Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: bonnie on August 10, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
-
Who is Stephan Lewis?? Is he a SDA. Really has piqued my interest as to why DS is donating to another ministry.
There is nothing to say he can't and nothing to say he was wrong doing so,but the name made me really curious,more so after I was able to learn a little about him after a search
Bonnie
-
Independent preacher. Calls himself bishop. Had meetings in a hotel next to the GC session in 2005 in St. Louis.
I'm not too familiar with him.
-
Interesting!
-
This should help:
http://thepresenttruth.org/index.htm
-
This should help:
http://thepresenttruth.org/index.htm
The reading of the website sounds much that you would find concerning any SDA ministry.
I know that maybe the question seems trivial, and perhaps it is,but this gets weirder right along.
Why are DS and LS donating two expensive horses to a ministry that is similar to their own and including the same faith. If DS purchased those two horses out of his personal finances,why would he donate to another self supporting ministry of same?? Are his donations such that, that kind of money can go elsewhere besides 3ABN
The Sheltons would have received a reduction in their personal income tax. One that their income would have a hard time supporting. With tithe and offerings, assuming that the Sheltons paid tithe, that would be somewhere over 30,00000 cash for charitable donations It is very careless concerning finances to have to go back and discuss and obtain a receipt for a dionation to a non-profit org.
I still could not find that Stephan Lewis has a equine business as part of his ministry. It would be a bit different if he actually did. So Fran or IRSPro, can you tell me if I am wrong. If this was a donation to another SDA ministry, that ministry would have likely had a business as such. At the least, the receiving ministry had the means and staff to house and feed/care for two expensive animals till they could be properly converted to cash to help this ministry in a financial way
Edited to complete sentence
-
bonnie,
Danny's financial affidavit in July 2006 said he would give $500 a month in charitable contributions. That would be $6000 per year.
Danny said elsewhere that his horses were worth between $500 and $5000. What exactly the horses were worth that Stephen Lewis got I can't say, but outside of tax-related documents or emails, I don't know of anytime that Danny said that he had a horse worth more than $5000.
Suppose you want to sell a car for $3000 but can't find a taker. If you can donate it to someone and claim it was worth $10,000, and if that results in your paying $3000 less in taxes, then you got your $3000 for your car from Uncle Sam, even though Uncle Sam didn't get your car.
That is a possible explanation for what that was all about, and I strongly recommend that no one try such.
-
bonnie,
Danny's financial affidavit in July 2006 said he would give $500 a month in charitable contributions. That would be $6000 per year.
Danny said elsewhere that his horses were worth between $500 and $5000. What exactly the horses were worth that Stephen Lewis got I can't say, but outside of tax-related documents or emails, I don't know of anytime that Danny said that he had a horse worth more than $5000.
Suppose you want to sell a car for $3000 but can't find a taker. If you can donate it to someone and claim it was worth $10,000, and if that results in your paying $3000 less in taxes, then you got your $3000 for your car from Uncle Sam, even though Uncle Sam didn't get your car.
That is a possible explanation for what that was all about, and I strongly recommend that no one try such.
Bob,
I did this for 17 years on a daily basis.I well understand how this should go To make this feasible, don't know about the rest of what he claimed as charitble contributions,but to be feasible here means......
Stephan Lewis had a horse business, all proceeds went to the ministry. This has a few requirements at least as far as the receiver. It may be that Stpehan Lewis had a horse business,had the facilities to house the horses and the know how to care for them till sold. The selling would be a bit tougher if he did not have a reputation in this field . If they were part of a breeding program, then of course he has a horse business. Does he or did he?? I don't know
Without already owning and operating this business, what did he do with the horses. I don't care if he was selling 200.00 horses They have a variety of needs prior to selling that need to be met.
