“Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” (An Open Letter)

[ZNPaaneah]

I was asked if I could have known Jane A when I was in Houston. I think this depends on if Jane A knew Raul Tapp and Don Abadie. I remember that first summer Raul taking me to a sister's home. Something was clearly wrong and they were definitely not willing to discuss it. We read Proverbs 1, and it seemed to have a very big impact on everyone. Also, I remember that this sister and her family were in the process of moving.

Otherwise, if that was not her, I doubt she would talk to me in the meeting with everyone watching her, and I doubt she would invite me for fellowship directly while under a cloud of suspicion. When you are new there is no meeting where everyone stands up and introduces themselves, so she could definitely have been in the meeting at the same time as me without me knowing her name. Also for my first year I was very quiet and after her meeting with the elders she also was probably quiet.

[John]

ZNPaaneah,

With this latest post of yours (#45), it seems that you may have come around to considering the ramifications of my presentation in #31, which I appreciate, considering the way you tried to dismiss it earlier. I have read all your responses and may reply to them in more detail later. (I never feel compelled to rebut everything thrown at me.) I think that most readers realize without me spelling it out for them that my main point (the fact that we were in Houston along with you) destroys your contention that there was no control by the elders in The Church in Houston during your time there—even though you threw around words like “laughable” and “absurd,” while only relying for support on your experience within the confines of Rice University and your opinion of others who had been involved with Rice.

Before I consider getting into the details that would be necessary to have a full discussion of the c-word (control, that is) as it relates to The Church in Houston, I want to find out where you stand, now that you’ve had a few days to ruminate on the impact of my revelation. (By the way, it should not have been a revelation to you, since you stated in your #39 that you had read Jane’s account, and she clearly stated in The Thread of Gold that we moved in 1979, not 1978.) Also, if you will read pertinent parts of the book again carefully, you will find another instance of a “gross violation” of control by an elder in the affairs of another family that occurred in The Church in Houston after we left, in the early 1980s. (I’m not going to research the exact date; because, if you are willing to admit that there was control present in the Church during your first year [Jane’s case] and to admit to control in the Church just after you were gone or thereabouts [case described in The Thread of Gold], I would think that you would find it difficult to explain, much less to prove, how the control mysteriously disappeared in between.)


Didn’t you go off topic?

After you deal with the gross control in The Church in Houston, I believe we could then have a decent discussion about possible campus control at Rice, but that was not exactly the topic I signed up for when I replied to your #27, point #6. If we do, I would then amend the topic to include more nuanced control and not just the “gross violation” that was occurring in the Church.

I think that the last sentence in my #31 may have led you to apply it only to Rice University. Actually, I merely intended that sentence to be a very brief synopsis of how control generally lined up with Anaheim in its flow, not to offer a way for ignoring my main point. I tacked it on to reflect my total Church experience in multiple Churches over a 20-year span, which includes our experience at the University of Houston and with U of H students who continued living with us after we moved away from the campus. From your point of view, however, after re-reading it, I can see how you might have taken it and applied it only to your experience at Rice, and I apologize if it misled you. Even with this mea culpa, keep in mind that I did not say that the elders were controlling the ones on the campuses. However, I have also not stated that they were not. Also, if it will help you to focus on the ramifications of the two main events that exhibited gross control in The Church in Houston, one in the ’78 and ’79 time frame, and the other one around, say, ’81 , then please ignore my last sentence in #31.


If a tree falls in a forest …

If you are simply going to repeat that it wasn’t your experience at Rice, I’ll just let you remain behind that cloistered wall. I’m not trying to be mean, but I do get bothered when someone states unequivocally that control didn’t exist in the very Church that was controlling my wife and me and those around us with whom we had worked faithfully for almost a decade, as well as controlling another family that left Houston after us. The control in both cases was carried out by Ray from Houston in concert with Benson from Dallas; so, I hope you will excuse me if I believe that you have a naïve view of their relationship. In addition, it seems to me that your understanding of the Max event, and Benson and Ray’s involvement in it, is also deficient.

After I get an answer to my question at the end of this post, I will consider discussing with you the elders in Texas, including those in Houston, and their conspiracies. Also, I might be willing to discuss the situation at Rice and whether or not there was any control there. Jane and I experienced the elders’ hands of control at the University of Houston, which you might factor in to your experience at Rice. Even though it was a few years earlier, I don’t imagine that control just disappeared since a culture of control had been established, especially not as long as Ray was still there. In such a discussion, I am quite willing to let you be the expert about all things Rice. If a tree fell in those woods, I wouldn’t have heard it.


Main point

So, here is my main point again: You asked for an example of a “gross violation,” and I gave you the elders’ treatment of Jane Anderson. In 1978, Jane was in The Church in Houston under very strict, stern, and unreasonable discipline by the elders; in 1979, she was still there, suffering an almost indescribable torment on a daily basis. In 1978 and 1979, you were there, too (and so was I). The fact that you didn’t even realize that she was there when she had not too long before been a prominent sister (my words, not hers), just further proves my point that there was discipline, that it was severe, and that it succeeded in taking her out of her “function” for the duration of our time there. Jane and I were suffering a hellishly-inspired discipline that almost drove Jane mad and me into the hospital. You were in the same local body we were in; and, don’t forget, when one member suffers, all suffer with that person.


Question

So, I ask you, based on the experience of John and Jane Anderson, was there unwarranted gross control by the elders over the members of The Church in Houston during part of your time there?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

Question
So, I ask you, based on the experience of John and Jane Anderson, was there unwarranted gross control by the elders over the members of The Church in Houston during part of your time there?

John, if I could ask in all sincerity, was there overriding "control" before the events described in chapter one of ToG? It seemed to me, after reading the book over 5 years ago, that Jane and her husband were completely blindsided by what happened that day. They had no prior "warning" to prepare them for the "discipline" which occurred.

In other words, taking BP's recent (2-3 years ago) inflammatory statements about Jane in the training, it seemed like he acted that Memorial Day weekend in 1977 as a WL "copycat," assuming, without prior investigation, that local events in Houston were conspiratorially linked to Anaheim. In your opinion, were these events in question the beginnings of "abuse/control," or just a continuation?

[John]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John, if I could ask in all sincerity, was there overriding "control" before the events described in chapter one of ToG? It seemed to me, after reading the book over 5 years ago, that Jane and her husband were completely blindsided by what happened that day. They had no prior "warning" to prepare them for the "discipline" which occurred.

