Originally Posted by jonmc620

I'm interested in speaking to anyone who invested in Daystar Motor Homes or knows someone who did.

Please reach out to me.

Originally Posted by jonmc620

I'm interested in speaking to anyone who invested in Daystar Motor Homes or knows someone who did.

Please reach out to me.

Originally Posted by jonmc620

I'm interested in speaking to anyone who invested in Daystar Motor Homes or knows someone who did.

Please reach out to me.

Originally Posted by Terry

I had never heard of Philemon whom Alwayslearning referred to. Aside from character, who knows if the Daystar and LSM enterprises were vehicles to ensure financial security for Timothy and Philip's children?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Do you know when Philip Lee became active at Stream/LSM?

Originally Posted by Ohio

After Daystar, did Timothy then vanish from the scene?

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is fascinating. Witness Lee had a side that was very polished and charming. He also was a hot-tempered bully when relating to other leaders. In person, many saints testified how reserved and humble he was, like an affectionate grandfather. Looks like each of his boys got only a third of his personality.

Originally Posted by Terry

"A third of the cost" ZNP? Is that a generous estimate? I was under the impression the labor was at no cost. Brothers giving their time to serve the ministry thorugh their uncompensated labor.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

To my knowledge donations from around the world flowed in to build the meeting hall on Ball Road in Anaheim to be the new Ministry Station on one side and The Church in Anaheim on the other side. A few doors down was a residential property that was purchased to build Witness Lee and his son Philip houses. Since Philip Lee was the GM of LSM this made sense in terms of being in close proximity to his Dad and to the new HQ offices. But The Church in Anaheim did not build them these houses. That was a multi-church/ministry project.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Witness Lee had another son named Philemon (maybe more) who also worked at the LSM but had a low profile because he was a little "slow". Nothing like the others. Quiet. Humble. And was disturbed by things that went on there.

BTW in personality Timothy was much different than Philip. He was more polished and affable. Philip was an ill-tempered coarse bully who's temper tantrums were legendary.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Were any of his sons in the least bit spiritual, or have any redeeming qualities?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Using saints to donate their labor so that he could build his empire is his embracing the idea of "making merchandise of the saints". He got his homes and buildings at a third of the cost, and tax free to boot.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Sounds like he's beating LSM at their own game!

(BTW the FTTs run by LSM IMHO are basically just training a sales force for their materials. Guy with a Computer Science degree ends up "serving full time" i.e. on a college campus somewhere pitching LSM stuff from a table.)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You haven't seen anything yet, if you have not visited Dong's "Bookafe". It is multi-level marketing on steroids. They don't try to just sell you books -- they try to recruit you to becoming a "bookseller". To them, selling merchandise is the gospel.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps you know something about Lee's sons that can be added, like why would the church build him a house next to Witness? Did Lee have other sons? Were any of his sons in the least bit spiritual, or have any redeeming qualities?

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

5. With 1-4 firmly in place:

a. use every given opportunity to sell your wares e.g. conferences, trainings, etc.

b. Make LCs at local level bookstores for your products

c. Have elders become your local salesmen

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I'm not sure if you mean Timothy started these businesses and Witness Lee stepped in later to clean them up or they were in them together from the get-go and cleaning them up became the task of Witness Lee after they failed. In any event to my knowledge it was the latter.

Originally Posted by aron

I think WL eventually concentrated exclusively on selling books, cassette tapes, pamphlets, and VHS tapes because he realized he just wasn't very good at selling anything else.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps others know more, but my understanding is that the sales of suits, tennis rackets, and MOTAhomes were Timothy's gig. Witness was left cleaning up a string of failed businesses. It was Philip that stepped into the picture with a plan to jump start the ministry.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

At some point during or after the [Daystar] debacle it dawned on Witness Lee that religion in and of itself is big business. Why make mobile homes when you can start charging for things you are already doing and market your ministry in multiple money-making formats?

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

LSM was a continuation of Stream Publishers. The only connections I can see with Daystar are:

1. At some point during or after the debacle it dawned on Witness Lee that religion in and of itself is big business. Why make mobile homes when you can start charging for things you are already doing and market your ministry in multiple money-making formats? Of course he still dabbled in other pursuits because he realized with the LC he had a captured audience i.e. selling chairs to churches from one of his son's enterprises in Taiwan, real estate, etc.