How stupid would it be for me to have donated you one of my 2500.00 ,150 lb. dogs to you, living in a senior highrise Telling you this is a charitble donation you could sell. Horses are even harder to cope with without fencing, feed etc. Most don't have that unless running a business or a hobby. If you board them it is even more expensive and would soon eat any profit and you would be paying for that charitable donation.
The reason I am questioning is it is not computing. Maybe it can and does make sense when the whole story would be told, but so far it does not seem those with inside knowledge care to respond to this. From my perspective it is not making sense.
Reading a bit about Stephan Lewis just made me more curious. That the receipent of this gift was another ministry just like his own. Donations must be extremely good if it not only gives them a reasonable or better lifestyle with money left over to promote a same ministry
-
At this point I am more curious about Stephan Lewis after a bit of what I read.
If you choose to there are many ways to circumvent some rules while farming or related business.
There are ways to legally and honestly reduce your taxable income.
-
Independent preacher. Calls himself bishop. Had meetings in a hotel next to the GC session in 2005 in St. Louis.
I'm not too familiar with him.
Is that the guy who has put out DVD's entitled "I preached a Lie for (?)41 years".
He calls himself a Bishop, but that's the only guy I've ever heard of elevating himself to that status in the SDA Church.
It may 'fit' OK in some cultures to call oneself a Bishop but here, it just doesn't 'sit'.
And as for the title of his DVD, I don't believe it's the way to win friends and influence people. There are many ways to re-word the title so that is does not come across as offensive to new Christians. IMHO
-
He calls himself a Bishop, but that's the only guy I've ever heard of elevating himself to that status in the SDA Church.
And you never heard of Bishop Lieske (I may not have spelled it correctly?). He was on the air for years and did good work for the SDA church.
-
He calls himself a Bishop, but that's the only guy I've ever heard of elevating himself to that status in the SDA Church.
And you never heard of Bishop Lieske (I may not have spelled it correctly?). He was on the air for years and did good work for the SDA church.
No. Not unless he is the guy that made the DVD/video regarding "I preached a lie for .. years".
I actually tossed the DVD or Video (whichever it was), coz I don't particularly like people big-noteing themselves.
Last Bishop I ever heard of other than on that media, was when I was a member of the Catholic Church.
-
Wasn't Bishop Leiske of the tv program "Religious Town Hall" a Seventh-day Adventist. It never struck me that Bishop was probably his first name and not a title untill I started to reply.
-
Wasn't Bishop Leiske of the tv program "Religious Town Hall" a Seventh-day Adventist. It never struck me that Bishop was probably his first name and not a title untill I started to reply.
You got it.
No, Bishop was not his first name. It was a title. He was a SDA clergyperson. He did good work for the SDA Chruch. Unfortunately his program was never distributed as widely as others have been.
Here is a URL that will give you information about it:
http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/religious_town_hall.html
It began on radio in 1952 and later moved to television. I am not certain if it still is produced. But, it was on the air for 50 years or more.
Here is a quotation from the above website and a potential contact point if anyone wants to check it out to see if it is still in production.
Broadcast over 315 stations nationwide across four networks and numerous local independent stations, Leiske receives letters from fans who have been watching for more than 25 years. Leiske estimates the viewing audience is somewhere between 175 and 200 million.
CONTACTS
Robert Leiske: Pastor and Host
The American Religious Town Hall Meeting
745 North Buckner Boulevard
Dallas, Texas 75218
Phone: (214) 328-9828
NOTE: Robert Leiske may not take the title Bishop? However, his Father, who began the program used the title Bishop.
-
He calls himself a Bishop, but that's the only guy I've ever heard of elevating himself to that status in the SDA Church.
Next, I expect you to tell us that you have never heard of a SDA minister wearing a clerical collar. Some SDA ministers were wearing such into the 1940's when most stopped. But, there have been a few who have worn them since.
-
The Pastor and Host is now the previous president of the Texas Conference, Steve Gifford. I believe Leiske has passed away. The other SDA representation is Elder Beach. They have representative of several different churches, including Catholic. May times I have to say that the non-SDAs are better at stating their position.
