Online Bible Classes by Titus Chu Ministry

http://asweetsavor.org/bible-school/

So TC's ministry has been running these online Bible school classes for over a year now... Thoughts?

[UntoHim]

Seems much more biblical than LSM's "Full-Time Training"...but let's face it, that's not a very high hurdle to clear, now is it?

Something that concerns me a little is the "WHO WE ARE" statement which is placed at the very bottom of the main page when it should be posted in a much more prominent position on the primary page. Here is the statement:
WHO WE ARE
A Sweet Savor is committed to presenting and preserving the ministries of Titus Chu and his co-workers. The heart of these ministries is to present Christ and to encourage every believer’s subjective experiences of Christ, foster the growth of their spritual life, and to fill them with visions and revelations. In line with the heart of these ministries, this website seeks to challenge all believers and seekers of God to press on towards perfection for the strengthening of the local churches.

I am somewhat concerned that the "Sweet Savor" is not a savor unto the Lord, but rather a kind of savor or offering to the person and work of Titus Chu. I am not judging that this is actually the case, only that there is at least the appearance of a system that lends itself to having a focus on the person and work of a man rather than the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, his glorious Gospel and his living and abiding Word.
-

[Robert]

I was thinking few times about web sites of some ministries. They have to write something.
We live in time of internet and websites. There are some rules or patterns.
One reason of mentioning name could be responsibility for teaching taken by man.
I recall one place in Bible, where Peter ( 2 Peter 3:15,16) mentioned ministry of Paul. On one hand they and we all together are brothers in Christ. But there can be different ministries.
Among many I know ministry of John MacArthur, Witness Lee, Justin Peters, Zac Poonen, and several others (random order).
I think this is up to as if we follow man ( names) or Jesus.
Paul said, "some say, I am of Apollos, I am of Paul and I am of Christ".
I know, that there was another meaning of division, but was Apollos guilty of saint's attitude? Was Paul's desire to be admired?
I do not see Titus name on main site until on the bottom, which is good sign for me.
His name is mentioned, but was not the point of that web site.
His ministry is to serve saints I hope.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

http://asweetsavor.org/bible-school/

So TC's ministry has been running these online Bible school classes for over a year now... Thoughts?

After the online school promotional video, the Titus Chu video titled, “Local Church: Seeing the Crucialness of the Ground and the Building“ popped up, so I listened to the beginning.

TC has not changed. He is still adamant about the “ground of locality.” In other words, every other church on earth - but his own - is divisive. All the Bible knowledge in the world cannot negate the fact that they are convinced that they alone are “one,” and all other churches are divisive. Of course, they will deny this, but listen for yourself what he is saying.

TC had some ability and gift to speak and teach, but he also had too much ambition and pride and wanted to be a leader and do his own work, that is why he got lost and could not remain one with other brothers. What TC does is right, in his own eyes, and he justifies doing what he is doing by stating that others are the problem. I see ambition and pride as his divisive pitfall. He and his work are a negative pattern for us to learn from, just as other types in the Bible are written for our admonition. Titus can deal with the Lord at the judgement seat, just like all of us, because only the Lord knows all the hidden motives and smaller facts.

[UntoHim]

I'm sure we won't get an answer from you my friend, but I'm going to try anyway.

Who do you think Titus Chu learned from? Could it be some other gifted speaker and teacher? Titus has called Witness Lee his spiritual father, and therefore he could never criticize him. Titus now expects the same from his spiritual children.

Like father, like son. And yes, father and son will deal with the Lord at the Judgment Seat. They will also have to answer to the very same Lord who proclaimed "to whom much is given, much will be required".
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

TC had some ability and gift to speak and teach, but he also had too much ambition and pride and wanted to be a leader and do his own work, that is why he got lost and could not remain one with other brothers. What TC does is right, in his own eyes, and he justifies doing what he is doing by stating that others are the problem. I see ambition and pride as his divisive pitfall. He and his work are a negative pattern for us to learn from, just as other types in the Bible are written for our admonition. Titus can deal with the Lord at the judgement seat, just like all of us, because only the Lord knows all the hidden motives and smaller facts.

Both WL, TC, and today’s Blendeds definitely share the same “ambition and pride to be leaders and do their own work.” TC, however, never built up his ministry by condemning every other Christian on planet earth in the body of Christ. So you tell me who has the greater pride?

