The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson

[UntoHim]

www.TheThreadofGold.com
Home of
The Thread of Gold
By
Jane Carole Anderson

"This book, The Thread of Gold: God's Purpose, the Cross, and Me, tells the true story of Jane Carole Anderson’s twenty-year journey through the Local Church of Witness Lee. It reveals her discovery of the powerful and practical message of the cross, one that saved her from deception and revealed God’s purpose for her life.

The author writes, 'When your goal is to know God, you will find an amazing thread of gold being woven into the details of your life and circumstances. That golden thread will be your very own, unique, personal experience of Him. You will come to know Him as One who takes care of everything concerning you—from commonplace things to the deeply significant matters of the heart. I know Him as both the God who takes care of my washing machine and the God who wipes away my tears. In His way and time, He will unfold the unique purpose He has for your life. Ultimately, you and your thread of gold will remain forever, perfectly woven together with millions of others and their threads of gold into God's masterpiece, and put on display for eternity.'

We at Protus Publications are truly thankful that The Thread of Gold has already been helpful to a number of people as evidenced by those who have given us feedback. We continue to pray that God will put this book into the hands of all those whom He desires to receive it"

-----------------------------------------------------

Chapter 1
Into the Pit

The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying: “Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.”
(Jer. 31:3)

IN THE SPRING OF 1977, MY HUSBAND AND I DRAGGED our bodies home
after a church meeting in Houston, Texas. During that meeting, I was publicly
humiliated; and after it, I was further shamed, censured, and ostracized. I had
sensed God’s nearness throughout everything that had transpired until that
night, and then it seemed that He had abandoned me to this horrible
experience. Those I loved had cast me into a pit of spiritual darkness and left
me there to languish alone. I went to bed still sobbing as I continued to relive
what had happened.

That Meeting

I was upset, nervous, and fearful as I sat there, waiting for Dan Williams to
speak. I had been in this condition since the time I had been told, several days
earlier, that my attendance in this meeting was mandatory. Dan was an elder
and regional leader from a church in another city who had traveled to Houston
with the purpose of holding this meeting. He was a tall, thin man who always
wore a longsleeved white shirt, a thin tie, and dark pants. He was sitting
forward in his chair on the front row jiggling one of his legs up and down
periodically. Then he rose and began to speak. He asked that the tape
recorder be turned off. This request was extremely unusual and, therefore,
foreboding.

Because of events in the preceding weeks, I knew whatever was coming wasn’t
going to be good. When Dan began to speak, he announced that there was a
“sisters’ rebellion” in the Texas churches and that the sister leading this
rebellion was in the Houston church. According to him, this sister had
committed serious offenses against the church. She and others with her had
encouraged people to open up and talk about their problems. According to
Dan, this was the same as encouraging people to vomit. He disapprovingly
said that when these sisters had told people to pray and wait for direction from
the Lord, they were advocating “passivity.”

As I had sat there listening to him, I had no doubt that I was the person about
whom he was speaking. Though he didn’t mention my name, many people in
the church had already heard I was in trouble and had stopped speaking to me
because of what was considered to be my “leprous condition.”

Dan declared that these rebellious sisters had opposed the Lord’s present
move in the church and had caused a serious division. He proclaimed that they
were seeking to be spiritual giants and that this was unacceptable in what he
called the age of the body, the corporate expression of Christ. Because of
their spiritual self-seeking, they had become deceived. Satan had used them
to cause serious error and trouble and, hence, to damage the church. At one
point, he stated his belief that sisters didn’t have any spiritual discernment,
and that they were, therefore, easy prey for Satan’s deception. He also stated
his belief that sisters could not receive revelation from the Bible. He continued
speaking for a long period of time, informing church members about the
evilness of the sisters’ rebellion and stating that any evidence of such rebellion
would not be tolerated.

A large knot of nausea and almost pain was throbbing in my stomach as I sat
there listening, feeling like time had been cruelly suspended so that the wound
I was receiving would be the deepest possible. When I ventured a glance
around the room, hoping for anyone, anything that might be able to stop this
nightmare, all I saw were faces glancing back at me with looks of pity. Dan
finally concluded his message: “One of these sisters hasn’t repented or talked
to us. You know who you are. After this meeting, come to the fellowship room.”
My husband and I knew he meant me. It apparently hadn’t been enough to put
me in a public coffin; he needed to nail it shut.