In other words, taking BP's recent (2-3 years ago) inflammatory statements about Jane in the training, it seemed like he acted that Memorial Day weekend in 1977 as a WL "copycat," assuming, without prior investigation, that local events in Houston were conspiratorially linked to Anaheim. In your opinion, were these events in question the beginnings of "abuse/control," or just a continuation?

Ohio,

In my opinion, the events of 1977 were just a continuation of abuse and control. I do appreciate your open-ended question and a request for my opinion. (You do realize that, as Jane’s husband, I may not be the most objective person about certain events related to her, right?) And, since I’m in a writing mood …


Now the serpent was more subtle …

First, I’d like to begin with Genesis 3 , where Satan, the great manipulator, deceived Adam and Eve. From there, skip millennia to the genesis of the Local Church in China and its resurrection in Taiwan. There, Witness Lee was a heavy-handed controller (see Morris Fred’s master’s thesis). Some of the leaders in Taiwan warned the original elders in Los Angeles (John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and James Barber) about Mr. Lee, but they ignored the warning (see the letter from these elders, also in Fred). Lee eventually manipulated the situation to his benefit.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch

Meanwhile, a young Benson Phillips felt he was destined to do big things for Jesus (per his testimony). He linked up with a psychology major, Ray Graver, and also with Witness Lee, who impressed them with “The Vision”; and the rest, as we say, is history. These people had certain character traits that allowed them to be used by the deceiver. Mr. Lee provided Benson and Ray the system within which to work and fathered them in his control techniques (if they needed his help).

Over time, other brothers were drawn in and fathered in the same control style of Mr. Lee. People came in over time and were enamored with various aspects of the system. The cup was gilded on the outside. Each of us had a honeymoon time with the Local Church, happily receiving the indoctrination and not realizing where it would eventually lead us.

As has been shown, the Deputy Authority teaching was sown into Texas in the very beginning in Waco, pre-Houston. Through this, as well as other teachings and methods, persons could be controlled and manipulated, some more, some less. I know I was excited as a new one to be going hither and thither and doing what-what (a Leeism, I believe) for God. To speak in worldly terms, I have come to understand the leadership dynamic in the Local Church by comparing it with that of big business and politics; however, under the auspices of religion, the dynamic is much worse. Religious leaders can more easily and thoroughly exploit the sheep who genuinely desire to please God.


Religious control from 30,000 feet

The control mechanisms were utilized as needed to keep people in line with the program. The more you wanted to participate in the inner circle with its secrets, the more of your soul you had to sell. I found an apt description in The Two Babylons, a book that described being admitted to the mysteries among the ancient pagan priests. (My description may be offensive to some, but I’m just telling you things that have helped me to understand what happened to me and my family. (In other words, I didn’t begin at Genesis 3 for nothing.)

Because of this, some could be on the periphery of the system and not realize the evil that was going on. That is why we often get at each other on the forums, I believe. Some were almost all the way into the inner circle, and others were way on the outside. If you provided “revenue” for the system (money, status, power, image, whatever), you could be a part and not really realize what you were a part of. The system could even tolerate an amount of criticism, depending on who you were and what you had to offer on the positive side of the ledger (a risk-reward analysis).

All of that to say that control and manipulation were going on from the beginning. I thought this little tour of the world would help you better understand my opinion about control in Texas. The Houston elders didn’t emerge from the indigenous ones who had been meeting there before our migration. Lip-service was paid to these original folks; but, when Benson and Ray and about 70 others arrived from three different localities and set up shop, it soon became obvious who was in charge. In fact, a small meeting was arranged to authenticate elders (although it wasn’t advertised that way), and Benson and Ray were two who volunteered for the job! Just a little manipulative, I’d say.

Now that we’re back in Texas, let me cite three more occurrences that should give you a better idea of the kind of leaders we had there, and more reasons why I am of the opinion that control, manipulation, and intimidation were occurring before 1977. You can decide for yourself how high this rates on your control meter; but, for me, especially in a Christian setting (not to mention God’s so-called “Best”), it pretty much pegs mine.


Driven to despair (case #1)

The first case occurred in the late 60s and early 70s, but we didn’t learn of it until 1992. In 1992, Jane received a letter from a sister who had been abused by the Texas leadership. This sister wrote to Jane after receiving a copy of a letter we mailed to those who had started with us in Houston. Jane’s letter was sent because of Benson’s refusal to meet with us to try to rescue the marriage of an elder who had served with him. In the letter, we had described the abuse that had been exercised over the elder’s wife in 1977. The sister who wrote Jane explained that she had also been labeled as rebellious and negative. Her depression was so great from the experience that she had attempted suicide, was in a coma for four days, and barely survived. (If I’m still in a posting groove, I may put out some excerpts from her letter so you can hear it from her, since it is so powerful and sad.)


Physical violence (brief-case #2)

The second case I will mention occurred pre-1977 in Houston. While trying to get a young brother to accept the “fellowship,” Ray actually threw his book bag and hit him with it! This happened in the meeting hall after a meeting, although it was in a private room; so, no one else saw it other than a third brother who witnessed the event. This witness brother was, at some point, being groomed to be an elder. When he was given elder status and admitted into the inner sanctum, he was so shocked and appalled by the way that the elders, in their meetings, discussed the saints, he retired from the eldership but remained in “God’s Best.” He was then transferred to the mother church in Anaheim and told that he was going there for further training. Of course, it was obvious that they couldn’t afford to have someone hanging around who had quit the eldership because it went against his conscience.


Moving the chess pieces and assessing their value (case #3)

Were Benson and Ray the only ones? A brother recently told us about his experience in Houston with all the elders. In 1972, during the time of the migration to Denver, this brother and his wife worked out a plan to move in with another church couple for a few months so that they could save money for migrating to Denver. When the elders got wind of it, Benson called the brother in. All four elders sat across the table from him. Benson did the speaking. As the brother put it, they “reamed him out” for moving in with the couple without fellowshipping with the elders first and getting their permission to do so. They also told him that Denver was not in the cards for him but that he should plan to go to Philadelphia, which he did. At this time, he began to back away from the elders in heart. He saw a side that he hadn’t known was there. A couple of years later, after the Philly experiment failed, he said that the members in Philly were given a choice of either moving to Boston or to Florida. A Boston elder actively recruited him, so he decided to move his family there. Two years later, after getting his law degree, he moved back to Houston.

