Sunday, 6 November 2016
Saturday, 5 November 2016
Leave
Written by a sister in Christ
I want to leave the True Jesus Church.
Why?
-I no longer have faith in the doctrines, apart from One True God and perhaps keeping the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week: Saturday, not Sunday.
-I believe in the Holy Spirit but think it can be found in other churches, and there is no requirement that you have to pray in tongues because it is not expressly mandated as such in the Bible.
-I believe in the Bible.
-I believe in Jesus and the power of His resurrection.
-I believe in His commandments to love God and to love one another as you would love yourself.
-I believe in treating each person with respect, regardless of his or her station in life. I believe we should be impartial.
-I believe in setting our sights on heavenly things. I believe that money is the root of all evil.
-I believe in spreading the gospel of salvation to nonbelievers, atheists, agnostics, Daoists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Jews.
-I believe in reflection and in repentance and prayer.
What don't I believe?
-Criticizing other denominations in sermons and proclaiming that ours is the only true path to salvation. If you do not ascribe to the 10 basic beliefs, you are condemned to hell. This is the teaching. I am going to church out of fear. Shouldn't I be going out of reverence to God?
-Judging members who do not attend Sabbath for being unholy.
-Judging members who marry non-believers or Christians of other denominations as being unholy.
-Stigmatizing women in their late 20s or 30s who are unmarried and judging them for being "picky."
-Judging people who dye their hair different colors, have tattoos or piercings in strange places.
-Setting out a TJC "educational" plan whereby one must attend NYTS, PVMP and become a church leader in order to be "holy" and therefore, respected by other church members.
-Labeling people who express different viewpoints as "lost sheep" who must be guided back to the correct interpretation, rather than engaging in fruitful discussion and listening to their viewpoints.
-Ignoring the needs of the poor and underserved in the community and failing to acknowledge the importance of community service and social justice in the life of a Christian.
-Using the pulpit as a means to preach against the corruption and moral depravity of modern society, such as gay marriage, rather than against racial violence and xenophobia, which are equally pressing issues.
-Cultural homogeneity and the refusal to acknowledge that it exists in church.
-Starting a "Spanish-speaking" ministry to preach to the Latino community and ignoring the fact that millions of Latinos are American-born and speak English as their primary language. Focus should be on bringing culturally assimilated Latinos to church as well.
I want to leave the True Jesus Church.
Why?
-I no longer have faith in the doctrines, apart from One True God and perhaps keeping the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week: Saturday, not Sunday.
-I believe in the Holy Spirit but think it can be found in other churches, and there is no requirement that you have to pray in tongues because it is not expressly mandated as such in the Bible.
-I believe in the Bible.
-I believe in Jesus and the power of His resurrection.
-I believe in His commandments to love God and to love one another as you would love yourself.
-I believe in treating each person with respect, regardless of his or her station in life. I believe we should be impartial.
-I believe in setting our sights on heavenly things. I believe that money is the root of all evil.
-I believe in spreading the gospel of salvation to nonbelievers, atheists, agnostics, Daoists, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Jews.
-I believe in reflection and in repentance and prayer.
What don't I believe?
-Criticizing other denominations in sermons and proclaiming that ours is the only true path to salvation. If you do not ascribe to the 10 basic beliefs, you are condemned to hell. This is the teaching. I am going to church out of fear. Shouldn't I be going out of reverence to God?
-Judging members who do not attend Sabbath for being unholy.
-Judging members who marry non-believers or Christians of other denominations as being unholy.
-Stigmatizing women in their late 20s or 30s who are unmarried and judging them for being "picky."
-Judging people who dye their hair different colors, have tattoos or piercings in strange places.
-Setting out a TJC "educational" plan whereby one must attend NYTS, PVMP and become a church leader in order to be "holy" and therefore, respected by other church members.
-Labeling people who express different viewpoints as "lost sheep" who must be guided back to the correct interpretation, rather than engaging in fruitful discussion and listening to their viewpoints.
-Ignoring the needs of the poor and underserved in the community and failing to acknowledge the importance of community service and social justice in the life of a Christian.
-Using the pulpit as a means to preach against the corruption and moral depravity of modern society, such as gay marriage, rather than against racial violence and xenophobia, which are equally pressing issues.
-Cultural homogeneity and the refusal to acknowledge that it exists in church.
-Starting a "Spanish-speaking" ministry to preach to the Latino community and ignoring the fact that millions of Latinos are American-born and speak English as their primary language. Focus should be on bringing culturally assimilated Latinos to church as well.
Friday, 4 November 2016
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Final Part
6.4
Lessons the church has learnt from the Pr. YM Yang Incident and things the church
should beware of in the future
The church has learnt many valuable lessons from the painful experience brought about
by the Incident of Preacher YM Yang:
a. God is the Lord of the church; all workers and members should serve Him and
care for His church with a true, devout, reverent and thankful heart.
b. Every one of God’s people will make mistakes and sin against Him. As long as
we sincerely repent of our wrongs, God will surely forgive us.
c. What grieves God most and what God most abhors is when man sins but does not
repent even when he knows he has sinned.
d. As the mouthpieces of God, preachers and other divine workers should behave
cautiously as faithful and honest servants, only preaching teachings in the Bible
concerning which God has left clear instructions; they must not teach or talk
about topics of which God has not given a clear account.
e. The Bible records many mysteries of God;
--1) it is impossible for man to find the answers to these mysteries through his own knowledge and learning.
--2) The church should not engage in inconclusive discussions or dispute over such
topics/mysteries.
f. There are certain issues and topics in the Bible which God has not spoken clearly
about. These include, but are not limited to: 1) the world before the Creation, 2)
what God did before the Creation, 3) the origin of Satan, 4) details of the political
situation of the world before the Lord Jesus’ second coming, 5) when the
millennial kingdom begins, etc.
g. If a person were to insist on answering these questions using his own knowledge,
he would fall into the trap of misinterpreting the word of God, and thus be guilty
of the sin of adding to or subtracting from the word of God. As a result, he may
even be rejected by God.
h. Therefore, when members or truth-seekers ask us questions about the mysteries of
God or about matters not clearly explained in the Bible, we ought to reply humbly
and honestly that we do not know the answers to such questions or how these
matters should be explained, because the Bible does not speak clearly of them.
i. There are some workers in the church today who like to make a fuss over these
questions/the mysteries of God that have no answers. A few such workers are
often 1) very proud of their invented explanations, 2) look down on co-workers
who do not study these new questions, and 3) consider these co-workers to be
people who have fallen behind the times.
j. The history of the church clearly shows that studying and discussing these
mysteries of God has brought about many worries and much danger to the church.
For instance,
In 2012, an IA preacher came to California to pastor the churches here; his
interpretation of a certain verse in the Bible (Rev 6:3, the red horse of the
second seal) on this occasion differed from that which he had given a few
years ago.
Consider this:
i. Would the word of God change with time?
ii. Does the word of God have to change because this preacher’s views
concerning the global situation and the state of the church have
changed?
k. Unfortunately, this preacher insisted that “These words of God should now be
interpreted in this way”. This preacher made the same error that Elder Yung Ji
Lin did when Elder Lin stated in the Holy Spirit Monthly, issue no. 387
(December 2009) that the Lord Jesus would not come again in the next 100 years.
l. Both these workers believe that the true God in heaven has to act according to
their interpretations of the Bible, having forgotten that the Lord Jesus is their God
and their Lord.
The End
Lessons the church has learnt from the Pr. YM Yang Incident and things the church
should beware of in the future
The church has learnt many valuable lessons from the painful experience brought about
by the Incident of Preacher YM Yang:
a. God is the Lord of the church; all workers and members should serve Him and
care for His church with a true, devout, reverent and thankful heart.
b. Every one of God’s people will make mistakes and sin against Him. As long as
we sincerely repent of our wrongs, God will surely forgive us.
c. What grieves God most and what God most abhors is when man sins but does not
repent even when he knows he has sinned.
d. As the mouthpieces of God, preachers and other divine workers should behave
cautiously as faithful and honest servants, only preaching teachings in the Bible
concerning which God has left clear instructions; they must not teach or talk
about topics of which God has not given a clear account.
e. The Bible records many mysteries of God;
--1) it is impossible for man to find the answers to these mysteries through his own knowledge and learning.
--2) The church should not engage in inconclusive discussions or dispute over such
topics/mysteries.
f. There are certain issues and topics in the Bible which God has not spoken clearly
about. These include, but are not limited to: 1) the world before the Creation, 2)
what God did before the Creation, 3) the origin of Satan, 4) details of the political
situation of the world before the Lord Jesus’ second coming, 5) when the
millennial kingdom begins, etc.
g. If a person were to insist on answering these questions using his own knowledge,
he would fall into the trap of misinterpreting the word of God, and thus be guilty
of the sin of adding to or subtracting from the word of God. As a result, he may
even be rejected by God.
h. Therefore, when members or truth-seekers ask us questions about the mysteries of
God or about matters not clearly explained in the Bible, we ought to reply humbly
and honestly that we do not know the answers to such questions or how these
matters should be explained, because the Bible does not speak clearly of them.
i. There are some workers in the church today who like to make a fuss over these
questions/the mysteries of God that have no answers. A few such workers are
often 1) very proud of their invented explanations, 2) look down on co-workers
who do not study these new questions, and 3) consider these co-workers to be
people who have fallen behind the times.
j. The history of the church clearly shows that studying and discussing these
mysteries of God has brought about many worries and much danger to the church.
For instance,
In 2012, an IA preacher came to California to pastor the churches here; his
interpretation of a certain verse in the Bible (Rev 6:3, the red horse of the
second seal) on this occasion differed from that which he had given a few
years ago.
Consider this:
i. Would the word of God change with time?
ii. Does the word of God have to change because this preacher’s views
concerning the global situation and the state of the church have
changed?
k. Unfortunately, this preacher insisted that “These words of God should now be
interpreted in this way”. This preacher made the same error that Elder Yung Ji
Lin did when Elder Lin stated in the Holy Spirit Monthly, issue no. 387
(December 2009) that the Lord Jesus would not come again in the next 100 years.
l. Both these workers believe that the true God in heaven has to act according to
their interpretations of the Bible, having forgotten that the Lord Jesus is their God
and their Lord.
The End
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 22
VI. Where Does the Church go from Here?
Based on the actual administrative lapses of the IA stated in this document, the reader will
be able to understand that these lapses have caused the IA
1) to be untruthful, unfair and unjust in many of its decisions, an
2) to commit the serious error of wronging many people, even to the extent of causing harm to many innocent members and workers. In order to correct its errant ways and to operate according to the teachings of God once again, the IA ought to:
6.1
Reinstate Preacher YM Yang’s position as IA EXCO member immediately and await
the decision of the WDC concerning this matter.
Reason:
-The IA EXCO overstepped its authority and mandate and violated the IA’s
constitution and its rules and regulations in terminating Preacher YM Yang’s position
as IA EXCO member during its meeting held in Korea from March 22-23, 2012.
-The procedural rules/constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus
Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, and Article 10 clearly stipulates that taking disciplinary
action against IA EXCO members and their removal from office is the responsibility
of the WDC.
6.2
Establish a commission of inquiry to
1) investigate and understand the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations and the effect of these deficiencies on the church and on Pr. YM Yang, and
2) make reparation to all injured parties.
The examples and evidence cited in this report clearly prove that, due to conflicts of
interest under the leadership of Elder Lin, the IA has lost its capacity for self examination,
self-discipline and self-governance. For the sake of
1. the history of the church,
2. restoring the good name of the members and workers who have been falsely
accused or wronged by Elder Lin, and
3. allowing the church to return to its former state of purity, honesty, godliness
and loving-kindness, so that it can once again be pleasing to God, the church
needs to overcome all its difficulties and establish an independent commission
of inquiry to find out the truth.
The responsibilities of such an independent commission should minimally include:
a. investigating the errors and deficiencies in the administrative operations of the IA
that occurred during Elder Lin’s term of office,
b. verifying the above errors and deficiencies as cited in this report along with the
accompanying evidence the report provided,
c. revealing the effects these deficiencies have had on the IA’s handling of the Pr.
YM Yang Incident,
d. re-investigating and handling the case of Preacher YM Yang in an honest, fair and
just manner according to the teachings of the Bible,
e. reporting the findings of the inquiry and the evidence on which the findings were
based to the WDC, and
f. reforming the IA’s administrative operations based on the lessons learn report to
be issued by the commission of inquiry.
