Was Day Star poor judgment or fraud?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have a little trouble with this. Just because and elder, the founder, or a "trusted" minister turns out to be a con man has no instructive bearing on whether the organization in question is a church.

The word "con man" refers to someone who uses a "confidence trick". It is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. This is done by exploiting characteristics of the human psyche (I referred to greed or arrogance, but there are other possibilities).

To my understanding this would imply several things:

1. WL was not a genuine Christian, but always had a motive of defrauding the saints. (My current view is that he was a genuine believer who was caught up in his own error).
2. The saints were attracted to the LRC and WL, not because of Christ but due to greed, arrogance, or some other human failing. Not my experience, nor do I believe it was the experience of those I knew best.

Once again, I would defer to Witness Lee on this, he said that a counterfeit bill can be 99% correct and still a counterfeit. That to me is much more my experience. Likewise, I would compare WL to Eli, and Eli was not a "con man" he was a priest of the most high God. I would also compare WL to Balaam, the poster boy for false prophets, but a man who spoke the Lord's word and who blessed the children of Israel. According to the NT it refers to "the error of Balaam" not that Balaam was a con man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To my understanding this would imply several things:

1. WL was not a genuine Christian, but always had a motive of defrauding the saints.
2. The saints were attracted to the LRC and WL, not because of Christ but due to greed, arrogance, or some other human failing.

I could never agree with either of these conclusions.

1. Witness Lee absolutely, definitely, and genuinely was a beloved brother in Christ.

2. Most of the saints, especially in those early days, were attracted to the Recovery because of Christ as the Spirit infilling them through the word of God ministered in the LC's.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I could never agree with either of these conclusions.

1. Witness Lee absolutely, definitely, and genuinely was a beloved brother in Christ.

2. Most of the saints, especially in those early days, were attracted to the Recovery because of Christ as the Spirit infilling them through the word of God ministered in the LC's.

Thank you. I would consider it a great insult to think that my 20 years in the LRC was nothing but a big con.

One important reason I spend time on this forum is to deconstruct what happened, particularly how to understand WL.

Some consider him to be the "Minister of the Age"

I consider him to be a "False Teacher"

but although that is a wide range, I have yet to see any compelling argument to be made that he was a "Con Man". Yes, DayStar in my opinion was fraud, and that fraud was perpetrated by WL, hence you could say that he "conned" the saints. Yes, he probably was involved in several cons. Even so, I think it is much more illuminating to refer to him as a "false teacher" similar to Balaam, than to call him a con man similar to Elmer Gantry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One important reason I spend time on this forum is to deconstruct what happened, particularly how to understand WL.

Some consider him to be the "Minister of the Age"

I consider him to be a "False Teacher"

I've been on board with LC "deconstruction" for almost a decade.

So far, the best scripture I have found to describe WL is Acts 20.30.

But your comments about False Teachers from 2 Peter 2.1-3 have application also.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So far, the best scripture I have found to describe WL is Acts 20.30..

What do you think about merchandising? Notice that Mark 11:16 says that Jesus "would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." What would Jesus think of the incessant merchandising activities of Lee and his South American counterpart Dong?

My sense is that these were indeed repentant, "converted", born-again brothers, who got bit by the "spirit of Simon Magus", and began to desire to convert genuine Christian seeking into pecuniary relations (i.e. merchandising). Daystar is a very good example of this. But it is clearly not the only example.

The most recent schism, of LSM & GLA & Arvore da Vida, seems to be about merchandising rights, if it is about anything. And my distant remembrance of LSM was that they were rather "laissez faire" (live and let live) until someone touched the cash cow. Suddenly you saw the other side, the stern one.

Rather than being a control freak, maybe Lee was a nice, pleasant, mellow, forebearing brother, as long as the money kept flowing in to Anaheim. When I was meeting there in one of the local churches, he certainly seemed fixated on numbers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

my distant remembrance of LSM was that they were rather "laissez faire" (live and let live) until someone touched the cash cow. Suddenly you saw the other side, the stern one..