As an interesting sidebar, in Houston, while serving with a brother to process contributions, he learned that saints were measured and categorized by how much money they gave. He said that before this time, he had given to the church by check; but, upon discovering they were keeping tabs, he had switched to giving cash. He knew this would look to them like he had stopped giving, and he wondered if this would change the way they treated him. He said that it did; since, for one thing, they no longer asked him to share messages.

So, was there overriding control in Texas before 1977? From my perspective, there definitely was.


The Thread of Gold and the run-up to John and Jane’s isolation

In your questions to me, you also started with Mr. Phillips’ statements about Jane and stated that it seemed that he acted like a copycat. First, I would never start with anything that Benson said. Remember, think politics. To be clear, Benson’s public statement at the 2005 winter training about what they did to Jane in Texas in 1977, and why they did it, was not truthful. This is explained in posts about that event which can be found on the Bereans forum. For one thing, Benson said he saw what Mr. Lee did with the sisters in Anaheim and then had to do the same thing in Texas. The truth was that Witness and Benson acted simultaneously on Saturday night of Memorial Day weekend. Also, Mr. Lee did not call out the Anaheim sisters as “the three holy sisters” as Benson claimed. Jane talked to Sandee for the first time in 2006, and Sandee said that Benson’s account about this was not true. We asked another one of the three sisters what her recollection was of the event, and she corroborated Sandee’s account.

I recommend that you re-revisit The Thread of Gold for the answer to your question about what led up to the 1977 “fellowship” room experience by reading pages 151–189. We spent thousands of hours on the book, and in it you can find the signs that were manifesting themselves before the Memorial Day weekend. There is a wealth of information in The Thread of Gold about Mr. Lee, the elders in Texas and Oklahoma (although the pseudonyms can be frustrating), and what it was like for us and others. I can recommend the book more freely now that it is available as a free download from our website (www.TheThreadOfGold.com). I, myself, refer to it periodically for research (and I not only edited it, I also lived it). Even when talking about the creeping level of control that seemed to sneak up on us in the Local Church, Jane and I sometimes refer to it as the frog-in-the-pot syndrome—“A Frog in the Pot” being one of the chapter titles. One day, we had a good laugh when each of us said something like, “Hey, I just re-read a portion of The Thread of Gold and really got some help from it!”

[Ohio]

John, thanks much for the lengthy response. My basic question about "overriding control in Texas before 1977" included my suspicion that neither you nor Jane were initially aware of it. Btw, I should also change the words "overriding control" to "abuse," since the word "control" is subject to one's own personal interpretation. There is no question in my mind that what happened to you that May '77 weekend, and the long years which followed, was abuse. My initial suspicion that you two were initially blindsided by what occurred, seems to be confirmed by your learning much later of what happened in each of those "3 cases."

My observations were somewhat similar. After personally enduring some unfair abuse, I began to hear reports from many other saints. I began to learn the "real" story hidden from us for years. Past events which had bothered me, and were forgotten, now became more alarming, as a definite pattern was seen on all levels. Like a snowball rolling down the hill, (sorry, you guys can't relate to that thing called snow,) I was just overwhelmed with the amount of unchecked leadership abuse covered up over the years.

It's interesting that you mentioned Hislop's book. Being from a Catholic family, that book got incorporated into my "gospel" preaching. How unfortunate. It has been discussed how poor Hislop's research really was. A number of scholars have rebutted his many claims. WL used that book to drive a wedge between many saints and their families.

I appreciated your observation, "Because of this, some could be on the periphery of the system and not realize the evil that was going on. That is why we often get at each other on the forums, I believe." To further that thought, I may have been at the very center of my local church life, yet concerning the events in Anaheim and Cleveland (or Texas or wherever,) I and all those with me were on the "periphery." We thought we understood what was happening, actually we were told lies. Worse than lies, because we then joined in with their hypocrisy and unrighteousnesses.

In your questions to me, you also started with Mr. Phillips’ statements about Jane and stated that it seemed that he acted like a copycat. First, I would never start with anything that Benson said. Remember, think politics. To be clear, Benson’s public statement at the 2005 winter training about what they did to Jane in Texas in 1977, and why they did it, was not truthful. This is explained in posts about that event which can be found on the Bereans forum. For one thing, Benson said he saw what Mr. Lee did with the sisters in Anaheim and then had to do the same thing in Texas. The truth was that Witness and Benson acted simultaneously on Saturday night of Memorial Day weekend. Also, Mr. Lee did not call out the Anaheim sisters as “the three holy sisters” as Benson claimed. Jane talked to Sandee for the first time in 2006, and Sandee said that Benson’s account about this was not true. We asked another one of the three sisters what her recollection was of the event, and she corroborated Sandee’s account.

It seems to me that both sides of this account could be true. If BP talked to WL prior to that May '77 meeting, and we know they talked much, and WL describes events in Anaheim to him about "three holy sisters" needing a public rebuke, then BP connected the dots and made leaps of assumptions and played "copycat" in Houston, as if the supposed "sister's rebellion" had come to town. I may be wrong about this. Far more serious in my mind was WL's public humiliation of Max Rapoport's wife for the sole reason that Max confronted Philip Lee about molesting sisters in the LSM offices. That to me "stinketh to high heaven." I can be tolerant of the "mistakes" of many christian leaders, but not this.

Regarding the book ToG, my very first post on the other forum concerned it. I asked if there was some code available to decipher the pseudonyms, since I knew all the players, yet not the details to connect them all. If I can find that book, I will look at those pages. Thanks again.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I appreciated your observation, "Because of this, some could be on the periphery of the system and not realize the evil that was going on. That is why we often get at each other on the forums, I believe." To further that thought, I may have been at the very center of my local church life, yet concerning the events in Anaheim and Cleveland (or Texas or wherever,) I and all those with me were on the "periphery." We thought we understood what was happening, actually we were told lies. Worse than lies, because we then joined in with their hypocrisy and unrighteousnesses.

Very keen observation. As one who was at the epicenter in Orange County during this time frame, I can tell you that many, if not most, of the brothers and sisters in other churches had very little knowledge of what was happening in Anaheim. Of course there was no way that they were going to keep the "Max" situation under wraps, and this is how some became aware of the infamous "sister's rebellion". If I'm not mistaken, this is the same weekend as the even more infamous weekend in Berkeley...now that was a real doozy. The next Friday night "Ministry Station" Witness Lee had all the Elders and young people's leaders stand up and personally "repent" to him. I just sat as low in my brown plastic chair as I could get.