6.3
Basic operating principles of the commission of inquiry
a. The objective of the commission of inquiry would be to solve the issues in hand
and not to discipline the people involved.
b. The commission of inquiry should examine material provided by all parties
involved, including the injured parties as stated in Section 4.7 of this report. With
a heart of truthfulness, loving-kindness and tolerance, it should
--i. examine each of the original issues —the original dispute between Elder
Lin and Preacher Yang,
--ii. identify and classify all the derived / distorted issues arising from the
IA’s administrative lapses or from other human factors,
--iii. list all original and derived/distorted issues in chronological order,
--iv. reset all the derived/distorted issues to zero (i.e. ignore and remove the
distorted issues and focus on the original issues),
--v. carefully discuss and resolve all the original issues with Elder Lin and Pr. YM Yang under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the mediation of senior members.
c. Once the commission of inquiry has determined
---1) the nature and cause of each
IA administrative deficiency,
---2) the effect these deficiencies have had on the IA
and the church, and
---3) ways of coordinating, discussing and resolving matters, it
should leave it at that; there is no need to make things difficult for the divine
workers who have make mistakes in their weakness.
d. When it has properly understood the causes, nature and consequences of the IA’s
administrative deficiencies, the commission of inquiry should try to find a
solution for every mistake that has been made, and also create a new
administrative structure and a new set of operational procedures for the IA.
Note: The commission of inquiry’s plans for improvements to the administrative operations of
the IA should include designing and conducting on-the-job training workshops for IA
administrative workers, so that the technical knowledge required by the staff to perform
their duties may be systematically imparted to them, and that they may be taught correct
and effective methods of handling the necessary administrative operations. This is so that
every divine worker may have a work ethic that is in keeping with God’s teachings, that
with the Lord’s guidance and blessing, the work of the IA will once again flourish when
everyone labors in one accord for Him.
e. The findings and recommendations of the commission of inquiry (including the
process by which the dispute between Elder Lin and Pr. YM Yang was resolved,
and the recommendations for the improvement of the organizational structure and
administrative operations of the IA) should be presented to the WDC as important
reference material for WDC’s meeting.
In this way, the painful path travelled by the church over the past few years will not
have been in vain. God will have taught us a lesson through the Pr. YM Yang
Incident and allowed the church to be more mature, more united, more thankful, more
loving and better equipped to fulfil the holy work that He has entrusted to us in these
last days.
Based on the actual administrative lapses of the IA stated in this document, the reader will
be able to understand that these lapses have caused the IA
1) to be untruthful, unfair and unjust in many of its decisions, an
2) to commit the serious error of wronging many people, even to the extent of causing harm to many innocent members and workers. In order to correct its errant ways and to operate according to the teachings of God once again, the IA ought to:
6.1
Reinstate Preacher YM Yang’s position as IA EXCO member immediately and await
the decision of the WDC concerning this matter.
Reason:
-The IA EXCO overstepped its authority and mandate and violated the IA’s
constitution and its rules and regulations in terminating Preacher YM Yang’s position
as IA EXCO member during its meeting held in Korea from March 22-23, 2012.
-The procedural rules/constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus
Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, and Article 10 clearly stipulates that taking disciplinary
action against IA EXCO members and their removal from office is the responsibility
of the WDC.
6.2
Establish a commission of inquiry to
1) investigate and understand the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations and the effect of these deficiencies on the church and on Pr. YM Yang, and
2) make reparation to all injured parties.
The examples and evidence cited in this report clearly prove that, due to conflicts of
interest under the leadership of Elder Lin, the IA has lost its capacity for self examination,
self-discipline and self-governance. For the sake of
1. the history of the church,
2. restoring the good name of the members and workers who have been falsely
accused or wronged by Elder Lin, and
3. allowing the church to return to its former state of purity, honesty, godliness
and loving-kindness, so that it can once again be pleasing to God, the church
needs to overcome all its difficulties and establish an independent commission
of inquiry to find out the truth.
The responsibilities of such an independent commission should minimally include:
a. investigating the errors and deficiencies in the administrative operations of the IA
that occurred during Elder Lin’s term of office,
b. verifying the above errors and deficiencies as cited in this report along with the
accompanying evidence the report provided,
c. revealing the effects these deficiencies have had on the IA’s handling of the Pr.
YM Yang Incident,
d. re-investigating and handling the case of Preacher YM Yang in an honest, fair and
just manner according to the teachings of the Bible,
e. reporting the findings of the inquiry and the evidence on which the findings were
based to the WDC, and
f. reforming the IA’s administrative operations based on the lessons learn report to
be issued by the commission of inquiry.
6.3
Basic operating principles of the commission of inquiry
a. The objective of the commission of inquiry would be to solve the issues in hand
and not to discipline the people involved.
b. The commission of inquiry should examine material provided by all parties
involved, including the injured parties as stated in Section 4.7 of this report. With
a heart of truthfulness, loving-kindness and tolerance, it should
--i. examine each of the original issues —the original dispute between Elder
Lin and Preacher Yang,
--ii. identify and classify all the derived / distorted issues arising from the
IA’s administrative lapses or from other human factors,
--iii. list all original and derived/distorted issues in chronological order,
--iv. reset all the derived/distorted issues to zero (i.e. ignore and remove the
distorted issues and focus on the original issues),
--v. carefully discuss and resolve all the original issues with Elder Lin and Pr. YM Yang under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the mediation of senior members.
c. Once the commission of inquiry has determined
---1) the nature and cause of each
IA administrative deficiency,
---2) the effect these deficiencies have had on the IA
and the church, and
---3) ways of coordinating, discussing and resolving matters, it
should leave it at that; there is no need to make things difficult for the divine
workers who have make mistakes in their weakness.
d. When it has properly understood the causes, nature and consequences of the IA’s
administrative deficiencies, the commission of inquiry should try to find a
solution for every mistake that has been made, and also create a new
administrative structure and a new set of operational procedures for the IA.
Note: The commission of inquiry’s plans for improvements to the administrative operations of
the IA should include designing and conducting on-the-job training workshops for IA
administrative workers, so that the technical knowledge required by the staff to perform
their duties may be systematically imparted to them, and that they may be taught correct
and effective methods of handling the necessary administrative operations. This is so that
every divine worker may have a work ethic that is in keeping with God’s teachings, that
with the Lord’s guidance and blessing, the work of the IA will once again flourish when
everyone labors in one accord for Him.
e. The findings and recommendations of the commission of inquiry (including the
process by which the dispute between Elder Lin and Pr. YM Yang was resolved,
and the recommendations for the improvement of the organizational structure and
administrative operations of the IA) should be presented to the WDC as important
reference material for WDC’s meeting.
In this way, the painful path travelled by the church over the past few years will not
have been in vain. God will have taught us a lesson through the Pr. YM Yang
Incident and allowed the church to be more mature, more united, more thankful, more
loving and better equipped to fulfil the holy work that He has entrusted to us in these
last days.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 21
V. Disputes over Differences in the Interpretation of Certain Bible Verses
I am not well-versed with the Bible, but out of necessity I share here my understanding
concerning the origin of Satan.
5.1 The origin of Satan
1. Why did Preacher YM look into this special topic?
-a. In 1999, as a special topic for study, the IA assigned Elder ST Hsieh and
Preacher YM Yang to do research on the origin of Satan.
-b. Consider:
--i. At the time, the church already had a view on the origin of Satan (namely, that Satan was
a fallen angel).
--ii. If the church had been so certain of this view, the IA would not have assigned two
workers to do research on this established “fact” as a special topic.
--iii. By this simple inference, I would guess that the IA at the time was actually not very
certain of the view that Satan had originally been a fallen angel. This is why the IA had
assigned Elder ST Hsieh and Preacher YM Yang to do research on this as a special topic;
the IA and church were hoping to hear a new perspective and commentary on the topic.
--iv. When, acting in accordance with the IA’s instruction, Preacher YM Yang thought about
this question, did research on it and presented his new perspectives and ideas at the IA
TRC. Certain TRC members immediately accused Pr. YM of going against the "basic
beliefs" of the true church!
--v. Think about it: is this reaction an appropriate way of discussing the Bible in the church?
Given such a mentality and culture how are the teachings of the Bible to be discussed
during Bible studies and family services?
2. Both Preacher Yang’s and the IA’s explanations (theories) of the origin of Satan are
not in accordance with the Bible and are incorrect.
a. I am not very well-versed in the Bible, but I hold a simple and firm belief about it: the entire
Bible is a record of God’s word and is from God; therefore, there cannot be any contradictions
whatsoever within the Bible.
b. Based on this truth, it would not be very difficult for us to examine whether someone’s
explanation (exegesis) of a certain topic in the Bible is in accordance with the will of the Lord.
c. Take for example the origin of Satan: If someone were to propose a theory on the origin of Satan,
but discovers that his theory is unable to explain ALL the verses in the Bible concerning the
devil, sin, evil and the nature of God, this clearly shows that
--i. this theory was not originally intended by God and is not from God,
--ii. this theory was derived, invented and constructed by man and is incorrect.
d. Preacher Yang’s new theory on the origin of Satan cannot fully explain all the verses in the
Bible concerning the devil, evil, sin and the nature of God. Hence, Preacher Yang’s theory is a
human invention and construction and is incorrect; Pr. YM Yang's view and theory is not God’s
explanation, nor was it originally intended by Him.
e. Similarly, the traditional view of our church on the origin of Satan cannot fully explain all the
verses in the Bible concerning the devil, evil, sin and the nature of God. Hence, this traditional
view (theory) is also a human invention and construction and is incorrect; our church's
traditional view (theory) on the origin of Satan is not God’s explanation, nor was it originally
intended by Him.
3. How should both parties handle the dispute over the origin of Satan?
a. Since both parties’ theories/explanations are not in accordance with the Bible, the IA should not
insist that “the church’s traditional view is correct, and Preacher YM Yang’s new theory is
incorrect”, or issue edicts or correspondences claiming so. In so doing, the IA is deceiving both
itself and others.
b. By the same token, since both parties’ theories are incorrect, Preacher YM Yang should similarly
not insist that his theory is correct and that the church’s view on this issue is incorrect. In so doing,
he would also be deceiving both himself and others.
c. In future, if someone were to ask us where Satan came from, we should honestly and humbly reply
that the Bible does not speak clearly about this issue; it is one of the many mysteries of God
contained in the Bible, and no man can know the answer to this mystery.
4. The Bible contains many mysteries of God; man cannot find the answers to these
mysteries through his own knowledge and learning.
a. Even if a person were to spend all his time, energy and money in studying the mysteries of God
contained / described in the Bible, he would not be able to find the answers, because being
created by God, it is impossible for man to know the mysteries of his Creator.
b. If a person were to insist on explaining these mysteries using his own knowledge and skill, he
would fall into the trap of misinterpreting the word of God, or even be guilty of the sin of
adding to or subtracting from the word of God (Rev 22:18–19).
5. The mysteries of God contained in the Bible have nothing to do with salvation; the
church should not discuss or argue over such topics which do not have correct and
clear answers.
a. The God we worship is an honest, upright, righteous and perfect God.
--i. God states very clearly in the Bible what mankind should know and should do in order to
be saved; there are absolutely no ambiguities in His instructions on these topics and
requirements.
--ii. As God is an honest, upright, righteous and perfect God, He would not require man to do
anything that He did not stipulate or that He did not provide clear instructions about.
--iii. Based on the nature of God described above, we can gather that since the Bible does not
state clearly where Satan has come from, the origin of Satan
----1) has nothing to do with salvation
----2) is one of the many mysteries of God contained in the Bible.
b. If members or truth-seekers were to ask us
--1) where Satan has come from or
--2) other questions to which the Bible does not provide clear answers, we should humbly, honestly and directly answer that we do not know the answers to such questions because the Bible does not speak clearly about
them.
I am not well-versed with the Bible, but out of necessity I share here my understanding
concerning the origin of Satan.
5.1 The origin of Satan
1. Why did Preacher YM look into this special topic?
-a. In 1999, as a special topic for study, the IA assigned Elder ST Hsieh and
Preacher YM Yang to do research on the origin of Satan.
-b. Consider:
--i. At the time, the church already had a view on the origin of Satan (namely, that Satan was
a fallen angel).
--ii. If the church had been so certain of this view, the IA would not have assigned two
workers to do research on this established “fact” as a special topic.
--iii. By this simple inference, I would guess that the IA at the time was actually not very
certain of the view that Satan had originally been a fallen angel. This is why the IA had
assigned Elder ST Hsieh and Preacher YM Yang to do research on this as a special topic;
the IA and church were hoping to hear a new perspective and commentary on the topic.
