Quote:
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.
|
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. Seems that if some Christians join together to "do church" however they decide that is, they are church. They may have taken their first steps already full of Jezebel-type problems, but it does not deny that they are "church."
(Of course, you do actually say "the church" rather than "a church." I have been assuming that you did not mean it in the way that the LRC typically does — that they are "the church" and the others are harlots. If I am wrong and it is what you meant, then I would say that there is no implication required. They never were something exclusive as "the church" that "implied" all others were not "the church." No con man required there. It just ain't so.)
And unless you are using the term "con" in a very narrow way, there is no requirement that people who fall prey to a con man be greedy or arrogant. It could be true, but is not presumed. The only obvious attribute for the people conned is "ignorant." Ignorant of the con. Unable to discern the truth related to the shell game playing out in front of them.
It could be greed or arrogance that causes them to ignore the warning signs. But it also could be more for the purpose of the investment (for the ministry or the churches) rather than the size of the return, therefore merely blinded from the obvious. Such as people conning others out of money by selling a service, money up front, then never producing and being nowhere to be found. That is more the result of being overly trusting and not thinking it through.
And the obvious thing is that people in the auto industry are typically unsuccessful starting up their own new auto companies. How is it that a bunch of people, none of which have any knowledge about the motor home industry other than the fact that it is about building and selling motor homes, are being accepted as viable developers of yet another new line of motor homes? Why was this not the first question asked? Because we were mostly being sold an "investment in the kingdom."
(Forget the oil embargo. Despite the glitzy interior and fancy finish, there were problems with the few that
were built from day one. Without some major changes in production, they weren't going to sell more than a few of them anyway. The sudden jump in oil prices was just the final nail in the coffin.)
Yes. A bait and switch. We (allegedly) invested in the kingdom through a business that built and sold motor homes and were successful only in turning over our money to someone else without any evidence of benefit to the kingdom, the "ministry," the churches, or even our own pocketbooks.
(Note that I was a poor high school and college student at that time, so I was not invested in it at all. "We" does not actually include me.)
Of course, this is kind of funny when applied to a group that is so sure about their discernment and about everyone else's lack thereof.
Concerning the rest of your post, it is correct that any particular con typically lasts only a short time. And most of the time the same people will not fall for a second con from the same person. But this is mostly true with respect to the stranger who brings a con from the outset. There is no alternate history with the person to cloud the judgment.
With Lee, the cons could not be as flamboyant, but the results were no less real. Most of us just passed it off as a bad idea from a person trying to delve into an area that was not their forte. Since we did not have the Taiwan history in front of us, we could pass it off and let Lee continue as a minister. (Not thinking too clearly, were we. Even one such financial fiasco should have been a red flag.) But it is a shame that the truth about Daystar and all the shenanigans that went on with it were so hidden. Even such statements as that "lost their virginity" line would have really caused an uproar that they could not control. But cloak the whole thing in an "it is for the ministry" or "for the churches" banner and we too quickly stop looking so closely.