I'm no lawyer, but I think it is possible to have both a will and a trust. Also, you don't have to put everything in a trust. So for example, Marilyn could have had jewelry she held back from the trust and could have designated that it would go to a person upon her death. I think this is done all the time.

paleface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm no lawyer, but I think it is possible to have
> both a will and a trust. Also, you don't have to
> put everything in a trust. So for example,
> Marilyn could have had jewelry she held back from
> the trust and could have designated that it would
> go to a person upon her death. I think this is
> done all the time.

My Dad gave his jewelry to my brother. Not sure how this really adds to the conversation.

I think it is OK for someone, even someone married to decide who to get their property, it does not necessarily go to the mate. I know that in the case of my first marriage my wife gave some property to our son. Of course, in that case I did not protest it in any way, but I still think it is OK to do that.

In the case of a church, I believe that in most States anyway, the sale of church property should go to the denomination (and Living Word was a denomination by all understanding) or a church sale should go to other churches or charities, not to any leader or to anybody in the congregation.

Gary Hargrave has a blog

[www.thelivingword.org]

And Marilyn Hargrave has a web page

[www.garyandmarilynhargrave.com]

As does Gary Hargrave

[www.garyhargrave.com]

Just one more example of someone who has seen the LIGHT:

"Maybe I’m Actually Not a Christian After All"

[johnpavlovitz.com]

paleface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gary Hargrave has a blog
>
> [www.thelivingword.org]
>
> And Marilyn Hargrave has a web page
>
> [www.garyandmarilynhargrave.com]
>
> As does Gary Hargrave
>
> [www.garyhargrave.com]


The PR firm is doing a good job, BTW.

I think the Living Word pretty much was a lost cause to begin with. Now it is just a typical charismatic church. There was some sort of vision to it in the beginning, as misguided as that might have been. But now, there isn't much to it. I have read some of their comments on their facebook page. All you hear out of them is they are going to "bring forth the Kingdom" or some crap. Like how are they going to pull that off? I'm moving on.

I didn't really expect Hargrave to take a step back. His whole walk history suggests that when faced with challenges, he steps up the intensity. The ultimate example, I think, is following John's death...when he decided at first to have the fellowship bombard with prayers demanding God bring him back, and then declared that his death defeated Satan, an amazing historical victory. I don't anyone will be able to out macho him. Maybe Trump if he was in the fellowship--not sure.

Speaking of bold moves:

On March 26, 1982, while John was still alive, “Hargrave Family Ministries” filed Articles of Incorporation in the State of California, while Gary was still married to Donna.

What great foresight . . .

kBOY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On March 26, 1982, while John was still alive,
> “Hargrave Family Ministries” filed Articles of
> Incorporation in the State of California, while
> Gary was still married to Donna.

What was the purpose of that?? Just another bold, strange move by a 'man of God'that no one dare question...lest they get demeaning personal ministry in front of the congregation and/or punched in the face. I mean, they obviously deserve it because somewhere in scripture this approach is justified, but still.