--iv. When, acting in accordance with the IA’s instruction, Preacher YM Yang thought about
this question, did research on it and presented his new perspectives and ideas at the IA
TRC. Certain TRC members immediately accused Pr. YM of going against the "basic
beliefs" of the true church!
--v. Think about it: is this reaction an appropriate way of discussing the Bible in the church?
Given such a mentality and culture how are the teachings of the Bible to be discussed
during Bible studies and family services?
2. Both Preacher Yang’s and the IA’s explanations (theories) of the origin of Satan are
not in accordance with the Bible and are incorrect.
a. I am not very well-versed in the Bible, but I hold a simple and firm belief about it: the entire
Bible is a record of God’s word and is from God; therefore, there cannot be any contradictions
whatsoever within the Bible.
b. Based on this truth, it would not be very difficult for us to examine whether someone’s
explanation (exegesis) of a certain topic in the Bible is in accordance with the will of the Lord.
c. Take for example the origin of Satan: If someone were to propose a theory on the origin of Satan,
but discovers that his theory is unable to explain ALL the verses in the Bible concerning the
devil, sin, evil and the nature of God, this clearly shows that
--i. this theory was not originally intended by God and is not from God,
--ii. this theory was derived, invented and constructed by man and is incorrect.
d. Preacher Yang’s new theory on the origin of Satan cannot fully explain all the verses in the
Bible concerning the devil, evil, sin and the nature of God. Hence, Preacher Yang’s theory is a
human invention and construction and is incorrect; Pr. YM Yang's view and theory is not God’s
explanation, nor was it originally intended by Him.
e. Similarly, the traditional view of our church on the origin of Satan cannot fully explain all the
verses in the Bible concerning the devil, evil, sin and the nature of God. Hence, this traditional
view (theory) is also a human invention and construction and is incorrect; our church's
traditional view (theory) on the origin of Satan is not God’s explanation, nor was it originally
intended by Him.
3. How should both parties handle the dispute over the origin of Satan?
a. Since both parties’ theories/explanations are not in accordance with the Bible, the IA should not
insist that “the church’s traditional view is correct, and Preacher YM Yang’s new theory is
incorrect”, or issue edicts or correspondences claiming so. In so doing, the IA is deceiving both
itself and others.
b. By the same token, since both parties’ theories are incorrect, Preacher YM Yang should similarly
not insist that his theory is correct and that the church’s view on this issue is incorrect. In so doing,
he would also be deceiving both himself and others.
c. In future, if someone were to ask us where Satan came from, we should honestly and humbly reply
that the Bible does not speak clearly about this issue; it is one of the many mysteries of God
contained in the Bible, and no man can know the answer to this mystery.
4. The Bible contains many mysteries of God; man cannot find the answers to these
mysteries through his own knowledge and learning.
a. Even if a person were to spend all his time, energy and money in studying the mysteries of God
contained / described in the Bible, he would not be able to find the answers, because being
created by God, it is impossible for man to know the mysteries of his Creator.
b. If a person were to insist on explaining these mysteries using his own knowledge and skill, he
would fall into the trap of misinterpreting the word of God, or even be guilty of the sin of
adding to or subtracting from the word of God (Rev 22:18–19).
5. The mysteries of God contained in the Bible have nothing to do with salvation; the
church should not discuss or argue over such topics which do not have correct and
clear answers.
a. The God we worship is an honest, upright, righteous and perfect God.
--i. God states very clearly in the Bible what mankind should know and should do in order to
be saved; there are absolutely no ambiguities in His instructions on these topics and
requirements.
--ii. As God is an honest, upright, righteous and perfect God, He would not require man to do
anything that He did not stipulate or that He did not provide clear instructions about.
--iii. Based on the nature of God described above, we can gather that since the Bible does not
state clearly where Satan has come from, the origin of Satan
----1) has nothing to do with salvation
----2) is one of the many mysteries of God contained in the Bible.
b. If members or truth-seekers were to ask us
--1) where Satan has come from or
--2) other questions to which the Bible does not provide clear answers, we should humbly, honestly and directly answer that we do not know the answers to such questions because the Bible does not speak clearly about
them.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 20
4.8
God Saves when Man Repents
I wholeheartedly believe that it is God’s will and that it is due to His divine arrangement
that the Pr. YM Yang Incident has been allowed to happen in the true church. Although
we cannot fully understand God’s wonderful works at present time, but from the history
of the Israelites, His chosen people, we can come to understand that:
a. God has allowed the church to pass through this painful and difficult wilderness
because He wants to refine us and force us to reflect on the past, examine
ourselves, admit our mistakes and repent, and ask for God’s forgiveness.
b. Preacher YM Yang failed to comply with the existing IA TRC's (Truth Research
Committee) rules in how to share his interpretations of certain Bible verses that
have not been adopted by the TRC.
c. Elder Lin Yung Ji / the IA administration made a series of unbiblical mistakes in
its handling of the Pr. YM Yang Incident.
d. For this reason, both parties must sincerely reflect upon the past, admit their
respective mistakes and turn over a new leaf. God will surely forgive all parties
concerned and also the church, so that the true church will once again become a
spiritual body pleasing to God and able to fight the good fight for the Lord in the
last days.
God Saves when Man Repents
I wholeheartedly believe that it is God’s will and that it is due to His divine arrangement
that the Pr. YM Yang Incident has been allowed to happen in the true church. Although
we cannot fully understand God’s wonderful works at present time, but from the history
of the Israelites, His chosen people, we can come to understand that:
a. God has allowed the church to pass through this painful and difficult wilderness
because He wants to refine us and force us to reflect on the past, examine
ourselves, admit our mistakes and repent, and ask for God’s forgiveness.
b. Preacher YM Yang failed to comply with the existing IA TRC's (Truth Research
Committee) rules in how to share his interpretations of certain Bible verses that
have not been adopted by the TRC.
c. Elder Lin Yung Ji / the IA administration made a series of unbiblical mistakes in
its handling of the Pr. YM Yang Incident.
d. For this reason, both parties must sincerely reflect upon the past, admit their
respective mistakes and turn over a new leaf. God will surely forgive all parties
concerned and also the church, so that the true church will once again become a
spiritual body pleasing to God and able to fight the good fight for the Lord in the
last days.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 19
4.7
My hope and my prayer
From gleaning the truth from the Bible and spreading the gospel perspective, one may
conclude that the debate over Preacher YM Yang’s interpretations of origin of Satan was
a problem that was originally not difficult to resolve. However, because Elder Lin
handled this debate with various deceptive means, a simple dispute was quickly distorted
and transformed into a convoluted mess that is quite different from the original debate.
Such changes of the debate have much to do with specific administrative lapses of the IA.
In fact, the IA’s administrative lapses (such as distortion of facts, false accusations
against the innocent, fabrication of documents, controlling of public opinion, baselessly
attacking the other party, and not giving a fair trial…etc.) have
a. bringing shame to the true God in heaven, the church and all her members),
b. have exacerbated a dispute that originally simply concerned a difference in the
interpretation of certain Bible verses (see Section 4.6), and
c. have resulted in the handling and resolution of the incident of Preacher YM Yang in
March 2012 being full of errors and being neither just nor righteous.
In the face of current situation, the church needs to overcome all its internal and external
difficulties and have the courage to 1) face reality and admit the administrative blunders
made over the past few years in the handling of the Pr. YM Yang Incident, and 2) elect an
independent review board to investigate and deal anew with the case under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, so that the true church may recover her most precious truthfulness and
honesty and return to the bosom of the Lord.
The independent review board needs to
-1) carefully and patiently review all pertinent
documents,
-2) arrange these document s chronologically, and
-3) cross-reference and compare what Preacher Yang said on a subject vs. what Elder Lin accused Pr. Yang of doing and how Elder Lin communicate his opinion on the subject matter to others. Once
this task is completed, the ins and outs and causes and consequences of the dispute and
misunderstanding on each subject between these two church workers will be made clear.
The Holy Spirit of God will surely grant the Review Board wisdom to
---1. separate the original issue from the derived/distorted issues, which resulting
from the IA’s administrative deficiencies,
---2. negate or resolve all the derived/distorted issues,
---3. discuss and comment on the validity of the original issue,
---4. identify the wrongs of each party and resolve their disputes that have dragged on
for 6–7 years satisfactorily and amicably
I sincerely hope that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with the help of gifted
elders, Elder Lin and Preacher YM Yang will be able to quieten their hearts and meet
with each other to resolve their differences before the elders of the church, to truly repent
before God and man, and once again work diligently for the sake of the gospel. I hope
that they will be able to use the gifts that God has granted them of preaching the good
news of salvation, and be joyful and contented with this, instead of putting their efforts
into trying to gain the upper hand in the dispute.
My hope and my prayer
From gleaning the truth from the Bible and spreading the gospel perspective, one may
conclude that the debate over Preacher YM Yang’s interpretations of origin of Satan was
a problem that was originally not difficult to resolve. However, because Elder Lin
handled this debate with various deceptive means, a simple dispute was quickly distorted
and transformed into a convoluted mess that is quite different from the original debate.
Such changes of the debate have much to do with specific administrative lapses of the IA.
In fact, the IA’s administrative lapses (such as distortion of facts, false accusations
against the innocent, fabrication of documents, controlling of public opinion, baselessly
attacking the other party, and not giving a fair trial…etc.) have
a. bringing shame to the true God in heaven, the church and all her members),
b. have exacerbated a dispute that originally simply concerned a difference in the
interpretation of certain Bible verses (see Section 4.6), and
c. have resulted in the handling and resolution of the incident of Preacher YM Yang in
March 2012 being full of errors and being neither just nor righteous.
In the face of current situation, the church needs to overcome all its internal and external
difficulties and have the courage to 1) face reality and admit the administrative blunders
made over the past few years in the handling of the Pr. YM Yang Incident, and 2) elect an
independent review board to investigate and deal anew with the case under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit, so that the true church may recover her most precious truthfulness and
honesty and return to the bosom of the Lord.
The independent review board needs to
-1) carefully and patiently review all pertinent
documents,
-2) arrange these document s chronologically, and
-3) cross-reference and compare what Preacher Yang said on a subject vs. what Elder Lin accused Pr. Yang of doing and how Elder Lin communicate his opinion on the subject matter to others. Once
this task is completed, the ins and outs and causes and consequences of the dispute and
misunderstanding on each subject between these two church workers will be made clear.
The Holy Spirit of God will surely grant the Review Board wisdom to
---1. separate the original issue from the derived/distorted issues, which resulting
from the IA’s administrative deficiencies,
---2. negate or resolve all the derived/distorted issues,
---3. discuss and comment on the validity of the original issue,
---4. identify the wrongs of each party and resolve their disputes that have dragged on
for 6–7 years satisfactorily and amicably
I sincerely hope that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with the help of gifted
elders, Elder Lin and Preacher YM Yang will be able to quieten their hearts and meet
with each other to resolve their differences before the elders of the church, to truly repent
before God and man, and once again work diligently for the sake of the gospel. I hope
that they will be able to use the gifts that God has granted them of preaching the good
news of salvation, and be joyful and contented with this, instead of putting their efforts
into trying to gain the upper hand in the dispute.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 18
4.4
Possible root causes for the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations
a. The deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations are numerous and frequent,
but root causes of these deficiencies may broadly be grouped into the following
categories:
--i. the church lacks professional administrative staff (current IA operation is led
by non-professionals)
--ii. the church lacks systemic training courses to part special knowledge and
expertise to her staff (some people are not ready to undertake certain specific
duties)
--iii. the church lacks a real and effective system by which advice may be offered
(everyone does their own thing and people very rarely consult each other or
share knowledge with one another)
--iv. church holy workers honour their fellow workers more than they honour God
(church workers do not dare or are reluctant to correct their fellow workers or
offer them advice)
b. The deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations are numerous and frequent,
but causes relating to the wrongdoers may broadly be grouped into the following
classes:
--i. Arrogance (acting alone to fulfil one’s own wishes, feeling that whatever one
does is absolutely correct, not allowing challenges or criticisms)
--ii. Seizing power, making decisions without consulting others, autocratic
(violating regulations, ignoring existing institutions and systems)
--iii. Being one-sided and showing partiality (exploiting public offices for private
ends, abusing one’s power for unlawful purposes)
--iv. Doing things through fakery and lies (telling many lies in order to cover up
the first lie)
--v. Abusing the church’s honour system in one’s servitude (not knowing how to
show self-discipline and self-respect)
--vi. Being unwilling to accept advice or mediation (blindly insisting that one is
blameless and fearing that others will point out or provide proof of one’s
mistakes)
4.5
Why has God allowed the true church to encounter such a calamity and challenge?