The more significant difference between the two ministries centered in Anaheim and Cleveland is related to a serious lack of principle and righteousness. Emanating from Anaheim for decades was a steady “flow” of immorality, corruption, and deceit covered up by blended groupthink disguising itself as fake “oneness.” These same sins which so characterized Lee and his sons are now regularly seen in the LC’s which faithfully followed them with with blinded eyes.

Obviously your biased views of the Recovery have been shaped by one-sided indoctrinating propaganda regularly published by LSM, and you have never taken the time to fairly evaluate the true facts of history.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously your biased views of the Recovery have been shaped by one-sided indoctrinating propaganda regularly published by LSM, and you have never taken the time to fairly evaluate the true facts of history.

Comments like this do not encourage discussion.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Comments like this do not encourage discussion.

Unregistered,

Let me encourage you to please go ahead and register for an account on the forum and jump in.

Most of the members have a pretty thick skin. This is exactly the kind of discussions we engage in ... more often than not!

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Comments like this do not encourage discussion.

Are you the same "unregistered" person as the two other "unregistered" persons on this thread?

If persons on an open forum wanted to actually "encourage discussion," I would think these persons would identify with their remarks, so that others could respond to their remarks, i.e. a "discussion." Hence, Local Church Discussions.

Originally Posted by Nell

Unregistered,

Let me encourage you to please go ahead and register for an account on the forum and jump in.

Most of the members have a pretty thick skin. This is exactly the kind of discussions we engage in ... more often than not!

Nell

You mean the kind of discussion where the intelligence of the guest is questioned?

I assume when you say most of the members have thick skins you are excluding the penultimate poster. We had an apt description for this type of bully in my youth.

He can sure dish it out but he can’t take it.

This forum is dying, and the self- proclaimed “living” poster is one of the killers.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You mean the kind of discussion where the intelligence of the guest is questioned?

I assume when you say most of the members have thick skins you are excluding the penultimate poster. We had an apt description for this type of bully in my youth...

No. Of course not. Please read our Mission Statement and Rules.

If you have a specific registered Member in mind, please tell us who you are talking about...other than the "last poster"..."penultimate" which I assume you mean to be Ohio who simply asked legitimate questions.

We can't do much about unregistered posters, especially when there are several different people posting as "unregistered".

Help us out here. Who is bullying you?

And again, please register for forum membership.

Nell
Admin

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You mean the kind of discussion where the intelligence of the guest is questioned?

The comment that I saw, said there was bias, as the respondent was conditioned to think only one way by incessant propaganda, and that the respondent hadn't taken the time to consider other views, or the 'true facts of history' as he called them.

That was what I saw. A bit brusque but hardly bullying. And the point is there, to be considered. Jesus taught, "As you do to others, so will be done to you." If you want others to hear you, you must first listen to them. That goes for every poster, on each side of a viewpoint. Certainly for myself, as well. And yes for Ohio.

At times I've called the LC members "thoughtless" or "unthinking" but hardly unintelligent. They are conditioned not to think. We had a slogan when I was in the LC - "Don't think, drink". In other words, don't analyze, just yell repetitively whatever the catchphrase was circulating that day.

Let me give a few examples. In the Psalms, one footnote will say that an imprecation is "Christ defeating Satan" and another footnote will say that the psalmist is being natural, that we are supposed to love one another.

(And then what of David, throwing a stone at Goliath? Why didn't David love and forgive Goliath? Or Samuel with Agag?)

Jesus taught, "David was in spirit, writing of me", and this is corroborated by Peter's use of Psalms on Pentecost in front of the crowd. Where does Peter or Jesus reference David being in his fallen human concept? Where is the NT precedent? How could a minister of the Word teach so erratically and nobody questioned it? I can only surmise that is because they were conditioned into unthinking status.

At times I've been callous in my remarks, and used disrespectful characterizations of others' views, and I've usually apologized after. I didn't mean to be rude - but publicly wondered, how could so many otherwise intelligent people sit there during literally thousands of training sessions and never call out the questionable teachings?

