Jim Moran and Light of Truth Ministries

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I remember something like some notes scribbled by WL for a talk that showed WL asking why he was being treated badly, does that ring a bell with anyone?

Originally Posted by Dan Azuma

Dear Mr. Azuma:

We are writing to you on behalf of The Church in Fullerton to inform you of apparent copyright infringement found on your web site: http://dazuma.freeshell.org/lcinfo.

As you may know, in April of this year [2003] representatives of The Church in Fullerton contacted the executor of Mr. Moran's estate and purchased all of Mr. Moran's websites, articles, publications, postings, copyrights, trade names, trademarks and correspondence concerning the Local Church that were authored, created, assembled, collected or arranged by Mr. Moran ("the Works"). Because you currently have posted on your website numerous articles and sound files included in the Works, we are writing to inform you that any and all previous permissions or licenses to utilize and distribute the Works have been revoked (see also http://www.ltm.org/info.html). Therefore, as the new owner with the exclusive right to distribute the Works, we request that you remove these materials from your website.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions you can reach us at the above address or by email at: djsady@aol.com.

Respectfully,

Daniel E. Towle
Daniel J. Sady
For The Church in Fullerton Corporation

What bothered the Blendeds so much? Someone expressing their opinion? Or was there something else there in "the Works", to be tucked away?

[aron]

It appears that Moran's electronic domain has been turned into a LC apologist site:

http://www.ltm.org/

[Freedom]

I never had the opportunity to read Jim Moran’s writings when his sites were up. In fact, I didn’t even know what was out there in the wild on the internet regarding the LC back then. All I knew is that around the early 2000’s I began hearing stern warnings not to read anything on the internet regarding the LC.

From my browsing of the archived links posted yesterday, it occurred to me that as an outsider, Jim Moran probably wasn’t aware of much of the “inside” information that we now are. It seems that the way that he might have been a “threat” to them is that there were various URLs that might come up in a google search such as “biblesforamericaexposed”. Thus his sites probably had a fair amount of visibility. It seems in buying up his sites the goal was never to address his writings, but to sweep it all under the rug.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I never had the opportunity to read Jim Moran’s writings when his sites were up. In fact, I didn’t even know what was out there in the wild on the internet regarding the LC back then. All I knew is that around the early 2000’s I began hearing stern warnings not to read anything on the internet regarding the LC.

From my browsing of the archived links posted yesterday, it occurred to me that as an outsider, Jim Moran probably wasn’t aware of much of the “inside” information that we now are. It seems that the way that he might have been a “threat” to them is that there were various URLs that might come up in a google search such as “biblesforamericaexposed”. Thus his sites probably had a fair amount of visibility. It seems in buying up his sites the goal was never to address his writings, but to sweep it all under the rug.

I found Moran harmless to the LC's. He knew very little which actually exposed the inner workings of Witness Lee, his family, his blendeds, and LSM. Jim Moran was a Moody grad who could not get a job pastoring, and eventually connected with a wealthy Texan donor who had family in the LCM. Moran then devised a plan to "research" the LCM from the "inside" by visiting the Church in Chicago as a "newcomer." Obviously those folks sniffed him out fairly quickly, treating him with kind respect, until he decided he had seen enough.

[UntoHim]

Actually Moran wasn't that concerned with the inner workers of Witness Lee's family, and the fact that he actually tried to experience "the church life" from the inside speaks more good things about him than bad. At the end of the day, Moran was a Christian apologist who tried to specialize in the teachings and practices of the Local Church of Witness Lee, and as with all groundbreaking efforts, it was incomplete.

The fact that he was not able to obtain a ministry position at a local church is totally irrelevant to what he wrote about concerning the Local Church of Witness Lee. His critique of the teachings and practices were, for the most part, accurate and fair. His critique was also not set in concrete - Moran was evolving and maturing regarding his views and understanding of the main teachings and practices. Unfortunately, for Moran, his family and for the Christian public, he died rather suddenly, and his work was left incomplete.

What Dan Towle and "The Church in Fullerton" did in purchasing Moran's website (and subsequently removing it from the web) was one of the most despicable acts in the history of the LC movement. Thankfully this unscrupulous stunt backfired on Towle et al, and the Christian public was alerted, wondering why any legitimate Christian group would go to such extreme measures to suppress information about what was really taught and practiced.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What Dan Towle and "The Church in Fullerton" did in purchasing Moran's website (and subsequently removing it from the web) was one of the most despicable acts in the history of the LC movement. Thankfully this unscrupulous stunt backfired on Towle et al, and the Christian public was alerted, wondering why any legitimate Christian group would go to such extreme measures to suppress information about what was really taught and practiced.