After all when you pull aside the "spiritual" MOTA etc. Oz curtain what was Witness Lee? An immigrant enterpreneur who worked very hard trying different things and was ultimately successful in the religion business.

2. To my knowledge he used funds from LSM to pay back those who lent Daystar money and wouldn't forgive their loans.

But IMHO perhaps another and maybe more important question would be:

What if Daystar was a success? What if investors had a high ROI and lenders were paid back at substantial rates of interest? Would we consider that the "Lord's blessing"?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since Living Stream Ministry can be said to have been a result of Daystar, at least in part, then a very enlightening question to the heart of Witness Lee "was the formation of LSM the product of repentance or was it more of the same?"

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I'm not sure the collapse of Daystar had anything to do with the formation of LSM. Stream Publishers became LSM and this could have been for nothing more than marketing purposes i.e. charging a fee for trainings is not really what publishers do but it's what some ministries sometimes do. The word "ministry" gave it a wider range of activities that could fall under it's umbrella.

The big change was leaving LA and moving to Anaheim to set up the "Ministry Station" and all the things that came with it: corporate offices, a training center, printing plant etc. Basically it dawned on Witness Lee and some around him that religion is big business in and of itself. And this enlightening was a process e.g. when they first started charging a fee for trainings you could still take your own tape recorder and tape the meetings. Soon this was nixed and if you wanted the tapes you had to buy them from LSM. Then they came out in printed individual message form and most people bought them too especially if they were on standing order. Then they came out in the "Green Volumes". So basically you were just paying for the same message over and over and over in different formats.

Let it never be said that LSM are not masters of marketing!

Originally Posted by Terry

Thanks Unto and Alwayslearning for your perspectives on The Stream Publishers versus Living Stream Ministry. FYI, when it has come to Lee's or Nee's books, I have had a preference for books published by The Stream Publishers as opposed to LSM. It had not yet been historically revised.

Originally Posted by Terry

History speaks for itself. The bi-annual trainings coincide with the formation of Living Stream Ministry. What I do not understand, with the collapse of Daystar, why did The Stream Publishers need to cease and be replaced by Living Stream Ministry?

Originally Posted by Terry

History speaks for itself. The bi-annual trainings coincide with the formation of Living Stream Ministry. What I do not understand, with the collapse of Daystar, why did The Stream Publishers need to cease and be replaced by Living Stream Ministry?

Originally Posted by Terry

History speaks for itself. The bi-annual trainings coincide with the formation of Living Stream Ministry. What I do not understand, with the collapse of Daystar, why did The Stream Publishers need to cease and be replaced by Living Stream Ministry?

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the aftermath of Daystar, Lee and his new agency -- the Living Stream Ministry -- became awash in cash.

Originally Posted by aron

Otherwise, how could the body of Christ be built up?

Originally Posted by Ohio

In their mind Lee and the Blendeds are "forced" to be honest and speak the "truth" about the "pitiful" condition of today's Christians, hopelessly divided from one another, and living in spiritual fornication by taking names.

Originally Posted by Terry

Most humble you say? If that was the case, I don't think you would hear claims about expressing God's government on the earth, being the select few who can discern the feeling of the Body, etc. No, that is not humility.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Exclusive systems, such as the Recovery and the exclusive Brethren, are breeding grounds for pride and arrogance through the teachings and actions of their leaders. Note that it was not the spiritual men who rose to prominence in those systems, but the ambitious zealots who were able to maneuver their way to the top. Yes, they were very gifted, knowledgeable, and talented, but the love of God was sacrificed in the process. Thus it is easy to see how Laodicea came into existence, then and now.

Witness Lee taught us repeatedly to judge all things Christian. None outside the Recovery were worthy of our respect. Love and humility, far too often, became merely vehicles to capture new ones. Lee taught us to consider his work and ministry as the only acceptable one presently on earth. Eventually even the local churches themselves became a distant second in prominence to the Living Stream Ministry. Most loyal members, however, have no clue what their real history is, and sincerely consider Lee and today's Blendeds as the most humble, spiritual, and godly Christians on earth, and perhaps for all time.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Most loyal members, however, have no clue what their real history is, and sincerely consider Lee and today's Blendeds as the most humble, spiritual, and godly Christians on earth, and perhaps for all time.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, no one in the LRC, myself included, could argue that WL "served the Lord in all humility". This was open for all to see. Likewise, it may be that BP was blinded by his ambition to run a worldwide ministry, let the Lord judge on that, but we all to some extent or other considered ourselves "elite" Christians.