Here is a quote from Terry, which seems to confirm some of my suspicions on Lee being a merchandiser:

Originally Posted by Terry

Having read portions of George Henry Lang's The Churches of God, it's quite helpful and scriptural. The problem some would have is it's counterproductive to a ministry like LSM that would depend to some degree on churches as financial resources. One could assert once a church is no longer a financial resource, it needs to be "replastered" (see Leviticus 14:33-57).

Lee did and taught some seemingly good things, which seemed to make him money (i.e. book, tape, and video sales, training fees, etc). He also did some not-so-good things (i.e. Daystar) which also made him & family some money. The common denominator was making money.

According to Terry, Lee had an accepting and tolerant view of Lang's work until it threatened the money flow. Suddenly Lang was cast aside. Unprofitable, indeed.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee did and taught some seemingly good things, which seemed to make him money (i.e. book, tape, and video sales, training fees, etc). He also did some not-so-good things (i.e. Daystar) which also made him & family some money. The common denominator was making money.

I might be in error to make such a claim, but there could be some merit to suggest LSM tolerated Titus's work while Lee was alive and after he died until reduction in revenue from the GLA going to LSM became apparent. The climax of the story being some GLA localities opting not to participate in the Harvest House lawsuit.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

What do you think about merchandising?

Rather than being a control freak, maybe Lee was a nice, pleasant, mellow, forbearing brother, as long as the money kept flowing in to Anaheim. When I was meeting there in one of the local churches, he certainly seemed fixated on numbers.

In that section of Acts 20, Paul gave us a great pattern. He coveted no man's money, he worked with his own hands, he cared for the weak more than his own ministry, taking the Lord's own words that it is "more blessed to give than to receive."

Witness Lee cared little for the poor and the weak. His followers became the same. Lee was consumed with furthering his ministry and his reputation. Those ends justified many rotten "means," including Daystar and merchandizing the saints.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

What do you think about merchandising? Notice that Mark 11:16 says that Jesus "would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." What would Jesus think of the incessant merchandising activities of Lee and his South American counterpart Dong?

My sense is that these were indeed repentant, "converted", born-again brothers, who got bit by the "spirit of Simon Magus", and began to desire to convert genuine Christian seeking into pecuniary relations (i.e. merchandising). Daystar is a very good example of this. But it is clearly not the only example.

The most recent schism, of LSM & GLA & Arvore da Vida, seems to be about merchandising rights, if it is about anything. And my distant remembrance of LSM was that they were rather "laissez faire" (live and let live) until someone touched the cash cow. Suddenly you saw the other side, the stern one.

Rather than being a control freak, maybe Lee was a nice, pleasant, mellow, forebearing brother, as long as the money kept flowing in to Anaheim. When I was meeting there in one of the local churches, he certainly seemed fixated on numbers.

I consider this to refer to the error of Balaam.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I consider this to refer to the error of Balaam.

Balaam was in the OT narrative, Simon Magus in the new. Same spirit, same infection.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

The most recent schism, of LSM & GLA & Arvore da Vida, seems to be about merchandising rights, if it is about anything.

Setting aside all the posturing and "spiritual" jargon used by all parties to justify their behavior it is indeed a trademark i.e. merchandising rights and promotion issue. Using GLA as a case in point what were the LSM staff all upset about?

1. Titus Chu dared to publish his own works.
2. Titus Chu declined to promote LSM events and dared to schedule local and regional events when LSM had an event going on.
3. Titus Chu would not take directives from the LSM who claim to be the official bonafide "trademark" owners of the Witness Lee brand i.e Titus Chu is pirating their brand.

WITNESS LEE! WITNESS LEE! WITNESS LEE!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

What do you think about merchandising? Notice that Mark 11:16 says that Jesus "would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts." What would Jesus think of the incessant merchandising activities of Lee and his South American counterpart Dong?