Another example - how could Watchman Nee have a library of 3,000 "christian classics" according to Lee's biography, and then we were told to limit ourselves to "one publication" to avoid confusion? How could WN avoid confusion with such a wide variety of non-MOTA works? There is this clear implication of, "WN could do it because he was special but you can't". Is this not being respecters of persons?

Why don't any of these otherwise intelligent people ask any of these obvious questions? I could go on, and have, but I never see the LC members try to defend these questions. Instead I see complaints of bullying. To me, it looks like avoidance.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This forum is dying, and the self- proclaimed “living” poster is one of the killers.

All of us are responsible for the conversation. All of us. Myself included. The Teacher said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." I've been rough in my writing, often, and have apologized, often, and am willing to forgive others. There is one God, one Lord, one Saviour. We have to figure it out.

As far as Titus Chu, I don't doubt there is some pride and ambition and division. But most of us suffer from that. It's a common human ailment. Certainly Witness Lee did. Watchman Nee did. Dong Yu Lan did. RK and RG and EM and BP did, I sat in their meetings. A kind of spiritual loftiness, where they could say things about the rank-and-file gathered before them, but none of the rank-and-file could speak up.

I saw EM give a conference once, and questioned an attendee about his marriage in front of us all. The man's wife had just left him. His face turned bright red, but he said not a word. He was being 'perfected.' He'd learned not to be 'ambitious' or 'divisive' or 'proud'. You just have to sit there, and take it. To me, that's why there's no questioning. That's why there's very little evidence of thinking. It's not due to lack of intelligence.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You mean the kind of discussion where the intelligence of the guest is questioned?

I assume when you say most of the members have thick skins you are excluding the penultimate poster. We had an apt description for this type of bully in my youth.

He can sure dish it out but he can’t take it.

This forum is dying, and the self- proclaimed “living” poster is one of the killers.

Unregistered,

If this is your first time participating - welcome. I share the others' encouragement that you would register. We've had several "unregistered's" recently and it does make it easier to know who is who.

However, I don't think a new poster or a guest on this forum should have to have thick skin in order to participate. I agree with you that a discouraging number of times the responses on this forum tend towards ways that don't encourage real open discussion. (I have no one in mind when I say that). I've pulled back as a result myself. And if I'm being honest, I have been guilty of responding in ways that don't encourage discussion too.......and that's my bad.

If you are willing to try, I don't think it's too late on this thread for a beneficial discussion to be had.

I started to write something to get going, but then I realized that I don't know if you are the same unregistered who wrote post #5, or if you are an separate unregistered reading along who piped up for the first time afterwards. It would also be helpful to know a little of your background (without giving your identity away). For example, have you been reading on this forum for a while and already know what has been written about Titus Chu here or about some of the things the local churches do to smear anyone who simply does not agree with their teachings and wants to part ways with them? Or is all that you've heard only what is said from within the local church? Admittedly, what was written in post #5 does sound exactly like the "party line" from the co-workers about him......but it's hard to know where to start. Is there anywhere you'd like to start?

For example, there are a bunch of assumptions in post #5......e.g. that "doing your own work" is a bad thing......that doing so means you are "lost" or not "one with other brothers". It's noteworthy that the "seven ones" in Ephesians does not include "one work".

However, there is also some truth in post #5......that Titus had his own problems. There's probably much to discuss if participants are willing to remember there are flesh and blood human beings on the other side of the monitor.

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered #1

TC had some ability and gift to speak and teach, but he also had too much ambition and pride and wanted to be a leader and do his own work, that is why he got lost and could not remain one with other brothers. What TC does is right, in his own eyes, and he justifies doing what he is doing by stating that others are the problem. I see ambition and pride as his divisive pitfall. He and his work are a negative pattern for us to learn from, just as other types in the Bible are written for our admonition. Titus can deal with the Lord at the judgement seat, just like all of us, because only the Lord knows all the hidden motives and smaller facts.

Originally Posted by Unregistered #2

I assume when you say most of the members have thick skins you are excluding the penultimate poster. We had an apt description for this type of bully in my youth.

He can sure dish it out but he can’t take it.

The Unregistered #2 poster sure is right about that Unregistered #1 poster.

"He sure can dish it out, but can’t take it," as one of them so wisely informed us.

