directed to a specific purpose would used for that purpose.

In a recent situation, in one of our near-by parishes, the Pastor brought fourth a motion at the annual voters meeting to transfer funds from the Current Treasury to the Mission Treasury so that the Congregations might meet their District Mission Goal for 2009. The voters were outraged and voted against the motion because members had directed their donations to "specific" purposes. The will of those who donated were respected, as I would hope would be the case in LCMS.

In LCC the books of Synod, the Districts, and Congregations are audited annually, and the results of those audits are available to all members of the Synod on request. LCMS may have the same policy.

 

[RadMan]

Well the money has to be coming from somewhere and I'm sure there isn't someone out there with a spare, cool $1M sitting around that would blow it on a useless procedure like litigation. Even if they conseidered it an investment it would be so "iffy" that no one would even consider it. The money came from synod and or district and there should not be any money earmarked for outrageous lawsuits unless the synod was defending itself from outside litigation. Simple as that. What they have done is a gross sin against its own congregations and people. There would have been cheaper and better ways of doing this under resolutions processes of the synod constitution.

It's just a power play under the old admin to see if they could enforce the CCM's ruling, AFTER THE FACT. DUH. As if the judge would even consider new rules coming from the CCM after the litigation started. How naive. The CCM needs to be cleaned out, but investigated first.



.

 

[DaRev]

I don't think it's premature at all, if we're focused on the right thing. What I'm saying in my post is that anyone who takes funds that are intended for one thing, in this case Missions, and transfers that money to another fund, in this case the General Fund, is unethical and there is no speculation about this transfer occurring. You said it yourself in post # 66 when you were talking about the meeting minutes:

It says that dedicated funds are being transferred into the general fund because the general fund had run low, in part due to legal costs.

My statement was in reference to the reason why the general fund was low, not the use of the transferred funds. We don't know what those transferred funds are being used for. It is quite possible that the district has mission programs normally funded by the undedicated general fund that needs additional monies to fulfill (thus the mission fund monies are indeed being used for mission needs). Now I will admit that this is speculation on my part, but you also have to admit that saying the dedicated mission fund money is being used to pay for legal fees is also speculation. There simply isn't enough information to say definitely one way or another, so we shouldn't be so quick to judge.

 

[Zecryphon]

It's bad enough to take money that was donated for Missions and transfer it to the General fund because that had run low, due in part to legal expenses, but to not know how the transferred funds were then spent is outrageous. If the transfer was indeed used to build up the General fund, why would they then spend that transferred money? Wouldn't that just land them in the same position they were in previously?

 

[DaRev]

It's bad enough to take money that was donated for Missions and transfer it to the General fund because that had run low, due in part to legal expenses, but to not know how the transferred funds were then spent is outrageous. If the transfer as indeed used to build up the General fund, why would they then spend that transferred money? Wouldn't that just land them in the same position they were in previously?

We just don't have enough information to make such a judgement. Perhaps there is a contingency that is known to the donors to the mission fund that monies could be transferred in certain situations. Perhaps the transfer is a loan and must be put back after a certain amount of time. Or it could very well be that you are right, that it's an unethical act that shouldn't be allowed. I just don't want to be so quick to judge.

Not to suggest that my congregation is in any way comparable to the CNH district (apples and oranges in many ways), but we recently had to transfer funds from our dedicated building fund to the general fund to keep the lights and heat on. This was done with the approval of the voter's. We also have a large amount of stock worth about $50,000 (depending on the days trading) that was donated for building maintenance. Our general fund is at or close to zero much of the time. It would be a shame for the church to close due to financial reasons with that much money "in the bank", which would all end up in the district's coffers if the church did close. But as of right now, that money can't be touched. Would it be unethical to transfer some of that to keep the mission of the congregation going?

 

[Zecryphon]

We just don't have enough information to make such a judgement. Perhaps there is a contingency that is known to the donors to the mission fund that monies could be transferred in certain situations. Perhaps the transfer is a loan and must be put back after a certain amount of time. Or it could very well be that you are right, that it's an unethical act that shouldn't be allowed. I just don't want to be so quick to judge.

Not to suggest that my congregation is in any way comparable to the CNH district (apples and oranges in many ways), but we recently had to transfer funds from our dedicated building fund to the general fund to keep the lights and heat on. This was done with the approval of the voter's. We also have a large amount of stock worth about $50,000 (depending on the days trading) that was donated for building maintenance. Our general fund is at or close to zero much of the time. It would be a shame for the church to close due to financial reasons with that much money "in the bank", which would all end up in the district's coffers if the church did close. But as of right now, that money can't be touched. Would it be unethical to transfer some of that to keep the mission of the congregation going?

Well you'd have a vote about such a financial transaction first, right? The issue of course would be whether to transfer money from other accounts into the General account or to close the church. Given that situation, I can't imagine people would want the church to close.