Originally Posted by OBW

I read this over and over and thought you were saying the opposite . . . that Lee DID "serve the Lord in all humility."

Finally it made sense.

But, as I see it, there is still one problem with the sentence. There are many who constantly argue that Lee served the Lord in all humility. It is for them that this forum continues.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, no one in the LRC, myself included, could argue that WL "served the Lord in all humility". This was open for all to see.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes the misdeeds of PL and TL were shielded and I never learned of them until right before I left the LRC.

Originally Posted by aron

It would not be seemly for christians to be dragging one another through the proverbial mud, for all to see. And the Lord warned us not to judge one another, lest we ourselves fall under judgment. Surely if anyone has failed, I have also!

At the same time, if we (for instance) see a spirit of unrelieved mercantilism at work, combined with lording it over the saints and the elevation of the ministries of men, then it behooves us to sound a warning. I know that if I was dominated by such a spirit, hopefully someone would point it out before I arrived at the Judgment Seat, and gave me an opportunity to reconsider my ways.

And it's probably better, and less potentially harmful to one and all, to say, "We see the pattern of a spirit at work here", with as few sordid details as possible. Correction is the key, not ruin; enough have been stumbled already. Remember that when weaker ones see the failures of the stronger ones, they get discouraged, confused, and they often give up. I don't want to be responsible for the discouragement of the 'young sprouts'. They have a potentially long journey ahead of them. Best not to make it longer.

Originally Posted by awareness

They keep the sordid history of the LC hidden. And there's a vast hidden history.

Just google "hidden history of witness lee" to get started.

And I have something that would just blow your mind.

Originally Posted by aron

That is the reason that this forum exists: it is an attempt to tell everything that happened.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

do we get to spectate during the judgment? ...will we observe how this all plays out at the Lord's throne of judgment?

Originally Posted by awareness

Lee was a failure at business time and time again, but came to realize that he had a captive market, and so, became a success at fleecing the sheep. Daystar wasn't the only time he "took their virginity."

Premeditated fleecing makes him a con man.

Making a belt of gold and getting caught trying to smuggle it into Taipei reveals that long before Lee came to America he had dishonesty & malice in his heart.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is where Lee's handlers shielded him from the eyes of the saints. They were able to filter his misdeeds and spin them as spiritual. Being in the GLA, Titus Chu was able to characterize all those around Lee and screwups and rebels, while Lee's pristine image was always maintained as the "face" of the franchise.

To his credit, Witness Lee did live an austere, godly manner of life. Many testified of this. The problem is that his harsh condemnations of all Christianity was never challenge, and instead was viewed as "spiritual maturity." The way he treated the other leading brothers was contemptible, and yet that was viewed as profitable for their "perfecting."

Paul never treated others this way. The brothers around him witnessed the love of God displayed.

Originally Posted by Terry

I might be in error to make such a claim, but there could be some merit to suggest LSM tolerated Titus's work while Lee was alive and after he died until reduction in revenue from the GLA going to LSM became apparent. The climax of the story being some GLA localities opting not to participate in the Harvest House lawsuit.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This speaks precisely about looking at what a person does, not what they say. Paul's very first word is not about what he taught, but rather about his manner of living. When someone's living does not match their teaching that should set off alarm bells. That is one lesson learned from the LRC and WL.

Originally Posted by aron

What do you think about merchandising? Notice that Mark 11:16 says that Jesus "would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." What would Jesus think of the incessant merchandising activities of Lee and his South American counterpart Dong?

My sense is that these were indeed repentant, "converted", born-again brothers, who got bit by the "spirit of Simon Magus", and began to desire to convert genuine Christian seeking into pecuniary relations (i.e. merchandising). Daystar is a very good example of this. But it is clearly not the only example.

The most recent schism, of LSM & GLA & Arvore da Vida, seems to be about merchandising rights, if it is about anything. And my distant remembrance of LSM was that they were rather "laissez faire" (live and let live) until someone touched the cash cow. Suddenly you saw the other side, the stern one.