I numbered all of the scathing condemnations from Unregistered #1 about Titus Chu:

1. Too much ambition
2. Too much pride
3. Wanted to be a leader
4. Wanted to do his own work
5. He got lost
6. He could not be one with other brothers
7. He is right in his own eyes
8. He justifies doing what he is doing by stating that others are the problem.
9. I see ambition and pride as his divisive pitfall.
10. He and his work are a negative pattern for us to learn from, just as other types in the Bible are written for our admonition.

Titus can deal with the Lord at the judgement seat, just like all of us, because only the Lord knows all the hidden motives and smaller facts.

It sounds to me like this Unregistered #1 poster actually knows "all the hidden motives" of TC. Perhaps all that "god-man talk" from LSM is true, and this poster can actually "know the heart" of TC just like the Lord Himself. At the judgment seat, I'm sure the Lord will consult with our beloved and nameless Unregistered #1 poster for advice.

For everyone that has been helped by this forum, God bless you. I fear you are vastly outnumbered by those who have been hurt.

I will not be registering.

[UntoHim]

The "Unregistered" guest poster (author of post #8 and #11) has indicated that they will not be registering, and therefore has now forfeited his/her privilege of posting further on the forum.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The "Unregistered" guest poster (author of post #8 and #11) has indicated that they will not be registering, and therefore has now forfeited his/her privilege of posting further on the forum.
-

Thanks. Their choice.

One thing I learned in the Recovery is that I never had to be accountable for the times I condemned all those outside of the “program.” I heard that done reflexively, without consideration, for decades, from the “throne” in Anaheim.

I have since then reconsidered and changed that position, but I will call out others for this bad habit.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks. Their choice.

One thing I learned in the Recovery is that I never had to be accountable for the times I condemned all those outside of the “program.” I heard that done reflexively, without consideration, for decades, from the “throne” in Anaheim.

I have since then reconsidered and changed that position, but I will call out others for this bad habit.

It's not a bad habit. It's prison walls put around them while they had garlic and onions held over their mouth and nose. Those in the local church are beaten, bruised, wounded sheep trapped in a wicked shepherds sheep pen, and the rub is that they think they are healthy and in the best place. They literally cannot "take the time to fairly evaluate" because they have been threatened "God's governmental dealing" and been put in a state of fear for even having thoughts about doing so.

Seriously, have we forgotten this?!

I think the request of the unregistered poster is just that it be done a little more in love, especially of a new poster. Calling out can be done in love. Remember that people inside the LC do not know the information you know and do not know the controlling tactics used on them that affect even their unconscious behavior. Encountering being called out in any way other than "in love" won't have a good chance of breaking through the strongholds they don't even know are around them.

We were once the people who did not dig further, did not question, did not even know that we wouldn't be blasted by God for doing so. That's where we need to start with most people. Not blasting them for breaking through what we ourselves took years or decades to break through.

Trapped

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

We were once the people who did not dig further, did not question, did not even know that we wouldn't be blasted by God for doing so. That's where we need to start

That's why one of my refrains has been, "Why don't people question" when faced with obvious departures from the NT record, and glaring contradictions between messages. One after another, they line up at the mike afterward (or did in my time) to extol the virtues of the message.

On the one hand, the message was given was given in a very carefully-orchestrated environment of repetition, of mind-programming under heightened "charismania" circumstances. Both the incessant simplistic shouting of the group, the heel-rocking, the double-karate-chop emphases, and the carefully repeated catchphrases and words from the dais, and the 'in-group' sing-song cadence, put the audience under a kind of suggestive state. In these circumstances, black may be if not white, at least a blissed-out 'mystical' grey fog.

The second big factor, on the negative side, is fear. Don't cross the Big Boss or you'll get it. The Boss continually questions you, shaping you, but you don't ever question back.

So these things should be called out. But we shouldn't beat the poor sheep who've been under this, but remind them that they do have brains, given by God, and that they can use them if they so choose.

Of course there are wolves. But the danger is that in too quickly and eagerly calling out wolves, I can become infected by a darkened, judgmental, antagonistic mindset. Witness Lee is our paragon here. Instead, try to let long-suppressed facts speak for themselves, and encourage long-dormant minds to engage.

[Zezima]

The last two posts have mentioned “departure from NT record” can you list what you mean here? Maybe I’ll start a new thread.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Zezima

The last two posts have mentioned “departure from NT record” can you list what you mean here?