The Inquisition

With many eyes on us, we crossed the meeting hall and entered the fellowship
room. I felt like I was being summoned to the Inquisition. Dan was waiting there
with a number of others who had been invited to attend as witnesses. Most of
the local elders were present. One of their wives was present. An elder from a
third locality was also there. A number of sisters were there, including some
that had become members of the church through our efforts and had lived in
our home for a long period of time. It appeared that the elders wanted them to
be clear that I was not to be trusted. I was directed to sit down on the end of a
couch. Most of the people present were sitting on folding chairs in a semicircle
across the room from me. My husband was given a seat with them. Others
were standing.

A folding chair was on my right side, about a foot away from the couch. Dan
turned it to face me and then sat down. Looking at me, he began repeating in
judgment of me his pronouncements from the public meeting. He offered no
specific facts and no clear examples of my “rebellion.” He asked me nothing. I
did not understand his vague accusations. One of these was, “…and the
shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.” I had no idea what he was
talking about, but thought that by “one of us” he might mean one of the elders.
I wondered if his comment referred to a local elder named Steve Smith, who
had broken down and wept in front of me and a few others several weeks
before this. Steve was not present in the room that night.

Dan informed me that he knew all about the “secret meeting” we had planned
for the spring. However, this was news to me because I didn’t know anything
about it. He said that all my rebellious, negative speaking had “come to their
ears,” revealing a conspiracy among the sisters that was undermining the
elders and church oneness. Maybe he used the biblical phrase “come to our
ears” to try and give scriptural support to what he was doing. He wasn’t
interested in learning whether I realized I was the leader of what he was calling
a sisters’ rebellion. He told me emphatically that I needed to repent for my
offense to the church, and from that day forward, I was to “stop all my talk and
be quiet.”

I sobbed throughout his monologue. His non-specific accusations left me
feeling that my person was being attacked. Near the end of the torment, I said,
“The only solution I can see is just to dig a hole about six feet deep and put me
in it. I think the problem is just who I am.”

I also told him, “Whatever has happened, it isn’t my husband’s fault. It’s mine.”
At this point, another of the elders present, who always seemed to be lurking in
the background, Sam Jones, chuckled and said, “I always wondered why the
Lord put you two together, and now I know.” I had no idea what he meant by
this strange statement. Why had he always wondered this? What did he now
know? I certainly didn’t understand his apparent amusement. How could
anyone find anything funny in what was happening at that black moment in that
room? I was weeping and in extreme distress, yet he found humor in the
situation? Sam’s comment, at best, was thoughtless and cruel.

Later that night at home in bed, I tried to pray, but I couldn’t. I was experiencing
an internal, spiritual, and emotional agony. How had such darkness swallowed
us? I had belonged to Jesus since I was a child, and He had never failed me.
Where was He now? I felt like I was suffocating in a deep, dark pit filled with
blackness.

Copyright 2005 by Jane Carole Anderson

[Ohio]

Thankful Jane, I have a question about the book Thread of Gold ...

On page 195, you talked about the promotion of Daystar in Houston. This seemed to be after that 1977 Memorial Day weekend quarantine and after the death of your mother in law.

I was under the impression that Daystar solicitations were several years earlier in time, more like the early 70's, and that by '75 or so, Max R. was traveling around requesting the saints to "forgive" these as "donations."

Can you clarify this?

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thankful Jane, I have a question about the book Thread of Gold ...

On page 195, you talked about the promotion of Daystar in Houston. This seemed to be after that 1977 Memorial Day weekend quarantine and after the death of your mother in law.

I was under the impression that Daystar solicitations were several years earlier in time, more like the early 70's, and that by '75 or so, Max R. was traveling around requesting the saints to "forgive" these as "donations."

Can you clarify this?

Hi Ohio,

Another reader asked us this question in 2006. The following a summary of the answer we gave the inquirer:

My husband and I just finished discussing the question you asked. In our discussion we uncovered the problem with what is in chapter 13 about the inheritance money:

John remembered that he had actually asked his mother for a loan so that we could invest in Daystar. He did not tell her the reason for the loan. She answered his request by giving him the money, but with the condition that it would be deducted from his inheritance at the time of her death. So when she died in 1977, we received notification that John’s share of the inheritance was less the amount of the loan, as John had agreed.