Rather than being a control freak, maybe Lee was a nice, pleasant, mellow, forebearing brother, as long as the money kept flowing in to Anaheim. When I was meeting there in one of the local churches, he certainly seemed fixated on numbers.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Part of the deterioration over the years was due to the departure of spiritual men who were replaced with zealots and lackeys, whose sole devotion was the furtherance of all things Witness Lee. Part of the deterioration was due to a restructuring of the diet of the common man from the word of God to the words of Witness Lee. Part of the deterioration was the departure of the anointing Spirit of God since Witness Lee had risen to prominence ahead of the Firstborn Son.

Paul's warning (Acts 20.18-36) was to "take heed, watch, remember the pattern he gave us, and to be committed to God and the word of His grace."

Originally Posted by aron

The most recent schism, of LSM & GLA & Arvore da Vida, seems to be about merchandising rights, if it is about anything.

Originally Posted by aron

Balaam was in the OT narrative, Simon Magus in the new. Same spirit, same infection.

Originally Posted by aron

Lee did and taught some seemingly good things, which seemed to make him money (i.e. book, tape, and video sales, training fees, etc). He also did some not-so-good things (i.e. Daystar) which also made him & family some money. The common denominator was making money.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Part of the deterioration was due to a restructuring of the diet of the common man from the word of God to the words of Witness Lee.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I consider this to refer to the error of Balaam.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've been on board with LC "deconstruction" for almost a decade.

So far, the best scripture I have found to describe WL is Acts 20.30.

But your comments about False Teachers from 2 Peter 2.1-3 have application also.

Originally Posted by aron

What do you think about merchandising? Notice that Mark 11:16 says that Jesus "would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." What would Jesus think of the incessant merchandising activities of Lee and his South American counterpart Dong?

My sense is that these were indeed repentant, "converted", born-again brothers, who got bit by the "spirit of Simon Magus", and began to desire to convert genuine Christian seeking into pecuniary relations (i.e. merchandising). Daystar is a very good example of this. But it is clearly not the only example.

The most recent schism, of LSM & GLA & Arvore da Vida, seems to be about merchandising rights, if it is about anything. And my distant remembrance of LSM was that they were rather "laissez faire" (live and let live) until someone touched the cash cow. Suddenly you saw the other side, the stern one.

Rather than being a control freak, maybe Lee was a nice, pleasant, mellow, forebearing brother, as long as the money kept flowing in to Anaheim. When I was meeting there in one of the local churches, he certainly seemed fixated on numbers.

Originally Posted by aron

What do you think about merchandising?

Rather than being a control freak, maybe Lee was a nice, pleasant, mellow, forbearing brother, as long as the money kept flowing in to Anaheim. When I was meeting there in one of the local churches, he certainly seemed fixated on numbers.

Originally Posted by OBW

I cannot make a clear analysis of it all. I'm sure that there was some truth mixed in there, along with emotion. And those "we got the right stuff" teachings surely puffed-up our emotions. Surely a mixed bag.

I would suggest that the best that the LRC ever had to offer that provided any spiritual benefit was its members, not really its teachings. It was the infilling of the Spirit in a collection of what would otherwise have been the pillars in other churches.

I do not say that God was not among us. He is always among those who meet in his name. But not everything that we attribute to God was necessarily His doing.

For example, calling on the Lord is a good thing. Even sometimes in the way of the LRC teachings. But when it becomes a kind of formula for improving your feelings, what is that? And improving feelings is not the stated goal of calling on the Lord. It is, or should be, contacting God. It is not about feelings. They may or may not change. But God is contacted. Yet if the goal is the feelings, then you have to question whether you have actually contacted God or just used a mantra to alter your perception of an unchanged reality. We did not start out in that way, but it seems clear that such things as a directive to call on the Lord jointly, three times, from the toes does nothing but chase away the lingering doubts that things like a kangaroo court in Whistler is not a spiritual activity. Did they really contact God? They said the words. Their feelings surely improved. That has to be from God, right?

Originally Posted by aron

my distant remembrance of LSM was that they were rather "laissez faire" (live and let live) until someone touched the cash cow. Suddenly you saw the other side, the stern one..

Originally Posted by Terry

Having read portions of George Henry Lang's The Churches of God, it's quite helpful and scriptural. The problem some would have is it's counterproductive to a ministry like LSM that would depend to some degree on churches as financial resources. One could assert once a church is no longer a financial resource, it needs to be "replastered" (see Leviticus 14:33-57).

Originally Posted by Ohio

So far, the best scripture I have found to describe WL is Acts 20.30..