Worse than lies, because we then joined in with their hypocrisy and unrighteousnesses.

I think on some level many of the Local Churches were like dysfunctional families. Many times the abuse is generational. It becomes so commonplace that people don't even realize it's happening - and this includes both categories - the abuser and the abused. Ironical, since the church should be a place of escape and healing from the cycle of abuse. In my experience and observation, coupled with the advantage of "knowing what we now know", there was some level of abuse going on in many of the Local Churches going way back to the earliest days. Sometimes the abuse was cloaked in super spiritual sounding slogans such as "taking the cross" and "dying to the old man", and one of the worst, "taking Christ".

In any event, I think most of us that were around for any length of time ended up partaking in the hypocrisy and unrighteousness - we had no choice because the "system" was saturated with it. The hard part now is for those of us who "see the light" and have grave concerns for those still in the Local Churches. This is why I consider this forum so important. True frank and open dialogue can only take place outside the confines of the LC meeting halls. There are lots of reasons for this, but the simple fact is that this is just the way it is. This is why I think it is important that the "atmosphere" here on LocalChurchDiscussions remains as a haven for "safe and sane" discussions and interactions between former and current members. I pray for this every day.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ironical, since the church should be a place of escape and healing from the cycle of abuse.

The gnawing questions that many of us long-term LC'ers have is this -- how could the program be so bad if so many times we were truly filled in spirit. We learned so much Bible knowledge from WL, so how could he be all bad?

After I was saved, I was filled with Christ every where I met, including taking communion at some Catholic church, and for sure at my first LC meeting in Cleveland. It was only later on that WL tried to take credit for any and all experience of Christ that we had. We were slowly conditioned for decades to believe that WL was the source of all the churches' blessing.

Why was it that the church in Anaheim, which supposedly should have been the most blessed church in the Recovery, was always barren? Why was there no increase? It was only the constant immigration (including the FTTA) which kept them afloat. Thank the Lord I never lived there.

What initially was a time of great joy for us all as we entered the LC's, filled with opportunities to testify of the living Christ to all around us, became a ministry empire to uplift one man and his ministry. Instead of receiving healing and the salvation of the soul, many of us were used, misused, and abused. Many of us can look back at a trail of broken promises and coverups akin to Watergate. Except for Christ within, many of us left far worse off than when we came. These things, my brothers, should not be!

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Because of this, some could be on the periphery of the system and not realize the evil that was going on. That is why we often get at each other on the forums, I believe."

Ohio and John, it's not only our unique orientation to the system why you and I at times may seem to get at each other. I would also add not having spoken to one another in person or by phone. In my case it's not like calling up a brother in Anaheim, Moreno Valley, or San Fransisco and I hear the tone of their speaking. Through the forum, the tone is lacking. Because we read words without the tone, it's easy to misinterpret a post without having the personal contact. The beauty of Skype is personal contact is readily available with little or no expense other than time. The only drawback being time zone difference.

[John]

Sorry that this post is a little late, but we’ve had computer issues. In addition, I’m slow, methodical, exacting, and try to cover all the bases in a discussion, so as not to lead anyone astray; plus, I’m aiming for the verbosity medal .

Ohio,

I will definitely accept your change in the discussion from “overriding control” to “abuse.” As you’ll note, I used several words to describe what went on. We still haven’t defined these terms, but I feel no need to do so. I realize that you already knew some of what I stated, but I wanted to put my thoughts in a context for everyone.

Regarding my mentioning of The Two Babylons, I simply used the description that I recalled about the temple priests being admitted by degrees into the secrets of the priesthood, which I thought was somewhat apt. I do not consider myself a scholar on the subject, was not endorsing the book, and, if Hislop’s description was in error in that regard, then I retract the comparison.


From center to circumference

As to your “periphery” statement, I do realize that not all Local Churches were the same (even as much as Mr. Lee may have wanted them to be), all elders were not the same, and all individuals didn’t have the same experiences. However, just because folks didn’t see what was going on behind the scenes doesn’t mean that all was well.

My approach now, after way too much giving the benefit of the doubt, is to consider that the system was wrong from the beginning and that it was corrupt at the top. It just took awhile for the disease to spread and become more manifest. (This perspective of mine doesn’t mean that the Lord did not bless us during the early years or that many individuals didn’t have wonderful experiences of the Lord in whatever church.) With this approach, I believe I find myself much closer to the truth (at least in my experience ).


Are we dealing with a copycat?

As I stated earlier, I wouldn’t start with anything that Benson said. Here’s the portion of your post that I’d mainly like to respond to:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems to me that both sides of this account could be true. If BP talked to WL prior to that May '77 meeting, and we know they talked much, and WL describes events in Anaheim to him about "three holy sisters" needing a public rebuke, then BP connected the dots and made leaps of assumptions and played "copycat" in Houston, as if the supposed "sister's rebellion" had come to town. I may be wrong about this. Far more serious in my mind was WL's public humiliation of Max Rapoport's wife for the sole reason that Max confronted Philip Lee about molesting sisters in the LSM offices. That to me "stinketh to high heaven." I can be tolerant of the "mistakes" of many christian leaders, but not this.

Now, as to your consideration that both sides of the account could be true, let’s talk:


Proposed scenario

So, the scenario that I postulate as being more likely is this, in brief: Philip was heading up The Recovery via The Living Stream Ministry Office. Max Rapaport was Witness Lee’s right-hand man in the Local Church. There was a struggle for control. Philip won, since blood was thicker than the truth, as far as Witness Lee was concerned. Jane was just one of the casualties of a turf war on a wider scale, since Benson and Ray did not like Max and wanted to keep him out of their Texas territory. (This is what Max told Jane in 2006, and it matches with input from other sources.)

Here are the details of my proposed scenario:

1. Max found out about Philip Lee’s sexual abuse of a sister in the Living Stream Ministry Office. Max exposed this to Witness Lee and was pressing for Philip’s ouster. Witness Lee decided to jettison Max instead, but realized he needed to do it in stages since Max wielded a lot of influence, particularly in Anaheim, but also in The Recovery at large, and could have had a huge detrimental impact on his power and bottom line.
   