A number of cases could be given, but I’ll list three that seem obvious. The first is the clear pattern of NT reception of the Psalms. They're the most heavily cited book of the OT. In Acts 2, Peter sets the interpretive pattern that David wasn't merely speaking of himself but of the Anointed One to come. (vv. 30,31,34) Yes, David was a sinner, died and his body remained on earth, deceased. But being a prophet he foreknew of the one promised of his lineage, and spoke, in type, of that one's resurrection. Yet WL repeatedly said that David, being a sinner, was instead speaking vainly of himself! Fully 2/3 of the content of Psalms gets this treatment, which is clearly a departure from the NT pattern. And yet nobody called this out – why? Why was this never questioned in any of the conferences?

Paul twice recommended singing Psalms, calling them the Word of Christ, and saying that the singer would be filled in spirit, but WL actively discouraged this, again citing the Psalms' lack of “NT revelation”…? If Colossians and Ephesians encourage us to sing Psalms, how is this not approaching the heart of the NT revelation? I literally heard this statement right from WL. Yet nobody questioned this incongruity.

Lastly, Jesus said that David was in spirit, writing of the Christ (Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43). Where does Jesus, or any NT writer, say that David was instead in his fallen human mind, or in his natural man, or putting forth mixed sentiments? Yet one sees this characterization repeatedly in RecV footnotes. (Acts 1:16 and 4:25 also have David expressly listed as a vehicle of the HS revelation.) Nowhere in the NT usage do we see David as being called speaking from himself. Yet WL consistently took this approach.

Another example of violating clear NT pattern is how disciples are to treat one another. James warned about being respecters of persons. Yet the WL programme produced nothing but respecters of persons. For instance, Paul wrote to Titus, If a man is an elder of the church his children must be well-behaved, obedient and in good order. WL’s children violated this, clearly and repeatedly, and WL even publicly admitted to their condition, yet somehow because he was MOTA this NT pattern was overturned. Jesus taught, that on the word of multiple witnesses, something was established as valid before God, yet in the Local Church if those witnesses saw the mis-behaving family of the MOTA they were told to “cover drunken Noah”. Again, this is a clear departure from the NT record. Multiple witnesses were silenced.

Suppose Paul had heard of fornication in Corinth, and drunken-ness, and replied, "I don't care about right and wrong, only life"? Is that consistent with the NT pattern?

Last, consider the treatment of the poor. If you have eyes to see, this is a central facet of the NT, from the gospels, through Acts, into the epistles. The citations are too many to bother. Yet at the FTTA we heard, “Don’t waste your time. Go for the good building materials”, and that was made explicit – Caucasian college students.

Did nobody stir, uneasily? I protested once, in an FTTA meeting, and got silence in return. The speaker just went on to the next point. And nobody ever bothered to raise it, again.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

So these things should be called out. But we shouldn't beat the poor sheep who've been under this, but remind them that they do have brains, given by God, and that they can use them if they so choose.

Of course there are wolves. But the danger is that in too quickly and eagerly calling out wolves, I can become infected by a darkened, judgmental, antagonistic mindset. Witness Lee is our paragon here. Instead, try to let long-suppressed facts speak for themselves, and encourage long-dormant minds to engage.

100%.

The issue with any given poster arriving on the scene here is that we have no idea if they are a sheep or a wolf. And so, unless there is an overt reason otherwise, I would think the thing to do is assume they are a sheep that does not know ...... and we should approach them as a good Samaritan does the wounded traveler. If in the extended interaction it becomes clear that they are intentionally using certain tactics, like Drake does, then possibly there is a transition to handling them as a wolf. I don't know. I mean, really, I don't know. There seem to be very little risks to the current members of this forum to do things this way, and the best possible outcome for hurting sheep.

Because if we do the opposite, assume everyone is an intentional devouring wolf, then we can easily end up breaking the bones of already hurt sheep and are unthinkably part of their continued abuse. And their own concept that former member are in darkness, bitter, angry, have an axe to grind, etc..... is reinforced and literally zero good has come from the interaction.

We cannot look down on anyone, or speak to them as such, who is in a controlling environment and who is repeating the highly orchestrated lies they've been fed in a controlling environment.