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The word "con man" refers to someone who uses a "confidence trick". It is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. This is done by exploiting characteristics of the human psyche (I referred to greed or arrogance, but there are other possibilities).

Originally Posted by Ohio

I could never agree with either of these conclusions.

1. Witness Lee absolutely, definitely, and genuinely was a beloved brother in Christ.

2. Most of the saints, especially in those early days, were attracted to the Recovery because of Christ as the Spirit infilling them through the word of God ministered in the LC's.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One important reason I spend time on this forum is to deconstruct what happened, particularly how to understand WL.

Some consider him to be the "Minister of the Age"

I consider him to be a "False Teacher"

Originally Posted by Ohio

I could never agree with either of these conclusions.

1. Witness Lee absolutely, definitely, and genuinely was a beloved brother in Christ.

2. Most of the saints, especially in those early days, were attracted to the Recovery because of Christ as the Spirit infilling them through the word of God ministered in the LC's.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To my understanding this would imply several things:

1. WL was not a genuine Christian, but always had a motive of defrauding the saints.
2. The saints were attracted to the LRC and WL, not because of Christ but due to greed, arrogance, or some other human failing.

Originally Posted by OBW

I have a little trouble with this. Just because and elder, the founder, or a "trusted" minister turns out to be a con man has no instructive bearing on whether the organization in question is a church.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is completely different. A con man implies the church was never the church and the saints were victims of a con due to their own greed/arrogance.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Besides Sinclair Lewis big claim to fame is that he hates hot dogs and sausage, are you really going to trust a guy like that?

Originally Posted by awareness

How about Elmer Gantry?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is completely different. A con man implies the church was never the church and the saints were victims of a con due to their own greed/arrogance.

A false teacher as warned by Peter/Paul and others suggests that the church was the church, and that WL and WN were merely examples of the wolves we were warned about. Hence this history is part of a continuation of the book of Acts.

WL without any doubt was a very strange "con man". Most cons are temporary, 6 months, a couple of years, etc. Even Bernie Madoff tried to have as little public exposure as possible to limit the amount of time he had to put on the con. WL's "con" was 24/7 for 50+ years. He may have deceived many of us, but without a doubt he deceived himself.

So you cannot compare WL to Paul Newman, Robert Redford or even Bernie Madoff.

Originally Posted by awareness

Potato - Patato, Tomato - Tamato ... If you must. The false teacher conned us.

The outcome is the same. Timothy Lee got rich from Daystar. The Lee's were chased out of Taipei with con in their wake. And continued here.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You were manipulated in a Christian meeting into "investing" in a ministry. You were "guilt-tripped" in a Christian meeting into "forgiving" their debt. You were robbed of what was to you a lot of money. You were deceived by Christian leaders who betrayed your trust. You lost out, but the Lee family lost nothing.

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the aftermath of Daystar, Lee and his new agency -- the Living Stream Ministry -- became awash in cash. They built that new place on Ball Road. Lee got a new crib down the street right next to Philip with 10 foot high walls around it. At the time Anaheim was the nicest, newest, shiniest city I had ever seen. Lee and company had a fresh start, unencumbered by all their debts to God's people.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the correct Biblical term is "false teacher".

Originally Posted by awareness

It wasn't just pathetic bro Ohio, it revealed the true Lee, as a con man.

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the most pathetic things I have ever heard. IIRC it was Dick Taylor who asked the question.

Originally Posted by awareness

Instead when asked about the saints that lost money on Daystar Lee said, "They lost their virginity." Admitting that he screwed them.

Originally Posted by Nell

As a former Daystar investor, I did not recieve my money back. We were "guilt tripped" in a meeting to "forgive" Lee and walk away from our "investment". In the grand scheme, my investment was tiny. To me, it was a lot of money. I didn't have much and couldn't afford much. Looking back, I don't regret forgiving the debt, but I can't help but believe that there was plenty of money that could have and should have been returned to the saints who sacrificed for Daystar.

If it were me, I would not sleep until I paid back every penny loaned to me by the saints, no matter the personal cost to me. The fact that the saints were willing to forgive the debt (and DID forgive the debt) would only make me more determined to pay them back. The fact that Lee let the common folks shoulder the burden for his selfishness makes a clear statement about who the man Witness Lee really was...his character, his integrity (or lack thereof), and his "spirituality". He talked the talk but fell short in walking the walk. He let someone else pay the price.