Just yesterday, I was reading about the Church in Houston v. Jim Moran case regarding the rights to the domain name thelocalchurch.org. It really made me wonder, just what kind of world are LCers living in? Here you have a single local church trying to lay claim to a name that's not theirs to begin with, wasting the money of saints to pursue litigation. It's the same issue with the church in Fullerton buying up Jim Moran's domains and works - a terrible waste of money. When Jim Moran passed away, Dan Towle et al. accomplished what they wanted to do with regards to Jim Moran, but they by no means solved their little internet "problem". Moran was just one of many critics. His writings and websites were just a drop in the bucket compared to what is available now.

The LC leaders are extremely naive in thinking that they can sweep things under the rug as a solution to problems. That only works as long as they can stop members from trying to find such information. There are no longer websites like biblesforamericaexposed.com, but anybody out there can come up with new ones. If I wanted to, I could start new websites of my own such as: avoidbiblesforamerica.com or bewareofchristiansoncampus.com. Point is that the LC only exposed its true nature by attempting to sweep everything under the rug. What does it tell people when a group tries to sue instead of respond to criticism on a point-by-point basis. The DCP/LSM/LC method of responding to criticism goes something as follows: "this unprecedented attack against Witness Lee and the local churches is absolutely false and defamatory..." They thus never actually respond to criticism, they just try to paint the criticism as being done in bad faith, having ill motives and no basis. The minute they have to address actual points of concern, all the sudden things don't look so good for the LC.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I found Moran harmless to the LC's. He knew very little which actually exposed the inner workings of Witness Lee, his family, his blendeds, and LSM. Jim Moran was a Moody grad who could not get a job pastoring, and eventually connected with a wealthy Texan donor who had family in the LCM. Moran then devised a plan to "research" the LCM from the "inside" by visiting the Church in Chicago as a "newcomer." Obviously those folks sniffed him out fairly quickly, treating him with kind respect, until he decided he had seen enough.

So why the LC over-reaction to "the Works" of Jim Moran, as their cease-and-desist legal brief put it? Why buy it up, bury it, and pretend that it had never existed?

Perhaps their perception of Moran's work as a threat to their version of good order in LC church life shows something about the weakness of their own position. If a Jim Moran can put them to such a state of agitation, then how solid is their standing? Not very.

I think that the "raising up" of the ministry of Watchman Nee, and subsequently the Little Flock, with its more ardent and virulent offspring like the LC, were predicated upon a critique of Christianity as it stood and stands today, so unequivocal as to be de facto rejection. Therefore, we within the LC "ministry" heard a never-ending stream of negative comments about how things stood outside of the our flock. Never mind that WL hadn't met with the Baptists or any others for 30 or 40 years; he could tell us what "most Christians" knew, or didn't know, or were up to, or weren't up to, at any given moment.

But the problem with a programme established upon a foundation of critique and rejection of others, either implicit or explicit, is that it must itself remain free from any reciprocity. Because it owes its very existence to the inadequacy and failure of the "other" (Christianity, which is the Great Whore Babylon, in this case), if the critic found lacking as well, what then? The vulnerability of the LC position was activated when the lens of Moran's examination, however weak, was turned back on them, as theirs was on others. The very "ground of the church" might be exposed as shifty sand, and thus the resulting nuclear strike against a mere mosquito.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

So why the LC over-reaction to "the Works" of Jim Moran, as their cease-and-desist legal brief put it? Why buy it up, bury it, and pretend that it had never existed?

Perhaps their perception of Moran's work as a threat to their version of good order in LC church life shows something about the weakness of their own position. If a Jim Moran can put them to such a state of agitation, then how solid is their standing? Not very.

I completely agree that the LC reaction to Jim Moran was an over-reaction. I also agree that he was not much of a "threat" to them in comparison to others who have tasked themselves with critiquing the LC. Maybe at the time of Jim Moran's passing, they still thought that they could "control" what was out there on the internet. Time has proven that to not be the case. These days the most they can do is to speak out against why they don't like, they might talk of "lawless users of the internet". Needless to say it's not a good long-term strategy for them.