At the time I was writing the book, what I remembered was that her death and the Daystar money were associated. I wrongly concluded from this memory that we had given it to Daystar after we had received the inheritance in 1977, when in actuality we had given it several years before. John and I probably missed the timing discrepancy when we were editing and reviewing the final version of the book, because the dates related to Daystar were not that important to us. The main point I was seeking to make by including a little about Daystar was that we were also being hurt financially.

In the disclaimer to the book we state that all dates are accurate to the best of our ability. We are very open to any information that helps us improve the accuracy of the dates in our book. This matter will be corrected in future editions of the book, if there are any. We are sorry for any confusion this error may have caused you, and we thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Hope this helps.

Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The main point I was seeking to make by including a little about Daystar was that we were also being hurt financially

Thanks much for the clarification.

What was really troubling to me was these comments about Daystar ...

A business venture named "Daystar" was being promoted by the brothers for Brother Lee with the stated purpose to raise money for the lord's Recovery. Church members were told that this was an opportunity that we should not pass by. There was no guarantee of return on any investments we made, but because the Lord would surely bless Brother Lee's endeavor for the sake of the Recovery, we were strongly encouraged to do whatever we could to participate...

Daystar was ultimately a miserable failure, and all investments were lost. In Houston and in other churches, those who invested were asked to release Brother Lee from all obligations ...

Looking back, it's just amazing how WL was given such a free pass for his miserable failures, including Daystar. If God was truly for this investment endeavor, do you really think rising gas prices due to the OPEC Cartel could have destroyed this fledgling enterprise? Was our God so grossly incompetent in global monetary affairs to have allowed this horrible misfortune to occur? Or was this just a coincidentally freakish business mishap? How could WL know the oil markets of the day? It could have happened to anyone!?!

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Looking back, it's just amazing how WL was given such a free pass for his miserable failures, including Daystar.

In order to motivate the sheep to officially release Witness Lee from all financial obligations, they also told us that Lee was a crushed, broken man, who was grieving before the Lord, barely able to raise his head (or language similar to this) because of the pain he felt over having hurt the saints. I remember, at the time, that the words they used caused me to form a mental picture of Witness Lee on his knees weeping before the Lord. Of course, this started my emotional heart strings playing, and I joined John in gladly signing away any hope of the return of his mother's hard earned money--money she wanted her son to have.

While writing the book, I remember asking myself if had I taken money from others and hurt them as Lee did, what would I have done? Would I have paid it back later, if I became able to do so? My answer was, "Absolutely, yes." I would not want to give account to the Lord for the harm I had caused to His children. I would want to restore what I had taken from them, no matter how long it took.

After the book was published, a brother who had been an elder on the east coast during the 70s, told me that he had seen a copy of Witness Lee's income tax return in the late 70s (77 I think) and that Lee had made a million dollars that year (just a few years after we had released him). I remember saying, "What!!!???" How could that be? I asked, "If he had income like that, why didn't pay us back!?"

So, I feel like asking again today, "If the portrait they painted for us of Witness Lee's post-Daystar-gig condition was a true one, then why didn't Lee pay his brethren back before he died?" (I suspect that the "broken man" picture we heard in Texas was more likely an embellishment of Ray Graver's imagination which was designed to more easily manipulate the sheep.) But okay, let's say he was a broken man and he couldn't make any pay-back in the 70s, then why not do so before the end of his life--especially when he was so repentant, and all that, on his near death bed. How about adding to his parting words, "Oh, and you newly appointed blended ones, see that money goes to pay back every one I hurt financially in the 70s, even the 'little potato' contributors." Surely, funding by that time was not a problem. I mean, didn't "pay-back-my-debts-to-my-brothers" belong higher up the Blendeds To Do list than "spend-millions-to-sue-other-believers-and-defend-the-ministry"?

Jesus paid a huge debt for us--one he didn't owe us. So why wouldn't a man who was "becoming God" find it important to make retribution of money he did owe (not legally, of course, but certainly as a Christian leader who used his position and our regard for him in an highly questionable way)? It seems it was more important to Lee to build a god-man publishing empire and make a god-name for himself than to do what was truly godly and right.