After seven years of observation (from 2006 to 2012), reading countless documents,
consulting those involved as well as many senior divine workers, I have realized that in
considering the question of why God has given this great test to His church,
a. we should pair what Preacher YM Yang has done on matter A with how
Elder Lin has reacted to matter A together.
b. By sorting out matters one-by-one and organizing them onto a time line, (i.e.
listing what both parties have done according to a schedule of events) and
comparing them carefully, we will find the crux of the matter and the answer
to the question.
In fact, God has long known the heart of man and was well aware that the
administrative operations of the IA had become secularized; they had long become
subject to human ways of thinking and been deeply and extensively influenced by the
Gentiles’ methods of doing things, becoming even more secular than the secular in
certain areas. In order to awaken the true church, His household, from its current sense
of self-satisfaction, its mentality of blindly going with the secular flow and its life of
comfort and ease, God has struck the church with a blow through the Incident of
Preacher YM Yang, that all the workers of the church and her members may be forced
to
--1) thoroughly reflect on how the IA operates today, and
--2) discover by how much the IA administration has deviated from the right path. This is so that the workers and members may be made aware of their mistakes, confess their sins and return to the right
path (see Evidence pp. 26–40).
Therefore, personally I am not discouraged by the administrative deficiencies of the
current IA or by the Incident of Preacher YM Yang. On the contrary, I thank God that
in our most painful and darkest hour, we are able to examine and discipline ourselves,
and thereby witness His mercy and power.
4.6
It is not difficult to resolve the dispute between Preacher YM Yang and the IA
Over many long conversations, I shared with Preacher YM Yang the following
analysis:
a. The entire Bible is a record of God’s word; therefore the verses in the Bible
absolutely cannot be mutually conflicting.
b. Since his new theory concerning the origin of Satan and the church’s traditional
view concerning the same topic both cannot completely explain all the verses in
the Bible concerning evil, sin, and the nature of Satan and of God,
--i. neither of these theories is in accordance with the will of God,
--ii. neither of these theories is from God,
--iii. both theories have been constructed by man,
--iv. both theories are misleading.
c. Preacher YM Yang agreed with my analysis and advice.
I then asked Preacher Yang, “So why don’t you retract your theory?” Preacher YM
replied: If he were to retract his arguments now, then the innumerable false accusations
and instances of defamation by a small number of workers over the past many years, and
Elder Lin’s unjust and unrighteous false testimonies, false accusations and unjustified
attacks against him over the past many years (e.g., using false documents, false material
and false evidence against him, distorting his words or his published articles by making
selective use of them, misusing the church’s resources and abusing his [Elder Lin’s]
administrative powers, disrupting the procedures of meetings, using unjust and
unrighteous administrative procedures to handle disputes, being biased and taking sides,
discrediting and attacking the other party for no reason, etc.), would instantly be
proclaimed by those who have borne false witness and made false accusations against
him to be just and righteous actions taken for the sake of defending the truth.
This second round of defamation and attacks would be more terrible than the first, and he would no
longer be able to defend himself before others or extricate himself from his difficulties.
Preacher YM Yang believes that, because the various wrongful administrative operations
carried out by Elder Lin over the past many years have never been investigated, dealt
with or rectified,
-1) he [Preacher Yang] alone has ended up being blamed for all the
mistakes that have been made, and
-2) there is a misconception that everyone else involved is a saint and is perfect. Not only is Preacher YM unable to forget about the unjust and unrighteous chaos that has ensued, he is even more determined that, for the sake of the truthfulness and honesty of the true church, no matter how difficult things get, he will surely continue to bear the pain and humiliation, faithfully and sincerely pointing out the administrative mistakes and deficiencies of the workers of the church.
Possible root causes for the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations
a. The deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations are numerous and frequent,
but root causes of these deficiencies may broadly be grouped into the following
categories:
--i. the church lacks professional administrative staff (current IA operation is led
by non-professionals)
--ii. the church lacks systemic training courses to part special knowledge and
expertise to her staff (some people are not ready to undertake certain specific
duties)
--iii. the church lacks a real and effective system by which advice may be offered
(everyone does their own thing and people very rarely consult each other or
share knowledge with one another)
--iv. church holy workers honour their fellow workers more than they honour God
(church workers do not dare or are reluctant to correct their fellow workers or
offer them advice)
b. The deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations are numerous and frequent,
but causes relating to the wrongdoers may broadly be grouped into the following
classes:
--i. Arrogance (acting alone to fulfil one’s own wishes, feeling that whatever one
does is absolutely correct, not allowing challenges or criticisms)
--ii. Seizing power, making decisions without consulting others, autocratic
(violating regulations, ignoring existing institutions and systems)
--iii. Being one-sided and showing partiality (exploiting public offices for private
ends, abusing one’s power for unlawful purposes)
--iv. Doing things through fakery and lies (telling many lies in order to cover up
the first lie)
--v. Abusing the church’s honour system in one’s servitude (not knowing how to
show self-discipline and self-respect)
--vi. Being unwilling to accept advice or mediation (blindly insisting that one is
blameless and fearing that others will point out or provide proof of one’s
mistakes)
4.5
Why has God allowed the true church to encounter such a calamity and challenge?
After seven years of observation (from 2006 to 2012), reading countless documents,
consulting those involved as well as many senior divine workers, I have realized that in
considering the question of why God has given this great test to His church,
a. we should pair what Preacher YM Yang has done on matter A with how
Elder Lin has reacted to matter A together.
b. By sorting out matters one-by-one and organizing them onto a time line, (i.e.
listing what both parties have done according to a schedule of events) and
comparing them carefully, we will find the crux of the matter and the answer
to the question.
In fact, God has long known the heart of man and was well aware that the
administrative operations of the IA had become secularized; they had long become
subject to human ways of thinking and been deeply and extensively influenced by the
Gentiles’ methods of doing things, becoming even more secular than the secular in
certain areas. In order to awaken the true church, His household, from its current sense
of self-satisfaction, its mentality of blindly going with the secular flow and its life of
comfort and ease, God has struck the church with a blow through the Incident of
Preacher YM Yang, that all the workers of the church and her members may be forced
to
--1) thoroughly reflect on how the IA operates today, and
--2) discover by how much the IA administration has deviated from the right path. This is so that the workers and members may be made aware of their mistakes, confess their sins and return to the right
path (see Evidence pp. 26–40).
Therefore, personally I am not discouraged by the administrative deficiencies of the
current IA or by the Incident of Preacher YM Yang. On the contrary, I thank God that
in our most painful and darkest hour, we are able to examine and discipline ourselves,
and thereby witness His mercy and power.
4.6
It is not difficult to resolve the dispute between Preacher YM Yang and the IA
Over many long conversations, I shared with Preacher YM Yang the following
analysis:
a. The entire Bible is a record of God’s word; therefore the verses in the Bible
absolutely cannot be mutually conflicting.
b. Since his new theory concerning the origin of Satan and the church’s traditional
view concerning the same topic both cannot completely explain all the verses in
the Bible concerning evil, sin, and the nature of Satan and of God,
--i. neither of these theories is in accordance with the will of God,
--ii. neither of these theories is from God,
--iii. both theories have been constructed by man,
--iv. both theories are misleading.
c. Preacher YM Yang agreed with my analysis and advice.
I then asked Preacher Yang, “So why don’t you retract your theory?” Preacher YM
replied: If he were to retract his arguments now, then the innumerable false accusations
and instances of defamation by a small number of workers over the past many years, and
Elder Lin’s unjust and unrighteous false testimonies, false accusations and unjustified
attacks against him over the past many years (e.g., using false documents, false material
and false evidence against him, distorting his words or his published articles by making
selective use of them, misusing the church’s resources and abusing his [Elder Lin’s]
administrative powers, disrupting the procedures of meetings, using unjust and
unrighteous administrative procedures to handle disputes, being biased and taking sides,
discrediting and attacking the other party for no reason, etc.), would instantly be
proclaimed by those who have borne false witness and made false accusations against
him to be just and righteous actions taken for the sake of defending the truth.
This second round of defamation and attacks would be more terrible than the first, and he would no
longer be able to defend himself before others or extricate himself from his difficulties.
Preacher YM Yang believes that, because the various wrongful administrative operations
carried out by Elder Lin over the past many years have never been investigated, dealt
with or rectified,
-1) he [Preacher Yang] alone has ended up being blamed for all the
mistakes that have been made, and
-2) there is a misconception that everyone else involved is a saint and is perfect. Not only is Preacher YM unable to forget about the unjust and unrighteous chaos that has ensued, he is even more determined that, for the sake of the truthfulness and honesty of the true church, no matter how difficult things get, he will surely continue to bear the pain and humiliation, faithfully and sincerely pointing out the administrative mistakes and deficiencies of the workers of the church.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 17
4.2
The administrative deficiencies of the present-day IA are serious and prevalent; such
breaches urgently need to be acknowledged, fixed and stopped.
From God’s perspective, the IA’s administrative deficiencies are obvious indicators
and direct consequences of the church’s transgression of His laws and her forsaking
of His ways. In terms of the long-term prospects of the church, the deficiencies in the
IA’s administrative operations constitute the greatest challenge to the church today.
Timely resolving these deficiencies is critical to TJC’s future success or failure.
Just think, the church is the household of God; how can conduct which is
unacceptable even according to worldly laws be permitted in a sacred and spiritual
body?
For the continued sustainment of the church, we need to overcome all difficulties,
face the facts, bravely admit our mistakes before God and change our old habits (Is
30:18–22). For if these deficiencies are not promptly acknowledged and corrected,
the church will continue to be struck and disciplined by God; when things get serious,
she may even be rejected by Him (Is 5:1–7).
We beseech the true God to have mercy on the church and to grant the church
wisdom, that she may quickly repent and change her ways, once again conducting
herself in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and working and shining for the
Lord.
4.3
Elder Lin’s operational deficiencies on the handling of the Pr. YM Yang Incident were
clear manifested at the IA EXCO meeting in March 2012
Having repeatedly perused over 700 pages of IA document pertaining to Pr. YM Incident, I have discovered that the practices of Elder Lin described in this report
1)took place not just during the two years when I worked with Elder Lin;
2) they werealso found in the 700-plus pages of IA archives concerning the Incident of Preacher
YM Yang.
The frequency with which these wrongful acts occurred, as well as their
destructiveness and the virulence of their attacks, was many times greater in the case
of Preacher YM Yang than in my own case.
For many years, Elder Lin has used similar illegal means to
-1) distort the words of Preacher YM, to accuse him falsely, discredit and attack him, and to
-2) fabricate false messages, false meeting minutes and false documents to deceive his co-workers and sway public opinion. Such acts have never before been witnessed in the true church’s
near hundred-year history!
In the 700-plus pages, it can be seen that Preacher YM Yang often pointed out these
biased and wrongful practices of Elder Lin and protested to the IA about them.
In the 7.5 years of Elder Yung Ji Lin’s tenure as the IA chairman, the IA Standing Committee and the IA EXCO have never investigated or tried to rectify Elder Lin’s
malfeasance.
As for the proceedings of the meeting held on March 23, 2012 during which the IA
EXCO decided to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s status as IA preacher, I believe that
there were many areas of doubt and numerous lapses and injustices that took place
during the meeting.
For example: While the IA
-i) was planning and preparing for the EXCO meeting in
March 2012, and
-ii) discussing issues related to Preacher YM Yang during their
meeting in Korea,
---a. why did Elder Lin and the IA not announce this important proposal a month
before the meeting to all the meeting attendees, as they did with the other items
on the agenda?
---b. why did Elder Lin and the IA not list in detail the IA’s arguments and evidence
beforehand, so that every EXCO member could examine the evidence, prepare
the necessary material and share his findings with the other attendees during the
meeting?
---c. why did Elder Lin and the IA not notify Preacher YM Yang of this proposal and
inform him concerning the evidence on which the proposal was based, so that he
could properly prepare his material and defend himself against the arguments of
the IA?
---d. in discussing and deciding upon this case, why did the IA not simultaneously
consider discussing the reports and accusations which Preacher YM Yang had
submitted to the EXCO over the past many years concerning Elder Lin’s
wrongdoings, and the impact that these wrongdoings may have had on the case
in hand?
---e. Why were the 7 IA Standing Committee members not brave enough to inform
the 15 IA EXCO members beforehand that they had decided long before to
submit this important proposal to the IA EXCO for discussion and arbitration?
Why did the Standing Committee instead suddenly notify the EXCO members
just three hours before that they were to discuss this important issue?