Originally Posted by aron

I think that the "raising up" of the ministry of Watchman Nee, and subsequently the Little Flock, with its more ardent and virulent offspring like the LC, were predicated upon a critique of Christianity as it stood and stands today, so unequivocal as to be de facto rejection. Therefore, we within the LC "ministry" heard a never-ending stream of negative comments about how things stood outside of the our flock. Never mind that WL hadn't met with the Baptists or any others for 30 or 40 years; he could tell us what "most Christians" knew, or didn't know, or were up to, or weren't up to, at any given moment.

But the problem with a programme established upon a foundation of critique and rejection of others, either implicit or explicit, is that it must itself remain free from any reciprocity. Because it owes its very existence to the inadequacy and failure of the "other" (Christianity, which is the Great Whore Babylon, in this case), if the critic found lacking as well, what then? The vulnerability of the LC position was activated when the lens of Moran's examination, however weak, was turned back on them, as theirs was on others. The very "ground of the church" might be exposed as shifty sand, and thus the resulting nuclear strike against a mere mosquito.

The need of the LC to critique others is one of their defining attributes. It's really the basis upon which they meet - they are the ones who have been "recovered" and everyone else is "fallen". It makes sense why they would be so sensitive then to critique. For a group founded upon elitism to be found to be lacking, or worse that those they critique, indicates that they've amounted to nothing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Just yesterday, I was reading about the Church in Houston v. Jim Moran case regarding the rights to the domain name thelocalchurch.org. It really made me wonder, just what kind of world are LCers living in? Here you have a single local church trying to lay claim to a name that's not theirs to begin with, wasting the money of saints to pursue litigation. It's the same issue with the church in Fullerton buying up Jim Moran's domains and works - a terrible waste of money. When Jim Moran passed away, Dan Towle et al. accomplished what they wanted to do with regards to Jim Moran, but they by no means solved their little internet "problem". Moran was just one of many critics. His writings and websites were just a drop in the bucket compared to what is available now.

The LC leaders are extremely naive in thinking that they can sweep things under the rug as a solution to problems. That only works as long as they can stop members from trying to find such information. There are no longer websites like biblesforamericaexposed.com, but anybody out there can come up with new ones. If I wanted to, I could start new websites of my own such as: avoidbiblesforamerica.com or bewareofchristiansoncampus.com. Point is that the LC only exposed its true nature by attempting to sweep everything under the rug. What does it tell people when a group tries to sue instead of respond to criticism on a point-by-point basis. The DCP/LSM/LC method of responding to criticism goes something as follows: "this unprecedented attack against Witness Lee and the local churches is absolutely false and defamatory..." They thus never actually respond to criticism, they just try to paint the criticism as being done in bad faith, having ill motives and no basis. The minute they have to address actual points of concern, all the sudden things don't look so good for the LC.

Here's the case:
http://www.imnothere.org/LocalChurch...2001-0683.html

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Here's the case:
http://www.imnothere.org/LocalChurch...2001-0683.html

Complainant submits that, although it does not have a registered mark in The Local Church, "the group along with third parties have long used the mark ‘The Local Church’ to identify and distinguish the religious services of these churches from those of other Christian groups. This is the standard for a service mark under the Lanham Act § 45." Complainant alleges that "the Church in Houston is the owner of the marks ‘The Local Church’ and ‘The Local Churches’ and all other churches’ and ministries’ use of this mark is pursuant to a license." Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is thus identical to a mark in which it has rights.

Complainant further argues that Respondent "can have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name." Complainant admits that Respondent’s website purports to be for the purpose of fostering public discussion of The Local Church movement, but insists that,

"[a]lthough this may appear innocuous enough, Respondent’s intent is to discredit Complainant and its licensee churches and to label them as a cult." In support of this claim, Complainant cites articles on Respondent’s website in which Witness Nee, the founder of The Local Church movement, is compared to David Koresh and Jim Jones. Complainant argues that Respondent registered Complainant’s alleged mark as its domain name not out of a legitimate interest but instead "to mislead persons actually seeking Complainant or information on Complainant to Respondent, so that Respondent would disseminate its views criticizing Complainant and its licensee churches." This, according to Complainant, "tarnishes the mark ‘The Local Church.’"

To what does the term "licensee church" refer? Does LSM license each local church?