I did not like that Leiske used Bishop as his title. ??? I often wondered if viewer thought he was Catholic :scratch:
I do not like the program, however, many others do. :dunno:
-
He calls himself a Bishop, but that's the only guy I've ever heard of elevating himself to that status in the SDA Church.
Next, I expect you to tell us that you have never heard of a SDA minister wearing a clerical collar. Some SDA ministers were wearing such into the 1940's when most stopped. But, there have been a few who have worn them since.
Well, believe me or not Gregory, No. I have not ever heard of a SDA Minister wearing a clerical (dog) collar. :scratch:
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I don't know. :dunno: But if a person claimed to be a SDA Pastor and turned up here wearing a 'dog collar', he'd certainly get a few odd looks and set a few tongues a-wagging! :hot:
His affiliation would surely be questioned.
I didn't even know any SDA person back in the 1940's, so maybe that's why I've never heard of it? :australia:
-
He calls himself a Bishop, but that's the only guy I've ever heard of elevating himself to that status in the SDA Church.
Next, I expect you to tell us that you have never heard of a SDA minister wearing a clerical collar. Some SDA ministers were wearing such into the 1940's when most stopped. But, there have been a few who have worn them since.
Well, believe me or not Gregory, No. I have not ever heard of a SDA Minister wearing a clerical (dog) collar. :scratch:
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I don't know. :dunno: But if a person claimed to be a SDA Pastor and turned up here wearing a 'dog collar', he'd certainly get a few odd looks and set a few tongues a-wagging! :hot:
His affiliation would surely be questioned.
I didn't even know any SDA person back in the 1940's, so maybe that's why I've never heard of it? :australia:
I have never heard of or seen whether in person or in pictures any SDA minister wearing a collar either, I am not saying it never happened though.
I don't know Stephan Lewis, but I wonder why we are assuming that just because he allegedly refers to himself as a Bishop, instead of a Pastor that he might wear a clerical collar, or that the office of Bishop and a clerical collar go hand in hand?
Perhaps what is being confused is the definition of Bishop.
The Catholic definition, or other churches definitions which borrow from that or have adapted from that are somewhat different from the Biblical one...
Bishop, from the Greek ( Strongs 1985) "episkopos"
1) overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
2) the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church
In reference to Jesus:
1Pe 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
In reference to Timothy:
2Ti 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ [be] with thy spirit. Grace [be] with you. Amen. [[[The second [epistle] unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.]]]
In reference to Titus:
Tts 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace [be] with you all. Amen. [[[It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.]]]
Regarding the Office of Bishop aka Minister, Elder, Pastor...:
"1Timothy 3:1-11
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. ... Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. " (hmmmmm.... ok, well never mind, moving on...)
Also, regarding the Office of Bishop aka Minister, Elder, Pastor...:
Titus 1:5-
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers, For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
Nothing there about "**** ***** ************* **** **** ********* ****** ************ *******"
It does occur to me that we may have been infiltrated by some Cretians tho... :o
==============
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content
-
Rosa:
No claim is made that he wore a clerical collar. I do not think that he did.
As far as you never seeing a photo of a SDA minister wearing a clerical collar I suggest that you do the following:
1) Look for a photo of a one-time elected officer of the General Conference--Luther Warren. Tell me whether or not he is wearing a clerical collar.
2) Study the history of the denomination from its founding until the 1940s. You will find a distinct group of SDA clergy in the United States between 1920 and 1940 who wore a clerical collar. NOTE: I am not saying that they did not wear such prior to 1920.
The only time I have heard of an SDA minister getting into trouble for wearing a clerical collar was one who worked in a Roman Catholic area and was commonly mistaken for a Roman Catholic preist. He was told to take it off.
-
He calls himself a Bishop, but that's the only guy I've ever heard of elevating himself to that status in the SDA Church.