---f. Since Elder Lin’s wrongful conduct over the many years has brought about an
environment where right and wrong is confounded. Given these circumstances,
before the IA EXCO members voted to decide on how to deal with Preacher YM
Yang, how were they able to discern
----1) which pieces of evidence were authentic
and had not been tampered with by Elder Lin, and
----2) which facts had not been
manufactured by Elder Lin via wrongful means?
The IA has not provided credible answers to the many points of doubt cited above, but
has instead hastily dismissed Preacher Yang. The IA did not handle the incident of
Preacher YM Yang honestly, fairly, justly and satisfactorily in March 2012, and I believe
that the reasons for this are very closely linked to the deficiencies in the IA’s
administrative operations that are described in this report.
I am extremely worried that the IA has been misled by Elder Lin in this matter, and that it
has lost its honesty, impartiality and righteousness as a result.
The administrative deficiencies of the present-day IA are serious and prevalent; such
breaches urgently need to be acknowledged, fixed and stopped.
From God’s perspective, the IA’s administrative deficiencies are obvious indicators
and direct consequences of the church’s transgression of His laws and her forsaking
of His ways. In terms of the long-term prospects of the church, the deficiencies in the
IA’s administrative operations constitute the greatest challenge to the church today.
Timely resolving these deficiencies is critical to TJC’s future success or failure.
Just think, the church is the household of God; how can conduct which is
unacceptable even according to worldly laws be permitted in a sacred and spiritual
body?
For the continued sustainment of the church, we need to overcome all difficulties,
face the facts, bravely admit our mistakes before God and change our old habits (Is
30:18–22). For if these deficiencies are not promptly acknowledged and corrected,
the church will continue to be struck and disciplined by God; when things get serious,
she may even be rejected by Him (Is 5:1–7).
We beseech the true God to have mercy on the church and to grant the church
wisdom, that she may quickly repent and change her ways, once again conducting
herself in accordance with the teachings of the Bible and working and shining for the
Lord.
4.3
Elder Lin’s operational deficiencies on the handling of the Pr. YM Yang Incident were
clear manifested at the IA EXCO meeting in March 2012
Having repeatedly perused over 700 pages of IA document pertaining to Pr. YM Incident, I have discovered that the practices of Elder Lin described in this report
1)took place not just during the two years when I worked with Elder Lin;
2) they werealso found in the 700-plus pages of IA archives concerning the Incident of Preacher
YM Yang.
The frequency with which these wrongful acts occurred, as well as their
destructiveness and the virulence of their attacks, was many times greater in the case
of Preacher YM Yang than in my own case.
For many years, Elder Lin has used similar illegal means to
-1) distort the words of Preacher YM, to accuse him falsely, discredit and attack him, and to
-2) fabricate false messages, false meeting minutes and false documents to deceive his co-workers and sway public opinion. Such acts have never before been witnessed in the true church’s
near hundred-year history!
In the 700-plus pages, it can be seen that Preacher YM Yang often pointed out these
biased and wrongful practices of Elder Lin and protested to the IA about them.
In the 7.5 years of Elder Yung Ji Lin’s tenure as the IA chairman, the IA Standing Committee and the IA EXCO have never investigated or tried to rectify Elder Lin’s
malfeasance.
As for the proceedings of the meeting held on March 23, 2012 during which the IA
EXCO decided to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s status as IA preacher, I believe that
there were many areas of doubt and numerous lapses and injustices that took place
during the meeting.
For example: While the IA
-i) was planning and preparing for the EXCO meeting in
March 2012, and
-ii) discussing issues related to Preacher YM Yang during their
meeting in Korea,
---a. why did Elder Lin and the IA not announce this important proposal a month
before the meeting to all the meeting attendees, as they did with the other items
on the agenda?
---b. why did Elder Lin and the IA not list in detail the IA’s arguments and evidence
beforehand, so that every EXCO member could examine the evidence, prepare
the necessary material and share his findings with the other attendees during the
meeting?
---c. why did Elder Lin and the IA not notify Preacher YM Yang of this proposal and
inform him concerning the evidence on which the proposal was based, so that he
could properly prepare his material and defend himself against the arguments of
the IA?
---d. in discussing and deciding upon this case, why did the IA not simultaneously
consider discussing the reports and accusations which Preacher YM Yang had
submitted to the EXCO over the past many years concerning Elder Lin’s
wrongdoings, and the impact that these wrongdoings may have had on the case
in hand?
---e. Why were the 7 IA Standing Committee members not brave enough to inform
the 15 IA EXCO members beforehand that they had decided long before to
submit this important proposal to the IA EXCO for discussion and arbitration?
Why did the Standing Committee instead suddenly notify the EXCO members
just three hours before that they were to discuss this important issue?
---f. Since Elder Lin’s wrongful conduct over the many years has brought about an
environment where right and wrong is confounded. Given these circumstances,
before the IA EXCO members voted to decide on how to deal with Preacher YM
Yang, how were they able to discern
----1) which pieces of evidence were authentic
and had not been tampered with by Elder Lin, and
----2) which facts had not been
manufactured by Elder Lin via wrongful means?
The IA has not provided credible answers to the many points of doubt cited above, but
has instead hastily dismissed Preacher Yang. The IA did not handle the incident of
Preacher YM Yang honestly, fairly, justly and satisfactorily in March 2012, and I believe
that the reasons for this are very closely linked to the deficiencies in the IA’s
administrative operations that are described in this report.
I am extremely worried that the IA has been misled by Elder Lin in this matter, and that it
has lost its honesty, impartiality and righteousness as a result.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 16
Example 5:
Elder Lin has set up roadblocks so that petitioners and whistle blowers have no channels
through which they may express their views; this mistake / deficiency has ruled out
opportunities for the IA to make improvements to itself (see Evidence, pp. 41–44).
a. When Elder Lin receives petitions from church members who please him, Elder Lin often responds
and solves their problems very promptly (within a few days or one to two weeks).
b. In contrast, when he comes across petitions which he does not like or does not wish to face, Elder
Lin
-1) does not bother replying to those who made the suggestions,
-2) creates innumerable obstacles,
making up unrealistic and impracticable rules so that the petitions have no way of getting their
messages across, and
-3) consigns the admonitions and petitions to administrative oblivion through
man-made means.
c. Case Study 1:
In October 2010, when I asked Elder Lin to honour his commitment of providing additional IA documents to me, Elder Lin first told me he was too busy and will get to it. Later he changed his mind and through Preacher MY Chao, the IA instructed me that if I have any request to
the IA, I must follow the rules to communicate with the IA. Specifically, I must first submit my
request to my local church board, secure local church board’s approval then forward the request to
the next church hierarchies (i.e. the U.S. General Assembly). After securing USGA’s approval then
to the next hierarchies the U.S. National Church Conference (US NCC); then to the IA’s Western
Hemisphere Department of World Missions. Only after my request/suggestion had been discussed
and approved by these 4 entities, could it be presented to the IA.
-i. As this instruction clearly states, the IA and Elder Lin can talk to me on any issue
whenever they liked. Their instructions and documents would be delivered to me in less
than a minute through the Internet.
-ii. But if I were to have any question or suggestion regarding the information or documents I
had received, I would have to comply with the IA’s requirements, and first have my
questions and suggestions reviewed and approved in meetings by the above four
organizations (i.e. local church, the USGA, US NCC, and IA’s Western Hemisphere
Department of World Missions). Note: these requirements may take more than two years
or even forever, since some of these bodies hold meetings only once a year, or do not
even have the administrative authority to assist me in the matter) before my question and
suggestion can be brought before the exalted Elder Lin and the IA!
-iii. As an organization whose original and primary function is to coordinate the work of the
ministry, how did the IA, under the leadership of Elder Lin, become so bureaucratic, self important
and arrogant?
-iv. How are the fault-ridden administrative operations of the IA going to improve under such
an arrogant, one-sided bureaucracy?
d. Case Study 2:
After the IA EXCO meeting held on March 23, 2012 in Seoul, Korea, Elder Lin
specially emphasized in his second fabricated letter (i.e. IA #12-033) to me: “Henceforth, should you
have any suggestions for the IA, please process them in accordance with the administrative
procedures of the GA to which you belong.” (see Evidence, p. 43)
-i. Having received this letter, I innocently and dutifully complied with Elder Lin’s instructions
and rang the USGA. A board member of the USGA told me that the USGA bylaws did not
provide/stipulate any administrative procedures concerning such matters. Therefore, even if
the USGA wishes to help but were unable to do so.
-ii. I also consulted a board member of my local church; the board member similarly replied that
the local church bylaws did not include information on the administrative procedures
concerning such matters. Thus, my local church was also unable to help.
-iii. After having been passed around like a ball, I finally realized that Elder Lin had in effect
relegated me to an administrative no man’s land so that there would be no channel for my
complaints and nowhere for me to appeal.
-iv. I later learned that Elder Lin often quoted this rule to petitioners whom he declines to
accommodate so that these members’ suggestions and petitions would not get resolved and
they would have nowhere to turn for help. This mode of operation suggests that Elder Lin
and the IA are not at all interested or willing to accept advice.
e. The facts above portray directly and in detail the IA’s mentality and actual mode of operation, its
over-inflated ego and conceitedness, its refusal to accept others’ suggestions and lack of desire for
progress, its attitude that everyone should obey its instructions in all things and that it is always
correct, and so on.
Example 6:
Elder Lin insists that he has made no mistakes whatsoever during his tenure as leader of the
IA; he has repeatedly rejected mediation, causing a dispute that could originally have been
resolved to turn into something much worse and severe. The IA’s self-conceited mentality
and its refusal to admit its mistakes have long been the primary reason why the Pr. YM
Yang Incident has not been resolved (see Sections 3.16; 3.18; 3.21 and 3.33).
a. After perusing the more than 700 pages of IA files concerning the Incident of Preacher YM Yang, I
discovered not only that all the administrative deficiencies of the IA described in this report have
been manifested in the course of the dispute between Preacher YM Yang and Elder Lin, but that they
have often been manifested with an even greater severity.
b. Elder Lin knows in his heart of how greatly he has erred in his handling of the incident of Preacher
YM Yang (note: he previously said as much to one of his close co-workers), but it is unclear why
Elder Lin continues to claim that he has made no mistakes whatsoever.
c. The more than 700 pages of IA files show that Elder Lin thinks that there is no need to sit down and discuss matters, since he has the power to issue IA directives at will, present a distorted view of
Preacher YM Yang and discredit and attack YM in any situation and at any time.
d. The IA’s self-conceited, self-righteous and self-important mind-set and its reluctance to admit its
mistakes has led Elder Lin to forgo many opportunities to communicate with Preacher Yang and to
work out a solution so that both of them can better understand and forgive each other.
e. When one of two parties involved in a dispute refuses to talk and try to come to an agreement with
the other party, neither of them will be able to resolve the dispute.
Elder Lin has set up roadblocks so that petitioners and whistle blowers have no channels
through which they may express their views; this mistake / deficiency has ruled out
opportunities for the IA to make improvements to itself (see Evidence, pp. 41–44).
a. When Elder Lin receives petitions from church members who please him, Elder Lin often responds
and solves their problems very promptly (within a few days or one to two weeks).
b. In contrast, when he comes across petitions which he does not like or does not wish to face, Elder
Lin
-1) does not bother replying to those who made the suggestions,
-2) creates innumerable obstacles,
making up unrealistic and impracticable rules so that the petitions have no way of getting their
messages across, and
-3) consigns the admonitions and petitions to administrative oblivion through
man-made means.
c. Case Study 1:
In October 2010, when I asked Elder Lin to honour his commitment of providing additional IA documents to me, Elder Lin first told me he was too busy and will get to it. Later he changed his mind and through Preacher MY Chao, the IA instructed me that if I have any request to
the IA, I must follow the rules to communicate with the IA. Specifically, I must first submit my
request to my local church board, secure local church board’s approval then forward the request to
the next church hierarchies (i.e. the U.S. General Assembly). After securing USGA’s approval then
to the next hierarchies the U.S. National Church Conference (US NCC); then to the IA’s Western
Hemisphere Department of World Missions. Only after my request/suggestion had been discussed
and approved by these 4 entities, could it be presented to the IA.
-i. As this instruction clearly states, the IA and Elder Lin can talk to me on any issue
whenever they liked. Their instructions and documents would be delivered to me in less
than a minute through the Internet.
-ii. But if I were to have any question or suggestion regarding the information or documents I
had received, I would have to comply with the IA’s requirements, and first have my
questions and suggestions reviewed and approved in meetings by the above four
organizations (i.e. local church, the USGA, US NCC, and IA’s Western Hemisphere
Department of World Missions). Note: these requirements may take more than two years
or even forever, since some of these bodies hold meetings only once a year, or do not
even have the administrative authority to assist me in the matter) before my question and
suggestion can be brought before the exalted Elder Lin and the IA!
