The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

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

Thanks much for the clarification.

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

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

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

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

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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


Thankful Jane

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Suannehill]

My husband often quotes to me..."You can't cheat an honest man!"

Strange saying until he explains...

An honest man will never give in to the temptation to make money in a shady fashion. An honest man will pass on any deals that don't appear on the up and up.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

They preach kingdom righteousness to everyone else, but never lived it themselves. Isn't that what the Lord Jesus called hypocrisy?

In this vein, I can't help but remember Lee's book, "The Experience of Life" where he instructed us about how Christians needed to make restitution. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

W. Lee gambled and, from the publishing business perspective, one might say he won. His “golden parachute” landed him safely. However, I wonder how that parachute is workin' for him now that he's passed out of this life? Maybe he's asked for permission to come back and warn the Blendeds and their followers what is ahead of them. Since he'll probably get the same answer the rich Lazurus got when he asked for a temporary visa back to this life, it looks like the only warning the Blendeds will get will be from the voices of all those they have hurt which continue to surface on the internet. The message in all the voices should be clear to the them. It says:

"Blendeds, be warned. You have proudly followed in Lee's footsteps, boasting in his ill-gotten glory. Do you want to finish the trip he made and end up at the same destination with the same baggage? Wake up while you can. It's not too late for you, but the repentance train is moving pretty fast down the tracks. Much longer and you might not be able to catch it."

Thankful Jane

P. S. I find it to be a God thing that so many can speak directly to the LSM folks today by means of internet forums. For years they slammed the door (or worse) on any who tried to communicate honestly with them, but the internet has changed all that. Even though they don't want to hear from those of us who have found our voices, they have to. Now that I think about it, this exposes another one of their hypocrisies. They say not to have any contact with negative speaking, yet in order to do damage control, they (at least some who are probably assigned to do so) search out and have contact with material that is anti-them, material which, no doubt, includes all our little "negative" words. Gotta luv it.

[TLFisher]

When Dan began to speak, he announced that there was a “sisters’ rebellion” in the Texas churches and that the sister leading this rebellion was in the Houston church. According to him, this sister had committed serious offenses against the church. She and others with her had encouraged people to open up and talk about their problems.... At one point, he stated his belief that sisters didn’t have any spiritual discernment, and that they were, therefore, easy prey for Satan’s deception. He also stated his belief that sisters could not receive revelation from the Bible.
Copyright 2005 by Jane Carole Anderson

What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?

James 5:15-17
and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months.

The key phrase is pray for one another. How can you know what to pray for if you don't know the problem? If you or I are to pray for one another, there will be a need to speak about problems.

So Benson believes sisters don't have any spiritual discernment?

Acts 18:24-26
Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

Luke 24:9-11
and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.

Whenever Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned, it's always Priscilla first and Aquila second. Does that indicate Priscilla had more discernment than her husband Aquila? As eloquent Apollos was, Priscilla with her husband Aquila had the discernment to adjust Apollos.

As in the passage from Luke 24, I do recognize it's possible for sisters to have discernement brothers are lacking in. Brothers have been generally overly spiritual in the recovery. Just as in Luke 24, for sisters to be in discernment, that is complete nonsense. Just as in Luke 24:12, not until a brother sees for himself is it accepted.

My point being Jane and others sisters in Houston at that time discerned a lack and a need among their ecclesia. Brothers being overly spiritual tended to be negligent regarding our humanity. The phrase I often heard as a young brother regarding problems was, turn to your spirit and call on the Lord. When you're overly spiritual and neglecting problems of our humanity, the problems will still exist no matter how much one strives to ignore them. I see the sisters using the problems as a catalyst for prayer. If a sister was having issues with her husband, in expressing these issues, and in praying over these issues, and as prayers are answered there becomes are more harmonious and fulfilling marriage.
I think by nature brothers would be offended by such an approach. Not only is it exposing, it debunks the thought everything is allright in their marriage even when it's not. Brothers would naturally think if there's an issue in the marriage, his wife ought to go to him and keep it in-house. Do not go outside the house and expose dirty laundry.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Terry

What is the issue with encouraging ones to talk about their problems?

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

What happened with Phillip Lee was unusual. In any other business environment Phillip would have been fired. Just the topic alone, there are those who insist what was said of Phillip Lee were rumors. Even if there were witnesses to contradict any rumor.
Back to the topic of sisters opening up. I know several sisters who open up to my wife because keeping it inside was too much to bear. One sister in particular tried going to her husband, but he could not take her concerns to heart.
How about another couple my wife and I know who divorced last year. While they were married, you could not have guessed anything was wrong. Because there was no willingness to open up, how could they receive counseling and prayer?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

Think about how much teaching and "fellowship" that exists in the LC's just to maintain their quarantines. Prime example is their recent 28 booklet "Attack Pack" which came out a few years ago, none of which addresses the serious items of the Faith. The basis for all these teachings is the writings of WL, specifically his views and preferences about so many meany items.

Back in the 90's, related to all the high peaks stuff, I remember lamenting the necessary learning of all those doctrines. Who could I speak this stuff too? What was the point in learning it? What was the value in one's daily life? How could I share with others that I was becoming God?!? My only window of opportunity was my allotted 3 plus minutes prophecy time on Sunday morning.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious, there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

ZNP,

This post left me with some questions.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the problem with sisters opening up about their problems is obvious.

ZNP, would you mind explaining what you mean by the above statement?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

...there were sisters in Anaheim that had problems with PL and if they felt they could open up about it the whole house of cards could come down.

What is your source for the above information?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But as a result, in order to squelch any sense of fellowship and openness they create all kinds of erroneous teachings and practices.

I don't understand this sentence. Who is "they" ?

It's probably too late for me to be posting because I'm at the end of a long day and am sleepy. I considered waiting and re-reading your post tomorrow, but then decided to go ahead now, knowing that by the time I am able to get back to it, I probably will have talked myself out of posting.

Thankful Jane