2. Max was sent out of town Memorial Day weekend so that Mr. Lee could intimidate and manipulate, unhindered, his wife, Sandee, and the others.
   
3. Ray Graver had been living in Anaheim, may have still been there in this time period, and was involved with Philip in the promotion of Living Stream Ministry control. Philip told Ray about what was going on with the “three holy sisters,” a derogatory phrase that Philip used to refer to them. Philip also told Ray that his father was going to deal with them.
   
4. Ray seized the opportunity for an eventual coup d’etat to replace Max with Benson and to make sure that Max couldn’t get a beachhead on their Texas turf. (They assumed that he had already part-way wiggled in through Jane Anderson via his wife, Sandee.) Ray called Benson and passed on to him that the time was ripe to dethrone Max, the source of all their troubles and the key to the “sisters’ rebellion.” With Sandee going down and Max being toppled, they could take down Jane at the same time, and, use Max in the same way that Witness Lee was going to do—as the scapegoat.

Thus, the events of Memorial Day, 1977, were set in motion.

Note: Keep in mind that the foregoing is only a proposed scenario of how things might have happened. It is informed by our knowledge of some of the facts and the people involved.


Reasons why the scenario makes sense

Sandee’s and Ann’s descriptions of what Witness did in the meeting on that Saturday in Anaheim was much more tame than what Benson dished out in Houston. In the Anaheim meeting, Witness (as Sandee refers to him) let it be known that they were no longer in his good graces by saying that the three of them shouldn’t sit together in meetings. That was pretty much it. Since the three of them were deaconesses functioning together, had been given their mission with the sisters by Mr. Lee himself, and were meeting with him on a regular basis about it, you can imagine the effect it had on them and the congregation when he made this statement out of the blue. It definitely had a chilling effect on them and was the first public step of his plan to discredit them and Max.

Mr. Lee’s way of dealing in the Anaheim meeting was much less heavy-handed than Benson’s was. Benson preached about a sister who was leading a “sisters’ rebellion.” Witness did not. Mr. Lee only indicated (with Local Church coded communication) that these sisters were no longer in a special position with him and were now out of favor.

Knowing Benson’s slavish way of imitating Witness Lee, it makes me think that there was no contact between Witness and Benson before these dealings for these reasons:

• Benson referred to them with Philip’s “three holy sisters” slur, one that they had never heard from Witness Lee, and it was repeated in Houston during the blame-everything-on-Max meeting in 1978, and it was spoken again by Benson in his 2005 Winter Training message. Witness Lee never used this awful moniker, according to Sandee; yet, Benson repeated it as if he had.
• Witness only manipulated the saints in the meeting by telling the sisters not to sit together rather than by bludgeoning them as Benson did Jane.
• Witness Lee implemented his strategy in a phased and nuanced back-door approach rather than the blitzkrieg frontal assault that Benson employed. (If Benson had talked directly to Witness Lee, then the “dealing” in Houston might have been less severe!)
• In the 2005 training, Benson’s talk gave me the impression that he had to pull on his jack boots and deal with a situation in Houston like Mr. Lee did in Anaheim, when Witness Lee had not used those kinds of tactics in the situation.
• According to those involved, the meetings in Houston and Anaheim took place on Saturday evening, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Taking the difference in time zones into consideration, Benson probably dealt with Jane before Witness pulled the rug out from under the sisters in Anaheim, giving us a somewhat humorous scenario of Witness Lee “following” Benson Phillips.

Eventually, however, the outcomes were pretty much the same in both places, as these sisters realized the place they were to occupy—that of being barefoot, pregnant, and, when allowed, parrots of The Ministry. One sister, who had been closely related to Jane, years later told Jane that when she heard a similar warning in Austin, she became even more absolute for “The Ministry” and determined to have nothing at all to do with Jane in the future.


My problem with your “serious”

I would also like to comment on this statement of yours:

Far more serious in my mind was WL's public humiliation of Max Rapaport's wife for the sole reason that Max confronted Philip Lee about molesting sisters in the LSM offices.

Now, you may have changed your mind after reading my foregoing. If you haven’t, please note the following. Obviously, I’m biased, but I’m having a hard time understanding how you are applying differing levels of seriousness. Here’s my analysis of the two dealings:

• Witness Lee, in his regular capacity as a speaker in Anaheim, directed an adjustment to where three sisters should sit in meetings, full well understanding how the congregation would later view these sisters as not in step with him. He did this to save his son from ignominy and to bring down Max, whom he thought was getting too much control. (He was apparently motivated by a desire to maintain power and reputation, including the protection of his son and his Ministry.)
• Benson Phillips, who rarely, if ever, spoke in Houston after he left, made a special trip to Houston and convened a special public meeting for the sole purpose of delivering a knock-out blow to Jane and inoculating the rest of the saints against Max’s and her possible influence. He put the fear of God into everyone by stating that there was a sister in Houston who was leading a “sisters’ rebellion”! He followed up in a “fellowship room” meeting by laying into Jane with the full weight of his position and affixing the scarlet letter of Rebellion on her! He did it, apparently, to maintain his position in Texas and to keep Max out of Texas. He eventually took over Max’s position with Witness Lee and the Living Stream Ministry, although this may not have been foremost in his consciousness at the time. (He was apparently motivated by a desire to maintain and increase his power and reputation, including the protection of his work and The Vision.)

Ohio, you do not have to reply to this evaluation of your "serious." I’m just telling it like I see it, so that you and any others who think similarly might re-evaluate.

If you or anyone else has any more puzzle pieces, we’d be more than happy to receive them. Because this was such a big deal to us and a rather seismic shift in The Recovery, we’ve done quite a bit of fact gathering related to it, and this is the best we can come up with. We remain open to other possibilities, of course.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

My problem with your “serious”

I would also like to comment on this statement of yours:

Far more serious in my mind was WL's public humiliation of Max Rapaport's wife for the sole reason that Max confronted Philip Lee about molesting sisters in the LSM offices.

Benson Phillips, who rarely, if ever, spoke in Houston after he left, made a special trip to Houston and convened a special public meeting for the sole purpose of delivering a knock-out blow to Jane and inoculating the rest of the saints against Max’s and her possible influence. He put the fear of God into everyone by stating that there was a sister in Houston who was leading a “sisters’ rebellion”! He followed up in a “fellowship room” meeting by laying into Jane with the full weight of his position and affixing the scarlet letter of Rebellion on her! He did it, apparently, to maintain his position in Texas and to keep Max out of Texas.