Originally Posted by Ohio

If God was truly for this investment endeavor, do you really think rising gas prices due to the OPEC Cartel could have destroyed this fledgling enterprise? Was our God so grossly incompetent in global monetary affairs to have allowed this horrible misfortune to occur? Or was this just a coincidentally freakish business mishap? How could WL know the oil markets of the day? It could have happened to anyone!?!

I suppose that those of us who invested should also ask ourselves about our own motivation for putting money into Daystar. Were we just a bit too anxious to make money, a return on our investment, (ah hmm, for "the Lord's Recovery")? Was that a factor in our easily being tempted to run out and "sell our possessions" and lay their price at the feet of our very own apostle?

History seems to say pretty clearly that personal gain was a factor on all sides of the equation. It also says, "Apostle? No. Bernie, who then Made Off with the money? Yes."


Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

In order to motivate the sheep to officially release Witness Lee from all financial obligations, they also told us that Lee was a crushed, broken man, who was grieving before the Lord, barely able to raise his head (or language similar to this) because of the pain he felt over having hurt the saints. I remember, at the time, that the words they used caused me to form a mental picture of Witness Lee on his knees weeping before the Lord. Of course, this started my emotional heart strings playing, and I joined John in gladly signing away any hope of the return of his mother's hard earned money--money she wanted her son to have.

This public relations spin by Max, Graver, and others was simply a transfer of responsibility using guilt to manipulate God's children. Thankful, I thought it was you who cried yourself to sleep every night after getting tongue-whipped by BP and shunned by all the saints? Now you and your husband are supposed to feel guilty about someone who just solicited your money in church meetings and then squandered it on ill-conceived business ventures? What's wrong with this picture, folks?

Fortunately, the all-knowing Apostle had enough sense to keep a million bucks for himself, so that "all was not lost." That sinking ship had only one life preserver, and it was kept in WL's safe deposit box.

I definitely agree with you about payback on debts. Why did WL and the LSM higher-ups never once consider the righteousness of reimbursing the initial investments of the saints? Annual trainings became quite lucrative for LSM, and it quite easily could have made good on her debts. Why was this never done. They preach kingdom righteousness to everyone else, but never lived it themselves. Isn't that what the Lord Jesus called hypocrisy?

You mention Bernie Made-Off with all the money. Good example! My son is a financial research analyst for a large university endowment. He regularly examines hedge fund managers and their portfolios. One absolute criteria he uses is the personal stake each manager has vested in his own fund. In other words, when things turn sour, how will the manager fare? Does he have a golden parachute for just himself?

Not one single analyst in the entire financial world would have endorsed the Daystar fund. Why? WL had nothing to lose! He was gambling with others' money.

[bookworm]

I have been attempting to follow the postings on this thread recently and feel there has been quite a bit of confusion. The title of this thread is The Thread of Gold, regarding the book written by Jane Anderson.

Post #9 by Terry quotes from this book and asks a general question, "What is the problem with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" As one who has read The Thread of Gold, I see where Terry is coming from. His question is in light of Jane Anderson getting into trouble because (as is described on pages 161-162 of the book) she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses. However, Ray Graver got upset when the discussion of opening up and getting help exposed that another elder (of all people---an all-knowing elder who is supposed always to have it altogether and have all the answers) was in need of help.

This is part of what triggered Benson Phillips' accusing Jane of being part of a "sisters' rebellion" in the Texas churches. This is what is described in The Thread of Gold.

ZNPaaneah then states in post #10, "I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down. But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.”

Such a statement is completely out of context of the prior conversations regarding "sisters' rebellion in the Texas churches." Therefore –even though ZNPaaneah uses the word "obvious" he is making an assumption regarding the LSM Ministry in Anaheim and stating because of that the elders "create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices" when in reality these teachings and practices were already in play from the inception of the so-called local churches as is clearly illustrated in The Thread of Gold.

It appears this has caused a series of misunderstandings in the discourse on this thread. It pains me to see such words as "despicable" and "insulting" as seen in post #42.

[UntoHim]

Thanks much to bookworm for the last post, I think that cut to the heart of the matter.

How ironic that some "problems" have taken place between some posters here, and it partially springs from discussions regarding "Jane Anderson getting into trouble because...she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses." Does anybody else see a problem with this?