My sense is that these were indeed repentant, "converted", born-again brothers, who got bit by the "spirit of Simon Magus", and began to desire to convert genuine Christian seeking into pecuniary relations (i.e. merchandising). Daystar is a very good example of this. But it is clearly not the only example.

The most recent schism, of LSM & GLA & Arvore da Vida, seems to be about merchandising rights, if it is about anything. And my distant remembrance of LSM was that they were rather "laissez faire" (live and let live) until someone touched the cash cow. Suddenly you saw the other side, the stern one.

Rather than being a control freak, maybe Lee was a nice, pleasant, mellow, forebearing brother, as long as the money kept flowing in to Anaheim. When I was meeting there in one of the local churches, he certainly seemed fixated on numbers.

Lee was a failure at business time and time again, but came to realize that he had a captive market, and so, became a success at fleecing the sheep. Daystar wasn't the only time he "took their virginity."

Premeditated fleecing makes him a con man.

Making a belt of gold and getting caught trying to smuggle it into Taipei reveals that long before Lee came to America he had dishonesty & malice in his heart.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Lee was a failure at business time and time again, but came to realize that he had a captive market, and so, became a success at fleecing the sheep. Daystar wasn't the only time he "took their virginity."

Premeditated fleecing makes him a con man.

Making a belt of gold and getting caught trying to smuggle it into Taipei reveals that long before Lee came to America he had dishonesty & malice in his heart.

You may be right. Madoff made his con a lifetime con. If WL was a con man it was a lifetime con. That will be for the Lord to judge. BTW do we get to spectate during the judgment? I mean will we observe how this all plays out at the Lord's throne of judgment?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've been on board with LC "deconstruction" for almost a decade.

So far, the best scripture I have found to describe WL is Acts 20.30.

But your comments about False Teachers from 2 Peter 2.1-3 have application also.

Acts 20:18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,

This speaks precisely about looking at what a person does, not what they say. Paul's very first word is not about what he taught, but rather about his manner of living. When someone's living does not match their teaching that should set off alarm bells. That is one lesson learned from the LRC and WL.

Unfortunately I did not learn of any conflicts between WL's words and deeds until coming to this forum, years after leaving the LRC. Likewise with WN.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This speaks precisely about looking at what a person does, not what they say. Paul's very first word is not about what he taught, but rather about his manner of living. When someone's living does not match their teaching that should set off alarm bells. That is one lesson learned from the LRC and WL.

This is where Lee's handlers shielded him from the eyes of the saints. They were able to filter his misdeeds and spin them as spiritual. Being in the GLA, Titus Chu was able to characterize all those around Lee and screwups and rebels, while Lee's pristine image was always maintained as the "face" of the franchise.

To his credit, Witness Lee did live an austere, godly manner of life. Many testified of this. The problem is that his harsh condemnations of all Christianity was never challenge, and instead was viewed as "spiritual maturity." The way he treated the other leading brothers was contemptible, and yet that was viewed as profitable for their "perfecting."

Paul never treated others this way. The brothers around him witnessed the love of God displayed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is where Lee's handlers shielded him from the eyes of the saints. They were able to filter his misdeeds and spin them as spiritual. Being in the GLA, Titus Chu was able to characterize all those around Lee and screwups and rebels, while Lee's pristine image was always maintained as the "face" of the franchise.

To his credit, Witness Lee did live an austere, godly manner of life. Many testified of this. The problem is that his harsh condemnations of all Christianity was never challenge, and instead was viewed as "spiritual maturity." The way he treated the other leading brothers was contemptible, and yet that was viewed as profitable for their "perfecting."

Paul never treated others this way. The brothers around him witnessed the love of God displayed.

Yes the misdeeds of PL and TL were shielded and I never learned of them until right before I left the LRC.