Ohio, you do not have to reply to this evaluation of your "serious." I’m just telling it like I see it, so that you and any others who think similarly might re-evaluate.

Thanks Brother John,

The only reason why I used the word "more serious" was that I had the (mistaken?) impression that WL was "dealing" with his co-worker Max by publicly shaming his wife in front of all the saints. Aside from the content of what was actually said in each meeting, usually the larger the audience, the bigger the impact. Please don't think that I am in any way diminishing the abuse by BP, nor the damages inflicted on the sisters. I was not in either of those meetings, rather I was with Max in Chicago that weekend.

I'm not sure that I knew that Jane was singled out in a larger audience, specially convened by BP, prior to the meeting behind closed doors. I had also assumed that BP was living in Houston. Somehow, at least initially, I got the impression that BP felt that he had to address the actions of a few sisters because of some "problems" in the church, perhaps someone complained, or whatever. I don't remember reading that BP made a special trip to Houston that fateful weekend.

I do have a question concerning --

Jane was just one of the casualties of a turf war on a wider scale, since Benson and Ray did not like Max and wanted to keep him out of their Texas territory.

Ray seized the opportunity for an eventual coup d’etat to replace Max with Benson and to make sure that Max couldn’t get a beachhead on their Texas turf. (They assumed that he had already part-way wiggled in through Jane Anderson via his wife, Sandee.)

I am assuming that Jane and Sandee were in fellowship at the time, otherwise how did BP make the connection between sisters in TX and those in CA?

In my mind, what happened to Jane et. al. in Texas was far worse than just being a "casualty" of a turf war. For example, we had two divorces among our family members during the recent "turf war" between BP and TC in the GLA. I would call them "casualties of a turf war."

For some reason, which I do not yet fully understand, Jane and the other sisters in TX were assassinated by BP. They got "whacked!" Why would BP do that? At least the mistreatment of Sandee by WL made sense in some distorted, pathetic sort of way.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

Here are the details of my proposed scenario:Max found out about Philip Lee’s sexual abuse of a sister in the Living Stream Ministry Office. Max exposed this to Witness Lee and was pressing for Philip’s ouster. Witness Lee decided to jettison Max instead, but realized he needed to do it in stages since Max wielded a lot of influence, particularly in Anaheim, but also in The Recovery at large, and could have had a huge detrimental impact on his power and bottom line.

1. Max was sent out of town Memorial Day weekend so that Mr. Lee could intimidate and manipulate, unhindered, his wife, Sandee, and the others.
2. Ray Graver had been living in Anaheim, may have still been there in this time period, and was involved with Philip in the promotion of Living Stream Ministry control. Philip told Ray about what was going on with the “three holy sisters,” a derogatory phrase that Philip used to refer to them. Philip also told Ray that his father was going to deal with them.

John, your first two points pertaining to Max has been my consideration all along. I could never figure how Jane was tied into what happened in Anahiem. Your proposed scenario seems probable and logical. If this is what happened, the Lord knows. Benson knows. Ray knows. Could this be why there has been no love on Benson's behalf to take care of this relationship? If we as Christian do have love in our hearts for other members of the Body and when relationships are damaged if not strained, we have to check our hearts and consider "what if". What if our speaking was uncalled for? What if our actions were out of line? What if we have something to repent for? That I have no doubt. We each have something to repent for.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

[*]Ray seized the opportunity for an eventual coup d’etat to replace Max with Benson and to make sure that Max couldn’t get a beachhead on their Texas turf. (They assumed that he had already part-way wiggled in through Jane Anderson via his wife, Sandee.) Ray called Benson and passed on to him that the time was ripe to dethrone Max, the source of all their troubles and the key to the “sisters’ rebellion.” With Sandee going down and Max being toppled, they could take down Jane at the same time, and, use Max in the same way that Witness Lee was going to do—as the scapegoat.[/LIST]

John, suppose this point is more accurate than it is inaccurate. Suppose there's a realization by Ray/Benson, Sandee and Jane did not know each other in 1977 and via the internet learn it wasn't until 2006 these sisters did meet. Suppose Ray/Benson realize the manner and location Jane was spoken to was without justification. Why cannot those who accused Jane say, we were wrong?
There's no statute of limitations where repentance and forgiveness is concerned. As long as the respective parties are still living, there's still time. I'm not sure what else I can add presently. I'll leave it for your consideration and those who read this post.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

The first case occurred in the late 60s and early 70s, but we didn’t learn of it until 1992. In 1992, Jane received a letter from a sister who had been abused by the Texas leadership. This sister wrote to Jane after receiving a copy of a letter we mailed to those who had started with us in Houston. Jane’s letter was sent because of Benson’s refusal to meet with us to try to rescue the marriage of an elder who had served with him. In the letter, we had described the abuse that had been exercised over the elder’s wife in 1977. The sister who wrote Jane explained that she had also been labeled as rebellious and negative.

John,
Case #1
It may be just my opinion, but in cases as this sister, Jane, among others, when these ones are set aside for being negative, leprous, etc. It's not a case of Titus 3:10. There are other reasons for it and whatever the reasons may be, it's as Hope said in one of his posts, fellowship flows downstream. As you well know John, it's not fellowship. It's an expectation to conform to Group Think. If you don't conform, you'll be out of the group. If you do conform to Group Think, it will be as taking fellowship.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

John,
Case #1
It may be just my opinion, but in cases as this sister, Jane, among others, when these ones are set aside for being negative, leprous, etc. It's not a case of Titus 3:10. There are other reasons for it and whatever the reasons may be, it's as Hope said in one of his posts, fellowship flows downstream. As you well know John, it's not fellowship. It's an expectation to conform to Group Think. If you don't conform, you'll be out of the group. If you do conform to Group Think, it will be as taking fellowship.

And another thing. I saw many brothers "dressed down" needlessly in the GLA, but never sisters.

[OBW]

Interesting that this topic should be "live" at this moment. Only yesterday my dad reminded me of the time back in 2006 that I had noted to him (and my mom who was still alive then) concerning Philip Lee's doings and the fall-out from that, noting that I had said something about them not having any idea about it. I spent just a few minutes to lay out the sequence of events, mainly in Anaheim, the involvement of BP and RG, among others in the ensuing turmoil, and the writing of the book of lies, FOTPR. He acknowledged that he had a copy of it. I made it clear that it was a fabrication designed to keep anyone who actually heard about the conflict from discovering what had really gone on.