I think our brother ZNP has gotten himself into a bit of a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Much of what Jane experienced should be taken into the context of what was taking place in her Local Church and region (I think this is clear in the book TOG) I think it's a mistake to try and transfer these events to what was happening in other churches, regions or the whole LC movement for that matter. This is not to say that some of the same abuses where also happening in other places (for we know they were) it's just that the book is recounting Jane's personal experience and everything should be kept in that context.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Much of what Jane experienced should be taken into the context of what was taking place in her Local Church and region (I think this is clear in the book TOG) I think it's a mistake to try and transfer these events to what was happening in other churches, regions or the whole LC movement for that matter. This is not to say that some of the same abuses where also happening in other places (for we know they were) it's just that the book is recounting Jane's personal experience and everything should be kept in that context.

Yes and no.

And I should add, as an outside reader, I just don't understand the current conflict on this thread because it didn't seem to me that ZNP intentionally tried to incite trouble. But that's just me. I am one of those brothers called "foolish and slow of heart" on the long and winding road to Emmaus.

Since much has been said about so-called "sisters' rebellions" being squelched, in both Houston and Anaheim back in 1977, by leaders who were in communication with each other, it's legitimate to compare the two places. Thankful herself has connected the two events, partly due to public comments made by BP in the annual training to discredit Thankful and her book.

I do believe the "connection" has helped to explain some of the behind-the-scenes activity that appeared so confusing to us regular "common" folk back in spring of '77. Part of my education on this forum has been to have the motives and inner workings of LSM exposed for all to see. LSM has a long history of dissembling "rebellions" to cover up their abusive ways.

The events surrounding Thankful's so-called "discipline" by BP is one important piece of a larger puzzle, which was surreptitiously hidden from the saints in the Recovery, especially in Texas. The events surrounding Sandee Rapoport and her public shaming were another interconnecting piece of the puzzle. I believe after the book ToG was written, Thankful contacted SR and learned of the connection. So, if we "strictly" post according to the letter of the law on this thread, we should limit all discussion to the book; but if we expand discussion to related events, especially those which Thankful has herself connected, then ZNP's queries are legitimate, and even welcome and helpful.

Either side can feel free to correct me if they feel what I have posted it not exactly right.

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes and no....

I agree and believe such an expanded discussion involving such strong opinions (not just queries) would be best placed on a new thread.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes and no.

And I should add, as an outside reader, I just don't understand the current conflict on this thread because it didn't seem to me that ZNP intentionally tried to incite trouble. But that's just me. I am one of those brothers called "foolish and slow of heart" on the long and winding road to Emmaus.

Since much has been said about so-called "sisters' rebellions" being squelched, in both Houston and Anaheim back in 1977, by leaders who were in communication with each other, it's legitimate to compare the two places. Thankful herself has connected the two events, partly due to public comments made by BP in the annual training to discredit Thankful and her book.

I do believe the "connection" has helped to explain some of the behind-the-scenes activity that appeared so confusing to us regular "common" folk back in spring of '77. Part of my education on this forum has been to have the motives and inner workings of LSM exposed for all to see. LSM has a long history of dissembling "rebellions" to cover up their abusive ways.

The events surrounding Thankful's so-called "discipline" by BP is one important piece of a larger puzzle, which was surreptitiously hidden from the saints in the Recovery, especially in Texas. The events surrounding Sandee Rapoport and her public shaming were another interconnecting piece of the puzzle. I believe after the book ToG was written, Thankful contacted SR and learned of the connection. So, if we "strictly" post according to the letter of the law on this thread, we should limit all discussion to the book; but if we expand discussion to related events, especially those which Thankful has herself connected, then ZNP's queries are legitimate, and even welcome and helpful.

Either side can feel free to correct me if they feel what I have posted it not exactly right.

I just have a few minutes so this will be quick. I agree with what you wrote, Ohio. There is no problem discussing both Anaheim and Texas sisters' events on this thread because they are interrelated. The problem on the thread started when I tried to correct a statement by ZNP that I found to be inaccurate (you'll have to do some re-reading to see what I'm referring to.) Things went south from there mostly due to communication/writing/understanding difficulties. Overall, I am in agreement with many of the things ZNP has written; I just didn't comment on those and only took time to address what I found to be inaccurate. That's what caused the baby tarbaby.