The best analogy I can think of is someone born into the KKK or something. They have very serious and harmful views about certain races, but it does nothing at all to imply anything about them for not somehow managing to have the clarity in such a muddled family worldview to see through it. For the LC folks, we know what they are in, we know what's going on when they roll things out about, say, Titus Chu, and we know how they got that way. We shouldn't be derisively responding to them, but instead should be saying, "Ah! Yes, here's my hand, walk with me as I tell you some of what I know or have learned and we can talk through what you think about that."

What are we doing here if we can't do that when new people arrive, even if they roll out some ministry-sounding lines that we can't stand? We know exactly why they are doing that! We did it ourselves!

Trapped

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by aron

A number of cases could be given, but I’ll list three that seem obvious. The first is the clear pattern of NT reception of the Psalms. They're the most heavily cited book of the OT. In Acts 2, Peter sets the interpretive pattern that David wasn't merely speaking of himself but of the Anointed One to come. (vv. 30,31,34) Yes, David was a sinner, died and his body remained on earth, deceased. But being a prophet he foreknew of the one promised of his lineage, and spoke, in type, of that one's resurrection. Yet WL repeatedly said that David, being a sinner, was instead speaking vainly of himself! Fully 2/3 of the content of Psalms gets this treatment, which is clearly a departure from the NT pattern. And yet nobody called this out – why? Why was this never questioned in any of the conferences?

Paul twice recommended singing Psalms, calling them the Word of Christ, and saying that the singer would be filled in spirit, but WL actively discouraged this, again citing the Psalms' lack of “NT revelation”…? If Colossians and Ephesians encourage us to sing Psalms, how is this not approaching the heart of the NT revelation? I literally heard this statement right from WL. Yet nobody questioned this incongruity.

Lastly, Jesus said that David was in spirit, writing of the Christ (Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43). Where does Jesus, or any NT writer, say that David was instead in his fallen human mind, or in his natural man, or putting forth mixed sentiments? Yet one sees this characterization repeatedly in RecV footnotes. (Acts 1:16 and 4:25 also have David expressly listed as a vehicle of the HS revelation.) Nowhere in the NT usage do we see David as being called speaking from himself. Yet WL consistently took this approach.

Another example of violating clear NT pattern is how disciples are to treat one another. James warned about being respecters of persons. Yet the WL programme produced nothing but respecters of persons. For instance, Paul wrote to Titus, If a man is an elder of the church his children must be well-behaved, obedient and in good order. WL’s children violated this, clearly and repeatedly, and WL even publicly admitted to their condition, yet somehow because he was MOTA this NT pattern was overturned. Jesus taught, that on the word of multiple witnesses, something was established as valid before God, yet in the Local Church if those witnesses saw the mis-behaving family of the MOTA they were told to “cover drunken Noah”. Again, this is a clear departure from the NT record. Multiple witnesses were silenced.

Suppose Paul had heard of fornication in Corinth, and drunken-ness, and replied, "I don't care about right and wrong, only life"? Is that consistent with the NT pattern?

Last, consider the treatment of the poor. If you have eyes to see, this is a central facet of the NT, from the gospels, through Acts, into the epistles. The citations are too many to bother. Yet at the FTTA we heard, “Don’t waste your time. Go for the good building materials”, and that was made explicit – Caucasian college students.

Did nobody stir, uneasily? I protested once, in an FTTA meeting, and got silence in return. The speaker just went on to the next point. And nobody ever bothered to raise it, again.

Where did witness lee publicly talk about his children not being good? I’ve never seen this.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Zezima

Where did witness lee publicly talk about his children not being good? I’ve never seen this.

Witness Lee was quoted as saying, "If I want to hire an unspiritual cook to work in my kitchen, that's my business". That was in reply to concern when Philip Lee, widely known to be a lout and a profligate, was appointed to LSM office manager. (I'm paraphrasing by memory.)

That quote was taken from the document called by Loyalists the "16 bullets aimed at the heart of Witness Lee", that got spread around in the turmoil in So Cal. Notice that they never said that it was untrue - just damaging. Also there is eyewitness testimony of Timothy, when he ran the Daystar Motor Home corporation, that he behaved in a similar vein. But in the case of son Philip, WL effectively admitted as much, when he said, So what?