Next, I expect you to tell us that you have never heard of a SDA minister wearing a clerical collar. Some SDA ministers were wearing such into the 1940's when most stopped. But, there have been a few who have worn them since.
Well, believe me or not Gregory, No. I have not ever heard of a SDA Minister wearing a clerical (dog) collar. :scratch:
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I don't know. :dunno: But if a person claimed to be a SDA Pastor and turned up here wearing a 'dog collar', he'd certainly get a few odd looks and set a few tongues a-wagging! :hot:
His affiliation would surely be questioned.
I didn't even know any SDA person back in the 1940's, so maybe that's why I've never heard of it? :australia:
I have never heard of or seen whether in person or in pictures any SDA minister wearing a collar either, I am not saying it never happened though.
I don't know Stephan Lewis, but I wonder why we are assuming that just because he allegedly refers to himself as a Bishop, instead of a Pastor that he might wear a clerical collar, or that the office of Bishop and a clerical collar go hand in hand?
I don't believe that anyone is confusing the issue Rosa, and I don't believe that we are ASSUMING that this 'Bishop' wears a 'dog collar'.
Gregory made a somewhat sarcastic remark when I said that I had not been used to hearing SDA clergy being referred to as 'Bishop'. He retaliated with the question "Next, I expect you to tell us that you have never heard of a SDA minister wearing a clerical collar."
I truthfully replied that I had never heard of a SDA cleryperson wearing a 'dog collar'. The conversation has drifted from there, to assumptions that there are other SDA Clergy who wear similar.
Perhaps what is being confused is the definition of Bishop.
And perhaps, people are reading mroe into what was written than that which was intended?
The Catholic definition, or other churches definitions which borrow from that or have adapted from that are somewhat different from the Biblical one...
Bishop, from the Greek ( Strongs 1985) "episkopos"
1) overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
2) the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church
In reference to Jesus:
1Pe 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
In reference to Timothy:
2Ti 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ [be] with thy spirit. Grace [be] with you. Amen. [[[The second [epistle] unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.]]]
In reference to Titus:
Tts 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace [be] with you all. Amen. [[[It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.]]]
Regarding the Office of Bishop aka Minister, Elder, Pastor...:
"1Timothy 3:1-11
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. ... Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. " (hmmmmm.... ok, well never mind, moving on...)
Also, regarding the Office of Bishop aka Minister, Elder, Pastor...:
Titus 1:5-
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers, For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."
Nothing there about, "******** *** ********* **** ***** ********* ************ ******** ****"
It does occur to me that we may have been infiltrated by some Cretians tho... :o
No Rosa. Nothing there in the 10 Commandments about those "Shalt nots". No doubt, it's more of a cultural thing, as I stated earlier.
And you have such a lovely Christian way of calling people "Cretins" don't you? Flavour of the month is it?
==============
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content
-
Gregory made a somewhat sarcastic remark when I said that I had not been used to hearing SDA clergy being referred to as 'Bishop'. He retaliated with the question "Next, I expect you to tell us that you have never heard of a SDA minister wearing a clerical collar."
And forthat I apologize. I understand that you and probably a lot of other people would consider it to be sarcasm.
My wife is quick to tell me that I can laspe into a method of communication in which others reasonabley do not understand me, and I can communicate in a manner that does not fully consider how other will reasonably understand it.
It was not my intent to be sarcastic. I apologize for posting in that manner. I said it without fully thinking through how it would be understood.
Gregory Matthews
-
It may be of interest that we once had a "televangelist" making programs that were called something like Religious Town Hall. and his real name was, as far as I recall, Bishop Leiske. Seems like he was an SDA pastor - whose real name was Bishop. Must have been 50-60 years ago. I recall I was very surprised when I heard him being called Bishop, but then I was told his real name was Bishop. Should his parents have been dis-fellowshipped?