The unfortunate thing, at least for now, is that my dad merely shook his head in disgust and noted something like "people really seem to do some evil things." I added that the mere writing of FOTPR, for me, put Lee into a category in which he should have been disqualified from ministry immediately (I made no comment about before that time). My dad made no protest.

But then he mentioned something about BM, who had been an elder in Houston, then Arlington and Irving, all while working for the LSM, only to be pushed out quietly for infidelity, later marrying another elder's wife. He knew this (not of the infidelity at the time), but not what had happened before BM left Irving. I had the opportunity to fill him in on the history based on the record in TOG and Hope's additional testimony concerning the handling of BM's expulsion. I think his eyes were opened just a little to the kind of manipulation that went on. He noted that he had once asked PD, another elder (I think in Houston for at least a time, if not to this day) about what happened to BM and was told "it was in fellowship." That was considered an unsatisfactory and "weasel" response, but he knew he would get no more.

So, starting back in 1977, a time when all of the turmoil for John and Jane began, BM had a problem. He was then shuffled to Arlington. I moved to Arlington in July, 1977 and BM had just been moved there. Then when Irving came along, he was moved there. At some level, this is sort of like moving those predator priests around by the RCC.

And it is evidence that there was a kind of control going on. Even I had no idea that it was going on. I couldn't have said that I saw any of it. But it was real.

I now wonder if the attack on Jane and on others in Austin at the same time was an effort in throwing smoke grenades about a "rebellion" to keep the problems with an important member of the LSM team under the radar while they got him moved out to hide the problem and hope it would go away.

One other note. I took just a couple of minutes to spell out the sequence of events from Memorial Day weekend, 1977, through to the divorce and remarriage of the Austin elder's wife to BM many years later, pointing to the common theme in the Houston and Austin cases, the difference in the support of the husbands for their wives, and the fact that Jane was almost the only one trying to salvage this elder's marriage. My dad could only shake his head.

He has a few things to consider now. It may take some time. And he may decide that church is church and sinners are sinners and just keep on where he is. But can only be with a different view of the whole thing.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And another thing. I saw many brothers "dressed down" needlessly in the GLA, but never sisters.

Did this happen in a side room or at a time the church was not present to witness the dressing down?
I presume that might be the case and this type of environment has served the system well. The sister/brother would either submit to the brothers and if they don't, they'll be limited or barred from fellowship. And should there be the thought the brothers need to get right with me, the sister/brother will be discredited and dismissed as a disgruntled former/member.
It has served the system well because the church had not been present to see what happens behind the scenes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by John

ZNPaaneah,

With this latest post of yours (#45), it seems that you may have come around to considering the ramifications of my presentation in #31, which I appreciate, considering the way you tried to dismiss it earlier.

I am unaware of ever trying to dismiss anything you said.

I have read all your responses and may reply to them in more detail later. (I never feel compelled to rebut everything thrown at me.) I think that most readers realize without me spelling it out for them that my main point (the fact that we were in Houston along with you) destroys your contention that there was no control by the elders in The Church in Houston during your time there—even though you threw around words like “laughable” and “absurd,” while only relying for support on your experience within the confines of Rice University and your opinion of others who had been involved with Rice.

I am sorry if I implied that "there was no control by the elders in Houston". That was not true. That was also not my testimony, and I have shared my testimony extensively both on this forum and on the Bereans forum. However, I do not believe that elders exercising control of a congregation is in and of itself a condemnation. Over the last 9 months I have come to see that there was a lot more to what was going on. I have come to see that the behavior of RG and BP towards JI in the early 80s was in my mind inexcusable. That said, the elders also exercised a form of control over me while in Houston, but I am not nearly as clear that this was as worthy of condemnation as what happened with JI. Hebrews says that we are all under discipline and if we aren't then we are bastards. I cannot look back on my experience in Houston as a new brother and see anything that could clearly be described as anything other than discipline as described in Hebrews. I could be mistaken, but this is my experience and if new information comes to light I will consider it.

Before I consider getting into the details that would be necessary to have a full discussion of the c-word (control, that is) as it relates to The Church in Houston, I want to find out where you stand, now that you’ve had a few days to ruminate on the impact of my revelation. (By the way, it should not have been a revelation to you, since you stated in your #39 that you had read Jane’s account, and she clearly stated in The Thread of Gold that we moved in 1979, not 1978.)

As far as I can recall I did not know Jane A. I don't think that either of you ever introduced yourself to me, I don't think I ever visited your home that I can recall, and I am not aware that you shared personal testimonies in the meeting. It is possible that I am wrong. But, the fact that we were in the same meeting hall together at the same time does not mean that I had the faintest idea who you were or what your situation was. As you mentioned she was under strict, stern and unreasonable control before I came in. Based on that it is reasonable for me to assume that she did not have any real personal contact with me and so I in fact did not know her. When people ask me if I knew her I say no, not because we weren't both in Houston at the same time, but because I didn't know her.

Also, if you will read pertinent parts of the book again carefully, you will find another instance of a “gross violation” of control by an elder in the affairs of another family that occurred in The Church in Houston after we left, in the early 1980s. (I’m not going to research the exact date; because, if you are willing to admit that there was control present in the Church during your first year [Jane’s case] and to admit to control in the Church just after you were gone or thereabouts [case described in The Thread of Gold], I would think that you would find it difficult to explain, much less to prove, how the control mysteriously disappeared in between.)

Once again, based on my experiences in Houston, which I have shared on public forums I do not doubt your story in the least. However, I was not aware of your situation, I was not aware of the other situation (I moved to Irving in June 1981), and in my own personal experience I was not aware of anything that could not be construed as being disciplined similar to the way a father would discipline a child. I did not stick my nose in other people's affairs, so unless you and Jane talked to me personally about your situation I would have been unaware of it.

Didn’t you go off topic?

After you deal with the gross control in The Church in Houston, I believe we could then have a decent discussion about possible campus control at Rice, but that was not exactly the topic I signed up for when I replied to your #27, point #6. If we do, I would then amend the topic to include more nuanced control and not just the “gross violation” that was occurring in the Church.