Originally Posted by Nell

I believe that one day Witness Lee will repent to each of us, one by one, for his sins which he committed against us

Originally Posted by Terry

Exasperating! Not the concept, but that saints would actually subscribe to the notion the ministry aspect of LSM and the business aspect of LSM are distinct. Of course with brother Lee being gone, I have to keep the content in present tense with the blended brothers being the ones at the helm of LSM. Of course the argument can be made decision making is also distinct from the ministry. As to say “therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them”.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Lee said his business (the publishing company) was different from his ministry. That way his ministry stayed pure white like snow even when he hired unspiritual son Philip as Office Manager of the business. The ministry stayed pure while the business could sue people.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Lee said his business (the publishing company) was different from his ministry. That way his ministry stayed pure white like snow even when he hired unspiritual son Philip as Office Manager of the business. The ministry stayed pure while the business could sue people.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You mean Jesus or the Apostles never had their own team of lawyers to silence critics?

Originally Posted by Ohio

You mean Jesus or the Apostles never had their own team of lawyers to silence critics?

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Absolutely and that is why there was so much friction eventually resulting in a division. Titus Chu knew how Witness Lee operated and followed suit only on a smaller scale. Witness Lee served as a figurehead while Titus Chu held the real power and influence in the GLA. Once the figurehead died why would Titus bother to fiddle around with LSM staff except maybe to buy some of their books? Sure he humored them for awhile but anyone on either side who thought they would work well together was living in a dream world! What did he need them for? He's not going to take directives from Witness Lee wannabes 3000 miles away. The division was inevitable.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus Chu only duplicated the things done in Anaheim. Since he had appointed all the elders in Cleveland, there is no way any of them would have listened to Anaheim first, and both Lee and the Blendeds knew that.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is all part and parcel of the whole "slave of God" gig. If you are unable to live by faith then you have no business being a slave of Jesus Christ. I think He said the birds have nests, the foxes have holes, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Titus Chu was smart enough to have outside sources of income and to make Cleveland and other churches beholden to him. This left Witness Lee as a kind of figurehead with no real influence or power in GLA unless it went through Titus.

But let's say Titus didn't do this. To my knowledge he lives in a home that is owned by The Church in Cleveland on the back of the property where the meeting hall is. If not before certainly after Whistler he would have been tossed to the curb. If the LSM execs could have found a way to influence the eldership there or a majority of those who control the assets of the church to go along with their quarantine scheme Titus Chu would be gone in short order. Imagine at his age being kicked out of his home especially if didn't have other sources of income!

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

IMHO it was quite naive for elders and/or coworkers to rely on their income or housing from any church beholden to Witness Lee. Which was basically all of them. It put them in a very precarious position.

Titus Chu was smart enough to have outside sources of income and to make Cleveland and other churches beholden to him. This left Witness Lee as a kind of figurehead with no real influence or power in GLA unless it went through Titus.

But let's say Titus didn't do this. To my knowledge he lives in a home that is owned by The Church in Cleveland on the back of the property where the meeting hall is. If not before certainly after Whistler he would have been tossed to the curb. If the LSM execs could have found a way to influence the eldership there or a majority of those who control the assets of the church to go along with their quarantine scheme Titus Chu would be gone in short order. Imagine at his age being kicked out of his home especially if didn't have other sources of income!

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

IMHO it was quite naive for elders and/or coworkers to rely on their income or housing from any church beholden to Witness Lee. Which was basically all of them. It put them in a very precarious position.

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't have my hymnal with me today, but I recall a hymn singing about every local churches administration being local. If that's the case how can a co-worker/elder be kicked out of church housing?
Does the local church own the homes to support their full-timers or does the ministry?
If the administration of the local church is indeed local, then LSM could not expect tellowship to issue in a full-timer becoming homeless.

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't have my hymnal with me today, but I recall a hymn singing about every local churches administration being local. If that's the case how can a co-worker/elder be kicked out of church housing?
Does the local church own the homes to support their full-timers or does the ministry?
If the administration of the local church is indeed local, then LSM could not expect fellowship to issue in a full-timer becoming homeless.

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

He was the boss of "the work". Period. If you crossed him you were "fired". In some instances this meant coworkers of many years were put out on the street (kicked out of church housing) while their incomes dried up almost instantly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee undermined these healthy scriptural checks and balances by introducing the errant doctrine of "deputy authority." Lee's teachings about deputy authority exist no where in the New testament. Not one verse in the Bible justifies the abuses of rotten leaders with claims to "deputy authority." Witness Lee and his minions, however, would introduce these teachings, apparently endorsed by Watchman Nee, whenever scandals such as Daystar or Philip Lee's indiscretions became public.