-
It may be of interest that we once had a "televangelist" making programs that were called something like Religious Town Hall. and his real name was, as far as I recall, Bishop Leiske. Seems like he was an SDA pastor - whose real name was Bishop. Must have been 50-60 years ago. I recall I was very surprised when I heard him being called Bishop, but then I was told his real name was Bishop. Should his parents have been dis-fellowshipped?
Johann, I think Bishop was a title that the church allowed him to use. I believe his first name was Albert and he went by Bishop A. A. Leiske. He was a colorful fellow and was quite innovative in using TV back when it was still a novelty. I have to admit there was quite a "cringe" factor when his son took over the program. But that's just me...
-
Maxey is correct. Bishop is a title that he took and it was not his name.
-
When some of his films were shown in a class in homiletics at Emmanuel Missionary College back in 1956 by our teacher, Elder Horace Shaw, I recall him telling us that Bishop was part of his name, when I questioned how he could use this title. Could it be that he took the name Bishop rather than using it as a title?
Or was Elder Shaw just trying to "cover up his misdeed" - like some others are being accused of doing?
-
There are various kinds of "clerical" collars in different parts of the world. Many of these are only relics of the regular "suits" worn by any gentleman, and not only clergy, in past centuries. Therefore there is no "Thou shalt not . . " regulating their use.
-
There are various kinds of "clerical" collars in different parts of the world. Many of these are only relics of the regular "suits" worn by any gentleman, and not only clergy, in past centuries. Therefore there is no "Thou shalt not . . " regulating their use.
Exactly Johann.
-
When some of his films were shown in a class in homiletics at Emmanuel Missionary College back in 1956 by our teacher, Elder Horace Shaw, I recall him telling us that Bishop was part of his name, when I questioned how he could use this title. Could it be that he took the name Bishop rather than using it as a title?
Or was Elder Shaw just trying to "cover up his misdeed" - like some others are being accused of doing?
I wasn´t thinking when I wrote 1956. It was during the fall session of 1955 I took that class, but I have no documents to prove it - just my memory.
-
Study the history of the denomination from its founding until the 1940s. You will find a distinct group of SDA clergy in the United States between 1920 and 1940 who wore a clerical collar. NOTE: I am not saying that they did not wear such prior to 1920.
Gregory,
What is the Biblical basis for dividing a church into "clergy" and "laity"? Which are the Biblical texts that instruct for such a separation between members, designating some as the "speaking church" and the others as the "listening church," and attributing to the first unbiblical privileges and authority? Why do you think someone who gets a degree in religion, a M.Div., or Th.D., believes that he is "called" to do God's work? Does a church have the Biblical authority to call someone to apostleship as the old time prophets anointed people for different kinds of spiritual work?
Are you "called"? Do you have a spiritual discernement above that of an "uncalled" member of the church? Do you have Bibblical spiritual authority above that of an "uncalled" member of the church?
How much does ecclesiastical authority count? It ecclesiastical authority also evidence of divine calling?
Eduard
-
How much does ecclesiastical authority count? It ecclesiastical authority also evidence of divine calling?
Eduard
Good Question, Eduard. IMO, ecclesiastical authority counts to the extent that the adherents who choose to allow an ecclesiastical authority to exercise authority over them, are willing to let that authority go. If ecclesiastical authority were evidence of divine calling, I should think that God would eventually have to explode, as ecclesiastical authorities present such a diversity of teachings that conflict.
-
What is the Biblical basis for dividing a church into "clergy" and "laity"?
There is no Biblical authority for such a division, as you well know.
There were leaders appointed in the NT Church. So, the Bible does support leadership. But, it does not support a division between clergy and laity.
-
I get it! :TY: The Clergy alledgedly believe they are in control! :amen:
And here I am with the belief that laity were in control. Isn't that why we vote? :dunno:
I am aware of many clergy that called themselves into minisrty. :help:
Anybody can say, "I was called by the Lord to the Ministry." I have heard that many times over, but there is no way they were called by my Lord! :horse:
I wonder if Tommy Shelton was "Called" to the ministry? I bet he believes he was. Isn't it strange what people "think". ???