I believe we will be able to get things cleared up later when I have some time. So everyone carry on and keep pressing on towards glory!

Jane

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

"...everyone carry on and keep pressing on towards glory!"

Now that, sister, is worth quoting.

I post less frequently than I used to because that's exactly what I've been doing - "forgetting the things which are behind and reaching forth to those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Phillipians 3:13.

Brothers and Sisters, praise the Lord that He saw us out of a religous system which didn't differ in reality from any other controlling pseudo-Christian guru-lead movement in the past or present. Praise Him that our chains are gone and we've been set free! Please brethren, now that you've been freed, press forward toward the mark, and forget the things which are behind.

I believe I need to say that if you feel called to witness here about what you went through, in the hopes of helping others - well, that's between you and God, and I have no right to tell you to do otherwise... But please hear me because I only want to sound a cautionary note:

If there are, and I suppose that there are, real and current members of LSM churches here, then is this really the best way to open their eyes? I have found, in speaking myself to many, that when events of the past are raised then immediately their hands go up, and they refuse to hear you. I have heard them rebut me with things like:

"We shouldn't go there. The Lord has moved on, and so should we."

or

"You've been drinking from a poisoned well. You should be very careful about where you draw your water from."

or my favorite, the emphatic:

"God could speak through an ass if He wanted to!" (apparently comparing Lee's speaking to the speaking of Balaam's donkey - as if that lends Lee any more credibility!).

My feeling, my conviction, is that if you want to help people find a real and living relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ, digging into a past of which they may or may not be aware is not the way to gain them. They're on a dark path, following a blind man or a corrupt man, depending upon your point of view - and yelling to them that the path is dark and treacherous won't really help them - they're on it and they can't see a way off... they'll just keep following the leader because that's the easiest thing to do. What you need to do, what we all need to do together, is shine some light. What we need to do is call them into that light. Show them the straight and narrow way; and seeing it, they will really see.

In Christ,

NeitherFirstnorLast

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by bookworm

Post #9 by Terry quotes from this book and asks a general question, "What is the problem with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?" As one who has read The Thread of Gold, I see where Terry is coming from. His question is in light of Jane Anderson getting into trouble because (as is described on pages 161-162 of the book) she and an elder's wife were realizing the benefit of helping one another and praying for one another regarding problems/weaknesses. However, Ray Graver got upset when the discussion of opening up and getting help exposed that another elder (of all people---an all-knowing elder who is supposed always to have it altogether and have all the answers) was in need of help.

This is part of what triggered Benson Phillips' accusing Jane of being part of a "sisters' rebellion" in the Texas churches. This is what is described in The Thread of Gold.

What upset Ray? Was it because a sister helped an elder? Would he had been as upset if it had come from John? Was it because an elder didn't have it together?

This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
James 1:19-20

As for what happened to Jane, was it the result of this event or was it the result of multiple events like it?
I have more to say, but I must postpone until later.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Terry

As for what happened to Jane, was it the result of this event or was it the result of multiple events like it?
I have more to say, but I must postpone until later.

May not be the case, but take it into consideration. Marriage is difficult enough. In marriage two individuals becoming a couple. It's difficult enough adapting from being an individual to one half of a couple. Probably happened on a larger scale in the local churches during the 1970's compared to the last 20 years, that is third party involvment of match-making or match-breaking. Before I proceed further, it would help if more seasoned brothers and sisters (Ohio, UntoHim, Bookworm, etc) could confirm or deny my assertion.

During the 1970's there were couples paired up not according to their preferences, but according to preferences of leading brothers and leading sisters. How strong were these marriages going to be? They could very well be soulmates or they could be two individuals in a marriage who had very little in common. When you have very little in your soul bonding the marriage, for some couples it could had been just the local church enviornment keeping the marriage intact. For some couples the sister could very well be 100% committed to the marriage, but for the brother the marriage took a backseat to the ministry. This could be some of the issues married couples endured. For example the wife could get into an argument with her husband basically saying she wants the humanity of her husband and not an overly spiritual brother. Her husband doesn't take her words to heart and they leave for the meeting with the problem unresolved. When they arrive at the meeting, it's as the on/off switch is turned on. Everything is grand and he doesn't have a problem, praising and giving God the glory. However the wife sits quietly, doesn't make an issue, but inside she isn't fooled by his charade. I'm not saying this did happen, only asserting it could have happened.