However, no one in the LRC, myself included, could argue that WL "served the Lord in all humility". This was open for all to see. Likewise, it may be that BP was blinded by his ambition to run a worldwide ministry, let the Lord judge on that, but we all to some extent or other considered ourselves "elite" Christians. It is just like the Lord said, we were invited to the feast and had the audacity to think we could sit at the head of the table, that was the sin we all need to repent of. Had it not been for that sin I doubt any of us could have been bamboozled.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The word "con man" refers to someone who uses a "confidence trick". It is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence. This is done by exploiting characteristics of the human psyche (I referred to greed or arrogance, but there are other possibilities).

That is why I mentioned a "narrow definition" of con man. In the most literal sense, you are correct. But, as you now acknowledge, it is frailties of the human psyche that are targeted, not simply greed or arrogance. By listing only those two, among many, you make the implication that "we" were simply asking for it. As if getting tricked is always the responsibility of the one being tricked. Might as well blame the woman for getting . . . .

Originally Posted by Ohio

I could never agree with either of these conclusions.

1. Witness Lee absolutely, definitely, and genuinely was a beloved brother in Christ.

2. Most of the saints, especially in those early days, were attracted to the Recovery because of Christ as the Spirit infilling them through the word of God ministered in the LC's.

I mostly agree with your first assessment. Lee was a brother. And as any brother should be beloved, he qualifies. But he also stands from day one in the US as something of a mixture. One that we had no basis to see or know about. Our first real hint at it was Daystar. Then it just kept rolling out in stages. (If there was anything modal in the LRC, it was the revelation of Lee, not of God.)

But your second statement concerns an area that is nothing if not cloudy. I sort of want to make a Yoda-like statement about being full of emotion, pain, uncertainty. The environment was "charged" in the early days. Was that clearly God, or emotions due to a sense of exhilaration from our direct participation in the meetings? Did Lee do anything truly spiritual that caused it, or just provide the venue for us to do as we would? Were the things he "gave" us that seemed to add to it truly spiritual or just adding to that emotional state?

I cannot make a clear analysis of it all. I'm sure that there was some truth mixed in there, along with emotion. And those "we got the right stuff" teachings surely puffed-up our emotions. Surely a mixed bag.

I would suggest that the best that the LRC ever had to offer that provided any spiritual benefit was its members, not really its teachings. It was the infilling of the Spirit in a collection of what would otherwise have been the pillars in other churches.

Then, as the emotional mix went higher, it also attracted more through the emotional lift it provided. I'm sure that you saw the collection of borderline unstable ones who came along, attracted by the environment.

I do not say that God was not among us. He is always among those who meet in his name. But not everything that we attribute to God was necessarily His doing.

And in these kinds of discussions, you step into a minefield because it is difficult to accept that things with the mantle of scripture and truth may not always be true. For example, calling on the Lord is a good thing. Even sometimes in the way of the LRC teachings. But when it becomes a kind of formula for improving your feelings, what is that? And improving feelings is not the stated goal of calling on the Lord. It is, or should be, contacting God. It is not about feelings. They may or may not change. But God is contacted. Yet if the goal is the feelings, then you have to question whether you have actually contacted God or just used a mantra to alter your perception of an unchanged reality. We did not start out in that way, but it seems clear that such things as a directive to call on the Lord jointly, three times, from the toes does nothing but chase away the lingering doubts that things like a kangaroo court in Whistler is not a spiritual activity. Did they really contact God? They said the words. Their feelings surely improved. That has to be from God, right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I cannot make a clear analysis of it all. I'm sure that there was some truth mixed in there, along with emotion. And those "we got the right stuff" teachings surely puffed-up our emotions. Surely a mixed bag.

I would suggest that the best that the LRC ever had to offer that provided any spiritual benefit was its members, not really its teachings. It was the infilling of the Spirit in a collection of what would otherwise have been the pillars in other churches.

I do not say that God was not among us. He is always among those who meet in his name. But not everything that we attribute to God was necessarily His doing.