I do not believe pastors that are sexual predsitors are called of God! They are called to get new playgrounds and playmates. :o
Many believe they should have the 1st and last word also. :ROFL:
I firmly believe there is a distinct division between laity and clergy!
-
And here all I wnated to know was who is Stephan Lewis and does he have a business raising horses tied to his non-profit ministry
-
I don't think it is unusual for a forum thread to drift a bit, bonnie. In this case, you asked who Stephen Lewis is, we discovered he utilizes the title "Bishop" and the discussion went from there.
And here all I wnated to know was who is Stephan Lewis and does he have a business raising horses tied to his non-profit ministry
-
I don't think it is unusual for a forum thread to drift a bit, bonnie. In this case, you asked who Stephen Lewis is, we discovered he utilizes the title "Bishop" and the discussion went from there.
A non-profit ministry seems a unlikely candidate for two horses as a charitable donation.
Curious as to what was known about him
-
bonnie,
Someone was talking to me today and told me that they thought you were really on to something regarding the amount of salary it would take to support all those horses.
-
I totally agree. I understand that a key indicator for IRS auditors/investigators is whether or not the stated income supports the lifestyle.
bonnie,
Someone was talking to me today and told me that they thought you were really on to something regarding the amount of salary it would take to support all those horses.
-
.
bonnie,
Someone was talking to me today and told me that they thought you were really on to something regarding the amount of salary it would take to support all those horses.
There is a lot that goes into raising horses,whether pleasure or hobby/business.
I don't think it is even plausible that DS did not know what he was wanting LS to do was illegal.
He is talking about doing this again with another horse as he could not use it for breeding anymore, which means he has several mares or is one very foolish man with money. Nor should he be a novice at IRS regs and rules.
The biggest reason those having horses for pleasure do not have a stallion is for the very reason DS was saying he needed to get rid of the one he had. Most doing so for pleasure do not have a breeding program at all. Those wanting a mare bred pay for stud. A lot more economical in maintenence and the ability to upgrade your bloodline.
The minimum for maintaining one horse is 80.00 per month around here. Our climate is much like Ill.
Hay was at 3.00 a bale in the 80's. Have no idea what it is now, but can't be lower than that. A horse will eat at least once again what a cow will. The purchase of a number of horses,fencing,barn or shelter,grain,hay,farrier,vet,and hired help as they were gone almost non-stop gets pretty pricy. If there were many years that they received less than 94,000.00 a year,it would almost take some magic here to swing this and maintain.
It just made me curious as to donating to another non-profit ministry in the form of horses. Lewis would have almost had to have a horse business as part of his non-profit status for this to work.
From my understanding so far is they did not even live in the same state. By the time they were transported and kept for sale to another party ,the donation amount would be seriously eroded. Dosen't make sense. Lewis had to have had a horse business or he would not have been prepared to take on this kind of donation. It is not plausible this man was ignorant of IRS rules and regulations any more than DS was.
Why is DS donating to another ministry doing essentially the same thing he is? Why not sell the horses and use the money for 3ABN.
Doesn't make any more sense than using ebay for selling donated items. That is about the most cumbersome,inefficient cost wise you can get for donations.
Most items on ebay do not sell for market value. The competion is fierce.
Why would items be donated and shipping paid by donor,pay salary to be accepted, recorded,photographed and spend literally hours per week checking for any flaws in the item, listing and wrapping for shipment. Then pay listing fee, final value fee and paypal fee?
On a 30.00 item you are not going to have much left. Of course that is assuming that each and every item sells which is not the way it works.
Whatever the reason Fran is right about the ebay store. Little fibbing going on there. You can backtrack the paper trail on ebay and this trail only goes one way.