Originally Posted by Terry

When one says "we are God's move on the earth", shouldn't you have and hold yourself to higher standards than any earthly government? One that at least is indicative of transparency and accountability.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3 key legs to democracy, all under attack.

1. Freedom of the press (illegal wiretaps of reporters)
2. Congressional oversight (whitewash of reports)
and
3. Right to form parties (IRS scandal of political groups)

We saw the same thing in the LRC

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every human leader needs scrutiny and oversight to prevent the abuse of power. Our public leaders supposedly are monitored by the freedom of the press and congressional oversight. These are absolutely essential to limit the abuse of power.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is why these issues matter and need to be resolved in the church. If we can't deal with WL and PL then how could we ever deal with corruption in the government or a despot?

Originally Posted by Terry

I do believe regardless where the posters and the lurkers meet for fellowship, there is a genuine desire as Christians to hold to a higher standard than secular society. If LSM claim they are not an organization, but part of an organism, the standards and expectations of LSM should be held much higher than echoeing paths of secular society.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I always say the same thing about our current administration -- pay no attention to what they say, rather watch what they do.

Corruption in politics is difficult enough to swallow, and how much more in the church of God.

In my mind, the way Witness Lee treated those who voiced legitimate concerns based on the word of God is no different than the way our current administration has used the IRS to intimidate and silence their opposition.

Rotten politics at LSM? Absolutely!

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Daystar is a critical event in the early history of the LRC in the USA. This event should reveal whether WL merely had poor business acumen or was a fraud.

In looking at this case I would like to focus on WL's actions, not his words.

1. As a business venture promoted to the Saints was this done legitimately, in a way that was above reproach?
2. Was the business carried out in a way that was fully transparent and beyond reproach?
3. When the business failed was a complete and thorough audit done by an independent auditor so that there would be no appearance of evil?
4. Was restitution made so that even though the business suffered a loss, this loss was shared equally by all investors?
5. Was there a public reflection on the errors made with a thorough repentance so that these errors were not repeated?

To me these are the five requirements I have for a man of faith who makes an error due to bad judgment.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Daystar is a critical event in the early history of the LRC in the USA. This event should reveal whether WL merely had poor business acumen or was a fraud.

In looking at this case I would like to focus on WL's actions, not his words.

1. As a business venture promoted to the Saints was this done legitimately, in a way that was above reproach?
2. Was the business carried out in a way that was fully transparent and beyond reproach?
3. When the business failed was a complete and thorough audit done by an independent auditor so that there would be no appearance of evil?
4. Was restitution made so that even though the business suffered a loss, this loss was shared equally by all investors?
5. Was there a public reflection on the errors made with a thorough repentance so that these errors were not repeated?

To me these are the five requirements I have for a man of faith who makes an error due to bad judgment.

Originally Posted by Terry

Speaking to brothers who were in investment meetings, I don't recall the word risk ever being used. Rather their investment was guaranteed a return.

I don't see Daystar as a fraud. It was done apparently skirting business laws. If Daystar was a fraud, no one would have been compensated for their investment.

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't see Daystar as a fraud. It was done apparently skirting business laws. If Daystar was a fraud, no one would have been compensated for their investment.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This event should reveal whether WL merely had poor business acumen or was a fraud.

Originally Posted by Terry

I don't see Daystar as a fraud. It was done apparently skirting business laws. If Daystar was a fraud, no one would have been compensated for their investment.
Can you say it was mismanaged?
Can you say it lacked transparency?
Can you say it was illegal?

TR said so and for TR's function as a whistleblower, JB had him removed from fellowship.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, only a fool would think that it was a coincidence that the investment WL had was "guaranteed" to make money while the investment that the LRC took had 100% of the risk.

Had this been done properly at the start it would be evidence that it wasn't a scam from the get go, but there is no evidence of that. Again, all of the evidence points to fraud.

Originally Posted by OBW

But as I understand it, the manufacturer was virtually guaranteed a profit while the sales company (what all the members invested in) pre-purchased their inventory and were stuck with it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Daystar was to be the Motorhome Of The Age (MOTA).