[Cal]

Jim Moran reminded me of the Bereans at the old website. He did everything by the letter.

However, what LSM/DCP did after his passing was, as UntoHim said, utterly despicable and shameful. Buying his website and then shutting it down was one of the most craven acts ever carried out by this LSM/DCP bunch. And that's saying a lot, because they've carried out a lot of craven acts.

LSM will do anything to shut up opposition, other than debate it. This shows you what cowardly creeps they are.

No respect for them at all. None whatsoever.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by HERn

To what does the term "licensee church" refer? Does LSM license each local church?

Good question. The LSM LCM really showed their true colors in this case.

They clearly stated: "Witness Nee, the founder of The Local Church movement"

And then complained that Moran was likening them to a cult like "David Koresh and Jim Jones."

All the while, by bringing this legal action, they are acting just like a cult.

I'm glad that cult lost the case.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jim Moran reminded me of the Bereans at the old website. He did everything by the letter.

However, what LSM/DCP did after his passing was, as UntoHim said, utterly despicable and shameful. Buying his website and then shutting it down was one of the most craven acts ever carried out by this LSM/DCP bunch. And that's saying a lot, because they've carried out a lot of craven acts.

LSM will do anything to shut up opposition, other than debate it. This shows you what cowardly creeps they are.

No respect for them at all. None whatsoever.

I remember when the HH lawsuit was initiated. We had some DCP brothers come to the area and spent a few hours providing justification for it. I thought little of it, and I just assumed that the lawsuit was something they needed to do. I also remember beginning to hear a lot about how we shouldn't read anything on the internet. Again, I thought little of it. I just assumed the LC was being "persecuted", and they were taking the necessary steps to deal with what was going on.

Later on, when I discovered that the HH lawsuit was about an introduction to the book, with no mention of the LC, it really made me wonder about DCP's lack of common sense. When I discovered all the material on the internet, especially the material that had no response from the DCP, I realized there was a lot more going on that met the eye. What really irked me was the fact that they had made fools of us all. They could have done what they wanted to do without trying to justify it to everyone in the LC. Instead, they put a spin on everything and we all went along with it, not even knowing what was going on, not knowing what information was available on the internet. It sickens me to think about it. It is sad, those members and ex-members who have come to know the truth about these things are a minority. Most are still in the dark.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

LSM will do anything to shut up opposition, other than debate it. This shows you what cowardly creeps they are.

No respect for them at all. None whatsoever.

Apart from debate or any genuine response, the leaders and co-workers will say all the right things to keep saints "in a deep fog", but to me they're bullies.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I completely agree that the LC reaction to Jim Moran was an over-reaction. I also agree that he was not much of a "threat" to them in comparison to others who have tasked themselves with critiquing the LC. Maybe at the time of Jim Moran's passing, they still thought that they could "control" what was out there on the internet. Time has proven that to not be the case. These days the most they can do is to speak out against why they don't like, they might talk of "lawless users of the internet". Needless to say it's not a good long-term strategy for them.

Though interesting out of curiosity, but beyond that Jim Moran didn't offer anything new. By comparison Steve Isitt's writing has had more impact because it's from a former member whose content is largely based on interviews from former leaders and experiences of members (see Hear the Cases).

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

Apart from debate or any genuine response, the leaders and co-workers will say all the right things to keep saints "in a deep fog", but to me they're bullies.

They are bullies in an inconspicuous way. I remember attending training around the time of the GLA quarantine and there were statement made amounting to the motto "If you're not for us you're against us." They wanted everyone to side with them on every edict they issued. Here I thought I was going to hear ministry messages, instead I learned what the chain of command was within the LC. Actually, I'm kind of glad that happened, because it opened my eyes to what was really going on. It took nearly 7 or 8 years afterward, but at least it finally happened.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

They are bullies in an inconspicuous way. I remember attending training around the time of the GLA quarantine and there were statement made amounting to the motto "If you're not for us you're against us." They wanted everyone to side with them on every edict they issued. Here I thought I was going to hear ministry messages, instead I learned what the chain of command was within the LC. Actually, I'm kind of glad that happened, because it opened my eyes to what was really going on. It took nearly 7 or 8 years afterward, but at least it finally happened.