-iii. As an organization whose original and primary function is to coordinate the work of the
ministry, how did the IA, under the leadership of Elder Lin, become so bureaucratic, self important
and arrogant?
-iv. How are the fault-ridden administrative operations of the IA going to improve under such
an arrogant, one-sided bureaucracy?
d. Case Study 2:
After the IA EXCO meeting held on March 23, 2012 in Seoul, Korea, Elder Lin
specially emphasized in his second fabricated letter (i.e. IA #12-033) to me: “Henceforth, should you
have any suggestions for the IA, please process them in accordance with the administrative
procedures of the GA to which you belong.” (see Evidence, p. 43)
-i. Having received this letter, I innocently and dutifully complied with Elder Lin’s instructions
and rang the USGA. A board member of the USGA told me that the USGA bylaws did not
provide/stipulate any administrative procedures concerning such matters. Therefore, even if
the USGA wishes to help but were unable to do so.
-ii. I also consulted a board member of my local church; the board member similarly replied that
the local church bylaws did not include information on the administrative procedures
concerning such matters. Thus, my local church was also unable to help.
-iii. After having been passed around like a ball, I finally realized that Elder Lin had in effect
relegated me to an administrative no man’s land so that there would be no channel for my
complaints and nowhere for me to appeal.
-iv. I later learned that Elder Lin often quoted this rule to petitioners whom he declines to
accommodate so that these members’ suggestions and petitions would not get resolved and
they would have nowhere to turn for help. This mode of operation suggests that Elder Lin
and the IA are not at all interested or willing to accept advice.
e. The facts above portray directly and in detail the IA’s mentality and actual mode of operation, its
over-inflated ego and conceitedness, its refusal to accept others’ suggestions and lack of desire for
progress, its attitude that everyone should obey its instructions in all things and that it is always
correct, and so on.
Example 6:
Elder Lin insists that he has made no mistakes whatsoever during his tenure as leader of the
IA; he has repeatedly rejected mediation, causing a dispute that could originally have been
resolved to turn into something much worse and severe. The IA’s self-conceited mentality
and its refusal to admit its mistakes have long been the primary reason why the Pr. YM
Yang Incident has not been resolved (see Sections 3.16; 3.18; 3.21 and 3.33).
a. After perusing the more than 700 pages of IA files concerning the Incident of Preacher YM Yang, I
discovered not only that all the administrative deficiencies of the IA described in this report have
been manifested in the course of the dispute between Preacher YM Yang and Elder Lin, but that they
have often been manifested with an even greater severity.
b. Elder Lin knows in his heart of how greatly he has erred in his handling of the incident of Preacher
YM Yang (note: he previously said as much to one of his close co-workers), but it is unclear why
Elder Lin continues to claim that he has made no mistakes whatsoever.
c. The more than 700 pages of IA files show that Elder Lin thinks that there is no need to sit down and discuss matters, since he has the power to issue IA directives at will, present a distorted view of
Preacher YM Yang and discredit and attack YM in any situation and at any time.
d. The IA’s self-conceited, self-righteous and self-important mind-set and its reluctance to admit its
mistakes has led Elder Lin to forgo many opportunities to communicate with Preacher Yang and to
work out a solution so that both of them can better understand and forgive each other.
e. When one of two parties involved in a dispute refuses to talk and try to come to an agreement with
the other party, neither of them will be able to resolve the dispute.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 15
Example 3:
How did Elder Lin turn a simple request into his Waterloo? (see Evidence, pp. 45–98)
a. After 18 months (2010.09.16–2012.03.31) of continual lying, Elder Lin finally admitted on March 31, 2012 that, in regard to the 37 pages of IA document, he had 1) fabricated documents and 2) misled the IA Executive Committee.
b. Between 2010.09.16–2012.03.31 when Elder Lin and I worked together, he managed to come up with at least 5 different lies and false testimonies concerning this simple 37 pages of IA document!
The fact: On September 16, 2010, Elder Lin handed me 29 pages, and Elder Tse handed me 8 pages (making 37 pages in total). The followings are the 5 lies and false testimonies Elder Lin made at various occasions to various IA EXCO members.
---i. “What the IA provided to Brother Young in Sept 2010 is what he needs to know” (an email from Elder Lin to the IA EXCO members on March 21, 2011). [Note: these 37 pages of document is a small fraction of the IA archives which are more than 700 pages. What depicted in these 37 pages is a biased view of the dispute between Pr. YM and the IA].
---ii. Elder Lin manufactured a false set of these documents and told IA EXCO members "this [his falsified documents] was what IA sent to Brother Young in Sept 2010”. (in an email from Elder Lin to the IA EXCO members on March 21, 2011) [Note: Elder Lin's false testimony and fabricated documents mismatched the genuine documents by more than 45%]
---iii. “All 37 pages were provided by Elder Tse.” (Elder Lin’s written declaration, from the reference material prepared for a special meeting with five senior elders held on November 28, 2011 in Taiwan, Taichung.)
---iv. “I don’t remember having given you [Brother Young] any documents. These documents were -typed out by my secretary.” (the testimony of Elder Lin during a meeting with me, my wife and four IA EXCO members held on March 31, 2012 in Taipei church)
---v. Toward the end of March 31, 2012 meeting, Elder Lin admitted that he was wrong and he had lied and mislead others. (the testimony of Elder Lin during a meeting with four IA EXCO members who reside in Taiwan, my wife and I, held on March 31, 2012 in Taipei church]
c. Think about it:
Being the IA chairman, Elder Lin ought to be the most spiritual member of the church’s administrative staff, yet
---i. He lied for more than 1 year and half. He spent 18 months on crooked byways before speaking the truth.
---ii. During this time, Elder Lin did all he could to distort the facts and cover up the wrongs he had committed, thus misled the church on what truly happened, caused the church to lose her truth, integrity, justice and righteousness?
---iii. In addition, in this particular matter, Elder Lin biasedly handpicked specific documents that support his subjective views from 700+ page of archives and told the IA EXCO and me that these 37 IA documents are what I need to know was autocratic (refusing to provide me with any other documents and insisting I should just follow his commands and do what he asks me to do! )
---iv. Fabricated documents and sent spurious documents to mislead his coworkers, and discredited and attacked church members who pointed out his mistakes
---v. Bore false witness against the whistle blower (with the false document he had fabricated, Elder Lin clearly and directly implied that the 37 pages of IA document in my possession were false).
d. Elder Lin’s wrongdoings in these simple matters gives observers the chance to understand 1) Elder Lin’s modes operation, his characters and his mentality, 2) the content, frequency, severity and ubiquity of the deficiencies in the administrative operations of the IA.
Example 4:
Being the most senior person in the IA administration, Elder Lin knows the law, yet he breaks it. Moreover, when his mistakes are pointed out to him, he hardens his heart and refuses to admit his mistakes or to correct them (see Evidence, pp. 99–100).
a. The bylaws and constitution of the IA clearly stipulate that:
---i. the IA Standing Committee comes above the chairmanship of the IA,
---ii. the IA Executive Committee comes above the IA Standing Committee,
---iii. the IA Truth Research Committee (TRC) comes above the IA Executive Committee, and
---iv. the World Delegates Conference comes above the IA’s TRC.
b. The smooth and peaceful functioning of the IA depends on each organizational unit, with each doing its part and respecting and helping the other units.
c. As the IA chairman, Elder Lin is well aware that he and the IA administrative department which he leads needs to 1) carry out the directives and meeting resolutions of the above four organizational bodies, and 2) report “upwardly”, regularly and truthfully to these four bodies concerning the affairs and state of progress of the IA [i.e. IA chairman reports to → 1) IA Standing Committee → 2) IA EXCO → 3) IA TRC and → 4) WDC].
d. In practice, however, Elder Lin often ignores this requirement, acts alone and puts himself above these four organizational bodies. For instance,
---i. Elder Lin has fabricated the meeting minutes of the IA EXCO as well as those of the IA Standing Committee,
---ii. Elder Lin and the IA’s administrative department violated the rules and tampered with the meeting minutes of the IA EXCO,
---iii. Elder Lin has not carried out the meeting resolutions of the IA EXCO and the IA Standing Committee,
---iv. the IA EXCO, led by Elder Lin, has infringed upon the powers of the WDC,
---v. when his above mistakes are pointed out, Elder Lin hardens his heart and refuses to admit his mistakes, instead Elder Lin uses administrative procedures to crush and discredit those who complain against him.
e. These administrative lapses have caused the IA to
-1) become a one-man organization,
-2) lose its order, harmony, truth, justice, integrity and righteousness, and
-3) brought shame to God, the church and all her members.
How did Elder Lin turn a simple request into his Waterloo? (see Evidence, pp. 45–98)
a. After 18 months (2010.09.16–2012.03.31) of continual lying, Elder Lin finally admitted on March 31, 2012 that, in regard to the 37 pages of IA document, he had 1) fabricated documents and 2) misled the IA Executive Committee.
b. Between 2010.09.16–2012.03.31 when Elder Lin and I worked together, he managed to come up with at least 5 different lies and false testimonies concerning this simple 37 pages of IA document!
The fact: On September 16, 2010, Elder Lin handed me 29 pages, and Elder Tse handed me 8 pages (making 37 pages in total). The followings are the 5 lies and false testimonies Elder Lin made at various occasions to various IA EXCO members.
---i. “What the IA provided to Brother Young in Sept 2010 is what he needs to know” (an email from Elder Lin to the IA EXCO members on March 21, 2011). [Note: these 37 pages of document is a small fraction of the IA archives which are more than 700 pages. What depicted in these 37 pages is a biased view of the dispute between Pr. YM and the IA].
---ii. Elder Lin manufactured a false set of these documents and told IA EXCO members "this [his falsified documents] was what IA sent to Brother Young in Sept 2010”. (in an email from Elder Lin to the IA EXCO members on March 21, 2011) [Note: Elder Lin's false testimony and fabricated documents mismatched the genuine documents by more than 45%]
---iii. “All 37 pages were provided by Elder Tse.” (Elder Lin’s written declaration, from the reference material prepared for a special meeting with five senior elders held on November 28, 2011 in Taiwan, Taichung.)
---iv. “I don’t remember having given you [Brother Young] any documents. These documents were -typed out by my secretary.” (the testimony of Elder Lin during a meeting with me, my wife and four IA EXCO members held on March 31, 2012 in Taipei church)
---v. Toward the end of March 31, 2012 meeting, Elder Lin admitted that he was wrong and he had lied and mislead others. (the testimony of Elder Lin during a meeting with four IA EXCO members who reside in Taiwan, my wife and I, held on March 31, 2012 in Taipei church]
c. Think about it:
Being the IA chairman, Elder Lin ought to be the most spiritual member of the church’s administrative staff, yet
---i. He lied for more than 1 year and half. He spent 18 months on crooked byways before speaking the truth.
---ii. During this time, Elder Lin did all he could to distort the facts and cover up the wrongs he had committed, thus misled the church on what truly happened, caused the church to lose her truth, integrity, justice and righteousness?
---iii. In addition, in this particular matter, Elder Lin biasedly handpicked specific documents that support his subjective views from 700+ page of archives and told the IA EXCO and me that these 37 IA documents are what I need to know was autocratic (refusing to provide me with any other documents and insisting I should just follow his commands and do what he asks me to do! )
---iv. Fabricated documents and sent spurious documents to mislead his coworkers, and discredited and attacked church members who pointed out his mistakes
---v. Bore false witness against the whistle blower (with the false document he had fabricated, Elder Lin clearly and directly implied that the 37 pages of IA document in my possession were false).
d. Elder Lin’s wrongdoings in these simple matters gives observers the chance to understand 1) Elder Lin’s modes operation, his characters and his mentality, 2) the content, frequency, severity and ubiquity of the deficiencies in the administrative operations of the IA.