I'm surprised LSM hasn't bought a vintage Daystar to place on display at their new campus facility. Think about the caption, "MOTA that launched LSM." They could post pictures of Timothy Lee, the first president, along with that pretty sister in a bikini who modeled the MOTA. Why would Bibles For America staff cruise the country in a competitor's second class motor home? Have they no shame? Have they forgotten their rich heritage?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Another site had this caption, "The Daystar, built in 1975, utilized a Dodge chassis as a foundation for its design. The eye-catching design boasted an all COR-TEN steel body and teak interior and purportedly sold over $70,000. Only 16 were ever built, making this unique motor-home one of the rarest ever built."

Caption on this pic say, "Included as it appears older. Amazing old world craftsmanship evident in the full teak interior. This Daystar is 1 of 16 ever made. Owner's uncle won it in a poker game back in '76. Actually, he won a Cessna - then proceeded to fly the plane having never done so. And drunk. Crashed the plane attempting to take off, then traded the Cessna for the Daystar. All in ONE night!"

Another site said, "The Daystar came into being desiring to be the premier motorhome of the age. Everything was done in five-star class. 24 karat gold plated faucets in the bath. Genuine Italian marble or onyx vanity tops. 100% virgin wool carpet AND, at the time the only full size bath tub in any motorhome on the market.

At the Los Angeles RV show in '74 or '75 a woman was seen exiting the Daystar, weeping. When asked why she was crying, she said that she had just bought a Barth at well over $100,000 and it was not nearly as well appointed as the Daystar.

They were custom finished to the buyers specs. The Texas model was sold to an avid University of Texas alumni and sported bucksin leather seats, and a burnt orange and white paint job among other things."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yup ... superb craftsmanship!



Daystar is listed with a collection of Old & Unusual Motorhomes.

Caption says, "This 1975 Daystar, with a luxurious teak wood interior, is one of only 16 made by Daystar Motorhomes of Compton Cal. Could it have possibly been the front grill design that did the company in?"

Originally Posted by Terry

From everything I've read on Daystar as an RV, there are very few RV's that could measure up to the Daystar's craftmanship.

Originally Posted by OBW

Z,

You first question is the one that is most significant to me. It is the fact that it was promoted. It was a solicitation to invest. I believe that means it is subject to SEC rules. And there is no indication that they even allowed any state to know that the companies involved existed. No registrations. Therefore they skirted (illegally) all of the rules.

Therefore, the promotion could not be above reproach because it would appear that the whole thing was done in a manner full of reproach. Full of deceit.

And the alleged fact that the companies were not registered anywhere would indicate that they never had to reflect why they ceased filing anything. They just quit operating. Someone suggested that they did not file bankruptcy. That is probably because that would bring the companies into the light. And these companies needed darkness, not light. No. They just stopped operating.

That is my opinion based on the observations and reporting of many others in the threads here and on the Bereans that have covered it in the past. I cannot verify their accuracy. I lost nothing on it. Too young to have anything to invest. But my dad did. But I think he figured it would never make a return anyway and considered it gone when he wrote the check. But not too many could take that position.

Originally Posted by Terry

ZNP, I'd say neither. From everything I've read on Daystar as an RV, there are very few RV's that could measure up to the Daystar's craftmanship. I believe it was more fateful timing than poor judgment or fraud.

Originally Posted by Terry

ZNP, I'd say neither. From everything I've read on Daystar as an RV, there are very few RV's that could measure up to the Daystar's craftmanship. I believe it was more fateful timing than poor judgment or fraud. In response to your questions;
1. NO
2. NO
3. Not that I ever heard of.
4. Who knows who all the investors were? My dad and another brother I know who invested did recoup their investment.
5. NO

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Daystar is a critical event in the early history of the LRC in the USA. This event should reveal whether WL merely had poor business acumen or was a fraud.

In looking at this case I would like to focus on WL's actions, not his words.

1. As a business venture promoted to the Saints was this done legitimately, in a way that was above reproach?
2. Was the business carried out in a way that was fully transparent and beyond reproach?
3. When the business failed was a complete and thorough audit done by an independent auditor so that there would be no appearance of evil?
4. Was restitution made so that even though the business suffered a loss, this loss was shared equally by all investors?
5. Was there a public reflection on the errors made with a thorough repentance so that these errors were not repeated?

To me these are the five requirements I have for a man of faith who makes an error due to bad judgment.