For example, calling on the Lord is a good thing. Even sometimes in the way of the LRC teachings. But when it becomes a kind of formula for improving your feelings, what is that? And improving feelings is not the stated goal of calling on the Lord. It is, or should be, contacting God. It is not about feelings. They may or may not change. But God is contacted. Yet if the goal is the feelings, then you have to question whether you have actually contacted God or just used a mantra to alter your perception of an unchanged reality. We did not start out in that way, but it seems clear that such things as a directive to call on the Lord jointly, three times, from the toes does nothing but chase away the lingering doubts that things like a kangaroo court in Whistler is not a spiritual activity. Did they really contact God? They said the words. Their feelings surely improved. That has to be from God, right?

Great points ... yes, hard to make a clear analysis of it all ... yes, people were often far better than teachings ... yes, God was with us ... and yes, we did not start out this way.

My conclusion is that the more Witness Lee drew men to himself, speaking perverted things, drawing the disciples away, the worse things became. That's it in a nutshell. That's exactly what the Apostle warned us of with many tears. (Acts 20.30-31) The more Witness Lee was elevated in the Recovery, the quality of spiritual life steadily deteriorated.

You mentioned calling on the name of the Lord. Who would protest this as not being spiritual? Yet, didn't the Lord warn us about vain babbling and taking His name in vain? Consider that Whistler Kangaroo Court, when everyone stood up and "called on the Lord 5x," per Dan Towles instruction. Was that not hypocrisy and vain babbling? How about John Myer's account outside that Columbus courtroom where the saints are "calling on His name" while filing property lawsuits against their brothers and sisters? Was that not taking the Lord's name in vain?

Part of the deterioration over the years was due to the departure of spiritual men who were replaced with zealots and lackeys, whose sole devotion was the furtherance of all things Witness Lee. Part of the deterioration was due to a restructuring of the diet of the common man from the word of God to the words of Witness Lee. Part of the deterioration was the departure of the anointing Spirit of God since Witness Lee had risen to prominence ahead of the Firstborn Son.

Paul's warning (Acts 20.18-36) was to "take heed, watch, remember the pattern he gave us, and to be committed to God and the word of His grace."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Part of the deterioration was due to a restructuring of the diet of the common man from the word of God to the words of Witness Lee.

This I can attest to, and was guilty of as well. It took me years, even after I stopped meeting with the "local churches", to wean myself from the voice of Witness Lee. The "interpreted word" seemingly held some fresh, potent power, and the "plain" word, uninterpreted, seemed lacking in comparison. It was as if Lee had "crystallized" the words of spirit and life and intensified them fourfold, if not sevenfold.

It took me years to get over that effect. And not without a struggle, either.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Part of the deterioration over the years was due to the departure of spiritual men who were replaced with zealots and lackeys, whose sole devotion was the furtherance of all things Witness Lee. Part of the deterioration was due to a restructuring of the diet of the common man from the word of God to the words of Witness Lee. Part of the deterioration was the departure of the anointing Spirit of God since Witness Lee had risen to prominence ahead of the Firstborn Son.

Paul's warning (Acts 20.18-36) was to "take heed, watch, remember the pattern he gave us, and to be committed to God and the word of His grace."

Perhaps one reason I avoided much if not all of this was that my diet was always the word of God. For years I couldn't afford to waste $5 or $10 on a book I wasn't going to read. So I learned that the WL books were just a waste for me. I didn't know if that was indicative of being less spiritually mature, didn't really care. When I could afford to buy a WL book I would thumb through them but never find anything that I felt was worth the time to read.

For years it was something of a shame that I couldn't afford the "high peaks truth". Once again the Lord is found faithful.

Acts 20:19 Serving the Lord with all humility of mind

The second thing that Paul reminds us of is how he served the Lord with "all humility of mind". How is "the Seer of the divine revelation" all humility of mind? How is casting aspersions on all other Christians and saying that they have no new light "all humility of mind"? How could anyone argue that WL "served the Lord with all humility of mind"?