Example 4:
Being the most senior person in the IA administration, Elder Lin knows the law, yet he breaks it. Moreover, when his mistakes are pointed out to him, he hardens his heart and refuses to admit his mistakes or to correct them (see Evidence, pp. 99–100).
a. The bylaws and constitution of the IA clearly stipulate that:
---i. the IA Standing Committee comes above the chairmanship of the IA,
---ii. the IA Executive Committee comes above the IA Standing Committee,
---iii. the IA Truth Research Committee (TRC) comes above the IA Executive Committee, and
---iv. the World Delegates Conference comes above the IA’s TRC.
b. The smooth and peaceful functioning of the IA depends on each organizational unit, with each doing its part and respecting and helping the other units.
c. As the IA chairman, Elder Lin is well aware that he and the IA administrative department which he leads needs to 1) carry out the directives and meeting resolutions of the above four organizational bodies, and 2) report “upwardly”, regularly and truthfully to these four bodies concerning the affairs and state of progress of the IA [i.e. IA chairman reports to → 1) IA Standing Committee → 2) IA EXCO → 3) IA TRC and → 4) WDC].
d. In practice, however, Elder Lin often ignores this requirement, acts alone and puts himself above these four organizational bodies. For instance,
---i. Elder Lin has fabricated the meeting minutes of the IA EXCO as well as those of the IA Standing Committee,
---ii. Elder Lin and the IA’s administrative department violated the rules and tampered with the meeting minutes of the IA EXCO,
---iii. Elder Lin has not carried out the meeting resolutions of the IA EXCO and the IA Standing Committee,
---iv. the IA EXCO, led by Elder Lin, has infringed upon the powers of the WDC,
---v. when his above mistakes are pointed out, Elder Lin hardens his heart and refuses to admit his mistakes, instead Elder Lin uses administrative procedures to crush and discredit those who complain against him.
e. These administrative lapses have caused the IA to
-1) become a one-man organization,
-2) lose its order, harmony, truth, justice, integrity and righteousness, and
-3) brought shame to God, the church and all her members.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 14
IV. Examples of the deficiencies in the administrative operations of the IA and the damage such lapses have caused the church
Note: In order to
1) discuss the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations and
2) find solution(s) to them, I have had to use specific IA administrative details in this section. I would like to apologize once again to Elder Lin, as his conduct forms the center of this discussion.
While working with Elder Lin for 28 months, I discovered that there were often deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations. Due to space constraints, this chapter provides only six examples and, through them, elaborates on the extensiveness and seriousness of the lapses in the administrative operations of the present-day IA.
By examining these deficiencies, the reader could gain an inkling as to how Elder Lin, the
chief executive officer of the IA, has used lies, fabricated documents and dishonest tactics to
mislead his co-workers, causing the church to suffer unprecedented damage and destruction.
As a result, the IA has lost its honesty, justice and righteousness, and the church and all her
members have been shamed.
4.1
Typical examples of the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations
Elder Lin’s Modes of Operation
Example 1:
During IA meetings, Elder Lin assumes three roles with mutually conflicting interests
(the defendant, the legislator and the judge) with the aim of controlling the
proceedings and outcomes of IA meetings (see Evidence, pp. 2–7).
One may wonder:
Why does Elder Lin insist on assuming these 3 mutually conflicting roles at each and
every IA meeting? Below is my observation and analysis:
a. Recognizing the seriousness of the IA’s administrative operation lapses that I had documented
in my reports, the IA Standing Committee forwarded the case to the IA EXCO on October 20,
2011 and requested the IA EXCO to lead the discussion / investigation.
b. Elder Lin knew well that these IA’s administrative deficiencies were actual and accurate.
c. In order to keep a lid on IA operational deficiencies and his wrongdoings, Elder Lin resolved
that he has to control the discussions, proceedings and outcomes of IA meetings. The best way
to achieve these goals is for Elder Lin to assume three different roles whenever IA deficiencies
are discussed. In so doing, it allowed Elder Lin
--1) as the Defendant to preside over the IA
meetings,
--2) as the Legislator to control the direction and the content of discussions, and
--3) as the judge to write up the meeting minutes according to his personal biased views.
Finally,
Elder Lin can quote his fabricated meeting minutes as the resolutions made by the IA EXCO to
mislead the church, her membership and to control public opinion on the matter.
d. When the IA EXCO considered my report at its March 22-23, 2012 meeting in Seoul, Korea,
Elder Lin used these tactics to achieve his goals and objectives. As a result,
-i. The IA operational deficiencies identified in my reports with specific evidences were
deemed not-objective and did not hold water
-ii. These “conclusions” were “reached” not based on IA EXCO’s discussion, verification
and voting but based on Elder Lin’s trickery.
-iii. Elder Lin can then cite such fabricated IA EXCO meeting minutes to prove “his
innocent” and proclaim that he had been misunderstood and he had done no wrong.
e. Elder Lin, however, has forgotten that the omnipotent, omniscient and holy God is fully aware
of the work of his hands and the schemes of his heart.
f. The two fabricated IA meeting minutes (i.e. IA letter #12-030 and #12-033) cited in the
Evidence section as well as IA operation lapses identified here are they not direct evidences to
prove that it is Elder Lin himself who is unobjective.
g. These two false meeting minutes provide the most direct and powerful proof of the manner in
which Elder Lin has operated, led the IA administration, misled his co-workers and influenced
the opinions of the church—through the use of lies, his power and influence, and with a heart
that neither fears God nor man. As a result, the IA has become confused about right and wrong,
is unable to distinguish between true and false, and has been thrown into chaos.
Example 2:
Because the omnipotent and omniscient God is the master of the church, the IA has
not set up a system of supervision and evaluation. Elder Lin, however, has exploited
this weakness and misled his co-workers out of his own private goals and prejudiced
intentions, causing the IA to make some wrong decisions.
a. The vast majority of workers in the true church have devoted their lives to serving God and
leading people to the Lord with all their heart and strength because of their gratitude for the
grace of the Lord. The church is the household of God; the omnipotent and omniscient God is
the supervisor of His church. As a result, the IA has not set up a system of supervision and
evaluation. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the workers work with diligence and
sincerity for the sake of the gospel.
b. Elder Lin has often exploit this honour system, coupled with the fact that the other EXCO
members often only have a partial knowledge of the issues at hand, to mislead his co-workers
in IA meetings, such that they end up making incorrect decisions during the meetings.
c. Once the matter has been voted through in this manner, Elder Lin
-1) then uses this (the
resolution of the IA Executive Committee) as a token of authority and announces to the wider
world that he is simply carrying out the decisions of the IA EXCO, and
-2) uses this token of authority to repeatedly discredit and attack the believers who have admonished him.
d. Elder Lin also often makes use of his position as chair of IA meetings to adopt arguments
which are in line with his own purposes; any evidence which puts him in an unfavourable light
is not taken into consideration. Such practices provide Elder Lin with the opportunity to
quickly turn his one-sided and biased views into the outcomes and resolutions of IA meetings,
and then to record these erroneous decisions in the form of IA documents, which are then
distributed to churches all over the world, thus confusing the facts.
e. Take, for example, the IA meeting held on March 23, 2012 in Korea: Elder Lin
-1) With no evidence whatsoever, unfairly pronounced my letters and report to be unobjective,
-2) fabricated IA meeting minutes,
-3) produced IA documents to fulfil his own personal ends, and
-4) used these documents to discredit me the whistle blower, bringing me greater insult and
humiliation than I have ever experienced in my life.
f. Consider:
i. When a member, knowing nothing of the matter, uses Elder Lin’s fabricated IA
documents as “proof” and starts proclaiming everywhere that
--1) I have written an
unobjective report in order to attack church ministers,
--2) that I have not listened to the IA’s advice…etc.
ii. Elders, deacons and preachers of the IA, if I had not received the above cited IA meeting
minutes,
--1) how am I to know that I have not been falsely accused by Elder Lin at IA
meeting?
--2) how am I to find recipient of the subject IA meeting minutes that I may talk with
him, clarify things and defend my reputation?
--3) how am I, my children, grandchildren and loved ones, to deal with the
unwarranted attacks and slander of such a recipient, who attacks me solely on
the basis of Elder Lin’s lies?
--4) As stewards of the household of God, why have you ignored the numerous
warning signs these many years concerning the IA’s administrative lapses and
failed to deal with them? Because of this, the church today has become an
organization which is untrue, unjust, and unrighteous, and has even been taken
advantage of by the wicked (see Evidence, pp. 26–40)!
g. Elder Lin’s unbiblical tactics and practices
--1) have not only harmed many innocent believers
and church workers
--2) but also caused divisions and misunderstandings amongst members and
--3) led to great turmoil in the church. These damages are direct result of:
---i. it is difficult for the IA and the church to retract IA documents once they have been sent
out;
---ii. all recipients of fabricated IA documents (i.e. the GA members worldwide and local
church council members) would never believe that the IA documents they had received
had been fabricated and were false.
h. Therefore, in accordance with the instructions of the IA, they submissively put up the
documents on their notice boards and announce their contents to the congregation.
i. As such, the false documents sent out by the IA have not only contrary to the facts, confused
the opinions of the church and polluted the minds of the believers; in future, they would likely
become major obstacles and cause great difficulties if the church were to attempt to overturn
this resolution.
j. May God comfort and sustain me and other church members and workers who have been
discredited and wronged by Elder Lin so that we may safely pass through this difficult and
painful path.
k. More importantly, we pray that the loving heavenly Father and true God may grant grace and
mercy to the church, that she may quickly realize her errors, earnestly repent and ask God for
His forgiveness, so that she is not cast aside by Him.
Note: In order to
1) discuss the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations and
2) find solution(s) to them, I have had to use specific IA administrative details in this section. I would like to apologize once again to Elder Lin, as his conduct forms the center of this discussion.
While working with Elder Lin for 28 months, I discovered that there were often deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations. Due to space constraints, this chapter provides only six examples and, through them, elaborates on the extensiveness and seriousness of the lapses in the administrative operations of the present-day IA.
By examining these deficiencies, the reader could gain an inkling as to how Elder Lin, the
chief executive officer of the IA, has used lies, fabricated documents and dishonest tactics to
mislead his co-workers, causing the church to suffer unprecedented damage and destruction.
As a result, the IA has lost its honesty, justice and righteousness, and the church and all her
members have been shamed.
4.1
Typical examples of the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations
Elder Lin’s Modes of Operation
Example 1:
During IA meetings, Elder Lin assumes three roles with mutually conflicting interests
(the defendant, the legislator and the judge) with the aim of controlling the
proceedings and outcomes of IA meetings (see Evidence, pp. 2–7).
One may wonder:
Why does Elder Lin insist on assuming these 3 mutually conflicting roles at each and
every IA meeting? Below is my observation and analysis:
a. Recognizing the seriousness of the IA’s administrative operation lapses that I had documented
in my reports, the IA Standing Committee forwarded the case to the IA EXCO on October 20,
2011 and requested the IA EXCO to lead the discussion / investigation.
b. Elder Lin knew well that these IA’s administrative deficiencies were actual and accurate.
c. In order to keep a lid on IA operational deficiencies and his wrongdoings, Elder Lin resolved
that he has to control the discussions, proceedings and outcomes of IA meetings. The best way
to achieve these goals is for Elder Lin to assume three different roles whenever IA deficiencies
are discussed. In so doing, it allowed Elder Lin
--1) as the Defendant to preside over the IA
meetings,
--2) as the Legislator to control the direction and the content of discussions, and
--3) as the judge to write up the meeting minutes according to his personal biased views.
Finally,
Elder Lin can quote his fabricated meeting minutes as the resolutions made by the IA EXCO to
mislead the church, her membership and to control public opinion on the matter.
d. When the IA EXCO considered my report at its March 22-23, 2012 meeting in Seoul, Korea,
Elder Lin used these tactics to achieve his goals and objectives. As a result,
-i. The IA operational deficiencies identified in my reports with specific evidences were
deemed not-objective and did not hold water
-ii. These “conclusions” were “reached” not based on IA EXCO’s discussion, verification
and voting but based on Elder Lin’s trickery.
-iii. Elder Lin can then cite such fabricated IA EXCO meeting minutes to prove “his
innocent” and proclaim that he had been misunderstood and he had done no wrong.
e. Elder Lin, however, has forgotten that the omnipotent, omniscient and holy God is fully aware
of the work of his hands and the schemes of his heart.
f. The two fabricated IA meeting minutes (i.e. IA letter #12-030 and #12-033) cited in the
Evidence section as well as IA operation lapses identified here are they not direct evidences to
prove that it is Elder Lin himself who is unobjective.
g. These two false meeting minutes provide the most direct and powerful proof of the manner in
which Elder Lin has operated, led the IA administration, misled his co-workers and influenced
the opinions of the church—through the use of lies, his power and influence, and with a heart
that neither fears God nor man. As a result, the IA has become confused about right and wrong,
is unable to distinguish between true and false, and has been thrown into chaos.