Having lived my life either on the West Coast or Southwest, I had heard of Titus Chu but he never ministered in the localities I lived in. Also, prior to 2005I had never heard of Nigel Tomes before. In other words, localities I had lived in California, Washington, New Mexico, etc, I find it a joke (in the appalling sense) to quarantine/excommunicate a brother who had never labored there.

[Intothewind]

I was at a conference in Burlingame where they passed around papers warning all to dissassociate with titus chu based on several points. The brother on the podium spoke for quite a while on this.

I was quizzical but too young to see clearly.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I was at a conference in Burlingame where they passed around papers warning all to dissassociate with titus chu based on several points. The brother on the podium spoke for quite a while on this.

I was quizzical but too young to see clearly.

I attended the SoCal "blending" (kangroo court) meeting where they issued the quarantine. It's funny how they called it a "blending" meeting. They invited everyone in the area to come. Many got to hear the names Titus Chu and Nigel Tomes for the first time in their lives, and they learned that they must never contact them. How is that supposed to work? It's sad that no one had the tenacity to question or hold the blendeds accountable to what they were doing. It should have set off people's common sense alarms, and it didn't. That's scary.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I attended the SoCal "blending" (kangroo court) meeting where they issued the quarantine. It's funny how they called it a "blending" meeting. They invited everyone in the area to come. Many got to hear the names Titus Chu and Nigel Tomes for the first time in their lives, and they learned that they must never contact them. How is that supposed to work? It's sad that no one had the tenacity to question or hold the blendeds accountable to what they were doing. It should have set off people's common sense alarms, and it didn't. That's scary.

I was in many a meeting where Titus Chu publicly shamed brothers. No one dared to speak up on their behalf. Never happened. (Now Nigel otoh always was a perfect gentleman.)

What goes around comes around. Obviously Titus was treated by the Blendeds in the same manner as he regularly treated others. Having witnessed some of this myself, I would say that the Whistler Kangaroo Court was nothing compared to TC "dress downs." Compare the hundreds or thousands that came to his defense with those he abused -- no one came to their aid.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was in many a meeting where Titus Chu publicly shamed brothers. No one dared to speak up on their behalf. Never happened. (Now Nigel otoh always was a perfect gentleman.)

What goes around comes around. Obviously Titus was treated by the Blendeds in the same manner as he regularly treated others. Having witnessed some of this myself, I would say that the Whistler Kangaroo Court was nothing compared to TC "dress downs." Compare the hundreds or thousands that came to his defense with those he abused -- no one came to their aid.

It is ironic that Titus would suffer the same fate as others suffered under him. Then again, I'm sure all of the blendeds were victims of Lee's wrath at one point or another. It seems no one has learned their lesson. After Lee died they had the opportunity to put the practice of public hangings to rest. Did they do that? Nope. They felt it necessary to continue in the ways of their "wise master builder".

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

It is ironic that Titus would suffer the same fate as others suffered under him. Then again, I'm sure all of the blendeds were victims of Lee's wrath at one point or another. It seems no one has learned their lesson. After Lee died they had the opportunity to put the practice of public hangings to rest. Did they do that? Nope. They felt it necessary to continue in the ways of their "wise master builder".

Thanks for the quotes. There was only one wise master builder and that was the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor 3:10

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I attended the SoCal "blending" (kangroo court) meeting where they issued the quarantine. It's funny how they called it a "blending" meeting. They invited everyone in the area to come. Many got to hear the names Titus Chu and Nigel Tomes for the first time in their lives, and they learned that they must never contact them. How is that supposed to work? It's sad that no one had the tenacity to question or hold the blendeds accountable to what they were doing. It should have set off people's common sense alarms, and it didn't. That's scary.

Isn't it ironic that in times of LSM co-workers addressing quarantines, it's accompanying literature suddenly becomes free of charge?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Isn't it ironic that in times of LSM co-workers addressing quarantines, it's accompanying literature suddenly becomes free of charge?

You are right about that. I anonymously received LSM/DCP's 28 volume "Attack Pack" n the mail free of charge.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are right about that. I anonymously received LSM/DCP's 28 volume "Attack Pack" n the mail free of charge.

Anonymous eh? So much for LSM/DCP and their supporters attacking other people for doing things anonymously.

The distribution of free literature says a lot by itself. Since they could have just as easily posted everything online (I believe it is/was online), so why the need to waste money on printing and distribution? Is it because most wouldn't bother to read something like that unless it was handed to them?