I think that the last sentence in my #31 may have led you to apply it only to Rice University. Actually, I merely intended that sentence to be a very brief synopsis of how control generally lined up with Anaheim in its flow, not to offer a way for ignoring my main point. I tacked it on to reflect my total Church experience in multiple Churches over a 20-year span, which includes our experience at the University of Houston and with U of H students who continued living with us after we moved away from the campus. From your point of view, however, after re-reading it, I can see how you might have taken it and applied it only to your experience at Rice, and I apologize if it misled you. Even with this mea culpa, keep in mind that I did not say that the elders were controlling the ones on the campuses. However, I have also not stated that they were not. Also, if it will help you to focus on the ramifications of the two main events that exhibited gross control in The Church in Houston, one in the ’78 and ’79 time frame, and the other one around, say, ’81 , then please ignore my last sentence in #31.

I shared this because my experience is quite different from others. Particularly BB, who shared his testimony about what happened when he met with Christians at UT in Austin. His experience took place at virtually the same time I was at Rice, yet I met with Christians frequently without any interference. Some have expressed incredulity at this and so I have come to realize that my experience was different because the elders and LSM hacks did not have access to our campus. Without a doubt there was a big difference between the campus work on Rice and the campus work on UH. Without any doubt the elders and LSM hacks did control the campus work on UH and that work, in my mind, was a dismal failure.

If a tree falls in a forest …

If you are simply going to repeat that it wasn’t your experience at Rice, I’ll just let you remain behind that cloistered wall. I’m not trying to be mean, but I do get bothered when someone states unequivocally that control didn’t exist in the very Church that was controlling my wife and me and those around us with whom we had worked faithfully for almost a decade, as well as controlling another family that left Houston after us. The control in both cases was carried out by Ray from Houston in concert with Benson from Dallas; so, I hope you will excuse me if I believe that you have a naïve view of their relationship. In addition, it seems to me that your understanding of the Max event, and Benson and Ray’s involvement in it, is also deficient.

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding here. I am not disputing your experience. I don't doubt that the TOC is an accurate portrayal of that experience. What I am saying is that the elders and LSM hacks did not control the work on Rice. Nothing more than that. I am not the one making blanket statements. It may be that they wanted to control it, but it was outside of their jurisdiction and they were unable to control it. Second, in my senior year at Rice we had 6 brothers, all of which were brought into fellowship with the church through the Gospel. By comparison UH had about 12, none of which were the result of the gospel. Why on earth would we want them to take control of our work? To my mind there was no gospel work on UH, they had a campus work and a brothers house, but no gospel.

After I get an answer to my question at the end of this post, I will consider discussing with you the elders in Texas, including those in Houston, and their conspiracies. Also, I might be willing to discuss the situation at Rice and whether or not there was any control there. Jane and I experienced the elders’ hands of control at the University of Houston, which you might factor in to your experience at Rice. Even though it was a few years earlier, I don’t imagine that control just disappeared since a culture of control had been established, especially not as long as Ray was still there. In such a discussion, I am quite willing to let you be the expert about all things Rice. If a tree fell in those woods, I wouldn’t have heard it.

They did exercise a lot of control. The biggest joke was whenever we had a gospel meeting the brother's most responsible for the work would run that meeting. These are brothers who you could know by their fruit, i.e. they were barren. However, DC, who was probably the most fruitful brother in Houston was only asked once to share a testimony, and never once asked to share one of those meetings. One reason was that he was a poor public speaker. Isn't it funny that here is a person that preached the gospel every day, who brought new gospel contacts to the meetings every month, and often every week, and yet he was a very poor speaker. To me that was a testimony that God is not a respecter of man's person. But it was certainly a bone of contention my last year at Rice. I and the other brothers on campus would share weekly our experiences in the gospel. We had fruit, we had experiences and we were not under the control of anyone. Yet, the gospel meetings were run by LSM hacks that had no fruit.

Main point

So, here is my main point again: You asked for an example of a “gross violation,” and I gave you the elders’ treatment of Jane Anderson. In 1978, Jane was in The Church in Houston under very strict, stern, and unreasonable discipline by the elders; in 1979, she was still there, suffering an almost indescribable torment on a daily basis. In 1978 and 1979, you were there, too (and so was I). The fact that you didn’t even realize that she was there when she had not too long before been a prominent sister (my words, not hers), just further proves my point that there was discipline, that it was severe, and that it succeeded in taking her out of her “function” for the duration of our time there. Jane and I were suffering a hellishly-inspired discipline that almost drove Jane mad and me into the hospital. You were in the same local body we were in; and, don’t forget, when one member suffers, all suffer with that person.


Question

So, I ask you, based on the experience of John and Jane Anderson, was there unwarranted gross control by the elders over the members of The Church in Houston during part of your time there?

Why would you ask me? Is there any reason why you would think that I was aware or had any knowledge of what was going on with you and Jane? Do you think I have some knowledge of this case or had fellowship with RG and know his mind on it?

Based on what I read in the TOC I believe the elders exhibited extreme control. Based on the time frame this took place at the same time that I met with the church.

The real issue is "was it unwarranted". In hindsight I think it clearly was based on false accusations made from Anaheim. But I remember the atmosphere at the time. Was it unwarranted for RG and BP to respond to those accusations? Of course not. Was it unwarranted that they responded in the way they did? Before I answer, one little aside...

Let's be realistic, RG had a full time job to support his family in addition to being elder and BP didn't live in Houston, these brothers didn't have the time or resources to do an investigation. Does this justify their actions? No. But this is a problem that all churches have when accusations are made, how do you respond. Look at how the Catholic church dealt with priests that were accused of being pedophiles. The reality of many congregations is that there are many unsubstantiated rumors and accusations made over the years and no one has adequate resources to deal with them. The Catholic church did not quarantine those priests and they are now being damned for it, RG and BP did quarantine you and they are being damned for it.

OK, the question you are asking should be asked of the Lord Jesus. It is not for me to judge if RK and BP were unwarranted in their actions, it is for Him to decide. I suppose if I heard their side of the story I would be better equipped to judge, but who am I? I have no more knowledge of this case that anyone else in the LRC other than the fact that I was in Houston. Proverbs discusses the things that God hates and making false accusations to cause division between brothers is at the top of the list. Therefore I believe the ones responsible for the false accusations should be held most accountable.