This could be problems referenced in The Thread of Gold pages 161-162. Sisters speaking about expecting more from their husband, offended brothers such as Benson and Ray. This in addition to Ray witnessing a co-elder breakdown in front of him. I believe most of us would have been moved with compassion had we witnessed such an event. Certainly not a matter to be offended about.
Ironically what happened in that couples apartment on that night in 1977 (?) would not be condemned in anything I have experienced. It is an example of an elder being shepherded by non-elders. It is needed for a home meeting to become vital.
My point is if this is what Jane was condemned for and Benson bringing it back up during the 2005 Winter training, had the local church saints really known what Jane was disciplined for, their reaction might be exasperation.

[bookworm]

When Jane and the elder's wife in Houston in the late 1970s started to speak about helping one another through difficult times evidently this was perceived as a threat to the "real purpose" of the LC—especially when it brought to light a needy elder.

A result of the Local Church becoming so very exclusive (special, THE building of THE Church), was the refusal of the leaders being open to anything of "poor Christianity" including Biblical marriage counseling.

My own experience was that after many years of marriage when I went to an elder and his wife for help at a very difficult time in my marriage the advice I was given was to forgive my husband (who was not attending the meetings at the time) and do what I could to get him back into the meetings. When I specifically asked about counseling for us, I was told that the answer was "getting back into the meetings." This was in the early 1980s in Texas. So by that time the mindset for sure was the only answer is the LC and the meetings. Obviously the Local Church had no "marriage counseling service group" or such. There was no provision for giving guidance (even scripturally based) to couples through difficult times.

Clearly the Local Church had only one focus: God's eternal purpose for building the Church. The mindset was very strong that we were to "get out of our minds and turn to our spirits" and be in the meetings and all would be taken care of; the army had to set the mind on the spirit and carry on. There was no consideration of God's purpose and design for marriage despite all the talk in the LC about Christ and the Church as His bridegroom.

This form of "brainwashing" does nothing to promote love for one another in the body of Christ and it does nothing to encourage a married man and woman to love and value each other and love and value the children they are blessed with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bookworm

This form of "brainwashing" does nothing to promote love for one another in the body of Christ and it does nothing to encourage a married man and woman to love and value each other and love and value the children they are blessed with.

There have been times over the years when well-meaning brothers in the elders trainings have publicly asked for help with certain struggling saints. The answer always defaulted to the meetings and the ministry. I also believe that LC leaders would rather have their "problem-cases" disappear from the scenes, since they expose to all just how failed their programs really have become. Nothing worse than having your audience haunted by those "broken promises" staring them in the face every meeting.

Didn't Thankful witness a sister, whom she loved, crying in the back of the meeting hall, knowing that she could not embrace Thankful, who was being "disciplined?" That's not the kind of situation you want to continue. "Houston, we have a problem!" I'm sure more than a few brothers were happy to see that family move to OK, OK.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by bookworm

When Jane and the elder's wife in Houston in the late 1970s started to speak about helping one another through difficult times evidently this was perceived as a threat to the "real purpose" of the LC—especially when it brought to light a needy elder.

My own experience was that after many years of marriage when I went to an elder and his wife for help at a very difficult time in my marriage the advice I was given was to forgive my husband (who was not attending the meetings at the time) and do what I could to get him back into the meetings. When I specifically asked about counseling for us, I was told that the answer was "getting back into the meetings." This was in the early 1980s in Texas. So by that time the mindset for sure was the only answer is the LC and the meetings. Obviously the Local Church had no "marriage counseling service group" or such. There was no provision for giving guidance (even scripturally based) to couples through difficult times.

The threat to the real purpose is putting the individual before the collective (brother Lee's ministry). To do so is to shift gears from focusing on the ministry and the work, to praying for and shepherding a fellows member of the Body.

Ironically after all that's been said about marriages and dealing with marital conflict, verbally the brothers point to going to the meetings. How about these same brothers? When their marriages are in conflict or even experienced divorce, will they heed the same mantra of going to the meetings and the meetings will take care of their marriage? They know just as you've pointed out, the ministry doesn't touch the marriage. Which is why brothers with troubled marriages may need to reach out to other publications or even consider professional marriage counseling.