Example 2:
Because the omnipotent and omniscient God is the master of the church, the IA has
not set up a system of supervision and evaluation. Elder Lin, however, has exploited
this weakness and misled his co-workers out of his own private goals and prejudiced
intentions, causing the IA to make some wrong decisions.
a. The vast majority of workers in the true church have devoted their lives to serving God and
leading people to the Lord with all their heart and strength because of their gratitude for the
grace of the Lord. The church is the household of God; the omnipotent and omniscient God is
the supervisor of His church. As a result, the IA has not set up a system of supervision and
evaluation. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the workers work with diligence and
sincerity for the sake of the gospel.
b. Elder Lin has often exploit this honour system, coupled with the fact that the other EXCO
members often only have a partial knowledge of the issues at hand, to mislead his co-workers
in IA meetings, such that they end up making incorrect decisions during the meetings.
c. Once the matter has been voted through in this manner, Elder Lin
-1) then uses this (the
resolution of the IA Executive Committee) as a token of authority and announces to the wider
world that he is simply carrying out the decisions of the IA EXCO, and
-2) uses this token of authority to repeatedly discredit and attack the believers who have admonished him.
d. Elder Lin also often makes use of his position as chair of IA meetings to adopt arguments
which are in line with his own purposes; any evidence which puts him in an unfavourable light
is not taken into consideration. Such practices provide Elder Lin with the opportunity to
quickly turn his one-sided and biased views into the outcomes and resolutions of IA meetings,
and then to record these erroneous decisions in the form of IA documents, which are then
distributed to churches all over the world, thus confusing the facts.
e. Take, for example, the IA meeting held on March 23, 2012 in Korea: Elder Lin
-1) With no evidence whatsoever, unfairly pronounced my letters and report to be unobjective,
-2) fabricated IA meeting minutes,
-3) produced IA documents to fulfil his own personal ends, and
-4) used these documents to discredit me the whistle blower, bringing me greater insult and
humiliation than I have ever experienced in my life.
f. Consider:
i. When a member, knowing nothing of the matter, uses Elder Lin’s fabricated IA
documents as “proof” and starts proclaiming everywhere that
--1) I have written an
unobjective report in order to attack church ministers,
--2) that I have not listened to the IA’s advice…etc.
ii. Elders, deacons and preachers of the IA, if I had not received the above cited IA meeting
minutes,
--1) how am I to know that I have not been falsely accused by Elder Lin at IA
meeting?
--2) how am I to find recipient of the subject IA meeting minutes that I may talk with
him, clarify things and defend my reputation?
--3) how am I, my children, grandchildren and loved ones, to deal with the
unwarranted attacks and slander of such a recipient, who attacks me solely on
the basis of Elder Lin’s lies?
--4) As stewards of the household of God, why have you ignored the numerous
warning signs these many years concerning the IA’s administrative lapses and
failed to deal with them? Because of this, the church today has become an
organization which is untrue, unjust, and unrighteous, and has even been taken
advantage of by the wicked (see Evidence, pp. 26–40)!
g. Elder Lin’s unbiblical tactics and practices
--1) have not only harmed many innocent believers
and church workers
--2) but also caused divisions and misunderstandings amongst members and
--3) led to great turmoil in the church. These damages are direct result of:
---i. it is difficult for the IA and the church to retract IA documents once they have been sent
out;
---ii. all recipients of fabricated IA documents (i.e. the GA members worldwide and local
church council members) would never believe that the IA documents they had received
had been fabricated and were false.
h. Therefore, in accordance with the instructions of the IA, they submissively put up the
documents on their notice boards and announce their contents to the congregation.
i. As such, the false documents sent out by the IA have not only contrary to the facts, confused
the opinions of the church and polluted the minds of the believers; in future, they would likely
become major obstacles and cause great difficulties if the church were to attempt to overturn
this resolution.
j. May God comfort and sustain me and other church members and workers who have been
discredited and wronged by Elder Lin so that we may safely pass through this difficult and
painful path.
k. More importantly, we pray that the loving heavenly Father and true God may grant grace and
mercy to the church, that she may quickly realize her errors, earnestly repent and ask God for
His forgiveness, so that she is not cast aside by Him.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 13
3.31
My wife and I asked Elder Lin why the contents of the IA announcement to churches around the world regarding the termination of Preacher YM Yang’s status were different from the resolutions of the IA Executive Committee (see Evidence, pp. 10– 11).
a. On March 31, 2012, my wife and I had a meeting in Taipei church with the five IA EXCO members who live in Taiwan (Elder Yung Ji Lin, Elder FM Tse, Elder EZ Chang, Deacon Bill Tseng, and Preacher MY Chao). We asked Elder Lin why the aforementioned IA document contained such serious errors.
b. Unmoved, Elder Lin replied lightly, “The IA did this to protect Preacher Yang; it was done out of love for Preacher Yang and his family members”!
c. Suppressing the deep pain and disappointment within me, I made my solemn reply to Elder Lin and the other IA EXCO members: “In all my life, I have never seen such an unloving document than this IA announcement on the termination of Preacher YM Yang”!
d. Following my statement, at the presence of Elder Lin and other 4 IA EXCO members, I
i. analysed the differences between the contents of IA announcement to the world and the actual resolutions passed by the IA EXCO, and
ii. questioned why the IA EXCO’s resolutions were changed by the IA administrative staff?
iii. as it turned out, two following two of the three resolutions/conditions of the termination passed by the IA EXCO had been deleted:
--1) the EXCO’s decision to provide Preacher Yang with three months’ living allowance had been cancelled and
--2) the clause concerning possible reinstatement by the EXCO.
iv. This fabricated, false and manufactured IA announcement to the world was completely heartless and without love!
v. Going by this fabricated document,
--1) the IA has not only not given Preacher Yang the opportunity to return,
--2) it does not even want Preacher Yang to return!
3.32
After the analysis, I asked Elder Lin and the IA to send a letter of correction to all GAs, Coordination Boards and IA-directed churches (see Evidence, p. 12).
a. Six days later (April 6, 2012), Elder Lin sent out a letter of correction, but it was written in English.
b. Think about it:
i. When Elder Lin wishes to point out Preacher Yang’s wrongs, he announces them in Chinese (e.g. the IA announcement letter), which the vast majority of church members can understand and read.
ii. However, when Elder Lin has to admit his mistakes and/or correct mistakes that the IA has committed, Elder Lin announces them in English, which the vast majority of members cannot read nor understand.
iii. The trust I had in Elder Lin and in the IA was greatly damaged.
c. Leaving the matter of the false document aside, it would be more critical for the church to investigate:
i. Which of the administrative staff had overstepped his/her authority and modified the three resolutions passed by the IA EXCO?
ii. Why Elder Lin would put his signature to a document which differed from the IA EXCO’s resolution? Moreover why would Elder Lin send this false document to churches all over the world?
d. This incident once again reveals
--1) how serious and excessive the current IA’s administrative lapses are and
--2) how greatly it has deviated from the way of the Lord.
3.33
The IA’s termination of Preacher YM Yang’s position as IA EXCO member is in violation of the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations. As a result, this resolution is illegal and invalid (see section 3.35 below).
a. Effective March 24, 2012, the IA
--1) not only terminated Preacher YM Yang’s office and duties as TJC preacher,
--2) at the same time; it also terminated Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member.
b. However, according to the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations (March 2011 edition),
i. IA EXCO members are elected by the WDC; therefore, the WDC is responsible for taking disciplinary action against IA EXCO members and their removal from office; ii. the IA Executive Committee does not have the authority to take disciplinary action against any IA EXCO member or remove him or her from office.
c. It is clear that the IA EXCO’s decision at the 6th meeting of the 10th Executive Committee held on March 23, 2012 to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member was in violation of the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations.
d. Therefore, the IA EXCO’s decision on March 23, 2012 to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member is illegal and invalid.
e. I wrote to the IA Executive Committee on April 27, 2012, asking Elder Lin and the other EXCO members to rectify this serious error; I have yet to see the correction measure or receive a reply.
f. This was the fourth time during my time as facilitator that Elder Lin had foregone the opportunity to resolve the conflict between himself and Preacher YM Yang.
3.34
After a year of denial, Elder Lin finally admitted that the spurious document he had sent to the EXCO members the night before the special Forum held by the IA on March 22, 2011 had been fabricated by him.
a. In Taipei church on March 31, 2012, my wife and I discussed with the five EXCO members living in Taiwan (Elder Yung Ji Lin, Elder FM Tse, Elder EZ Chang, Deacon Bill Tseng and Preacher MY Chao) the matter of the false documents concerning the IA’s termination of Preacher YM Yang as an IA preacher and IA EXCO member. I once again asked Elder Lin why, the night before the Forum held on March 22, 2011, he had sent the IA EXCO members fabricated documents that were different from the IA documents that he and Elder FM Tse had handed over to me on Sept 16, 2010.
b. Below are the main points that were covered during the conversation my wife and I had with Elder Lin; the conversation took place in front of the other 4 IA EXCO members:
Question 1. Why was the false document you sent the night before the Forum different from the document that the IA had handed me? Elder Lin replied: “I do not recall having given you any documents on September 16, 2010.”
Note: Elder Lin’s reply reminds me of how, when adults are unwilling to admit their mistakes, they often respond with “I don’t remember”).
Question 2. Why was there such a great difference between the fabricated document and the genuine version? Elder Lin replied: “The document sent out that night was typed up by my secretary.”
Note: Elder Lin’s reply clearly proves that the false document came from his office. But, unfortunately, Elder Lin tried to shift the responsibility for it onto his secretary.
Consider: Elder Lin is a well-known hands-on, detail orientated person. In view of this, can his secretary have fabricated this spurious document?
When Elder Lin and Elder Tse handed me the 37 pages of document on September 16, 2010, Elder Lin’s secretary was not present.
Therefore, unless Elder Lin had given his secretary the documents which he himself had selected from the IA archives, Elder Lin’s secretary
--1) would not have known which documents Elder Lin had given me,
--2) would not have known which documents she was supposed to type up out of the more than 700 pages in the IA’s archives,
--3) would surely not have randomly chosen a few documents, then told Elder Lin, “These are the documents that you handed over to Bro. Michael Young a year ago.”
Having lied for more than a year, Elder Lin finally admitted his mistake. Unfortunately, he did not have the courage to bear full responsibility for it, but tried instead to blame his secretary for his own wrongdoing!
This simple example shows once again that, in order to cover up his mistakes, Elder Lin uses every possible means to shift his liability to others including wrongly and falsely discrediting and attacking others without reason or evidence.
Question 3. Elder Lin: “if what you say is true (i.e., that your secretary selected, typed up and fabricated the false document, then passed it to you), then may I ask: is it you or your secretary who is leading and directing the IA”?
Elder Lin kept silent and did not answer this question.
3.35
Reference material on who can discipline IA EXCO members: This section presents Articles in the IA Constitution and Rules & Regulations concerning the duties and election of members of the IA Executive Committee, disciplinary action against them and their removal from office
The Constitution of the International Assembly (IA) of the True Jesus Church and its Rules and Regulations (March 2011 edition) concerning this issue include the following:
a. The World Delegates Conference (herein also known as “WDC”) is the highest decision-making body of the International Assembly (= Rules/Constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, Article 6).
b. IA will convene the World Delegates Conference once every two years. If necessary, an extraordinary WDC may be called (= Rules/Constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, Article 8).
c. It is one of the functions of the WDC to take disciplinary action (including removal from office) against any IA Executive Committee member (= Rules/Constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, Article 10).
d. The WDC is to be convened according to the following:
--1. WDC shall be convened once every two years,
--2. An Extraordinary WDC may be convened at any time or place if so resolved in an IA EXCO Meeting or when requested by two-thirds or more WDC delegates (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 8).
e. The IA EXCO shall be made up of fifteen (15) members to be elected from among the delegates during the WDC. The first fifteen persons who have obtained at least half (1/2) of the total votes shall be taken. Otherwise, Chairmen of GAs who are not among the fifteen elected members shall be automatically added to the IA EXCO (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 2, Article 13).
f. The term of office of the IA EXCO members is from the date of election to the next IA EXCO election held at the WDC (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 2, Article 14).
g. The IA shall keep or cause to keep: 1) Appropriate and accurate books and records of accounts of the Assembly, 2) Compilation of minutes of all meetings and proceedings of the WDC, of the IA EXCO, of the Standing Committee, and other committees of the Assembly, 3) A record of all the Assembly’s member church body (unit) showing their names, addresses and types of membership (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 9, Article 51).
h. Inspection by IA EXCO members: Every Council or Committee member shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all accounting books, records, and documents of any kind and to inspect the properties of the Assembly for a purpose reasonably related to one’s interests as a Council/Committee member (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 9, Article 54).
Conclusion:
a. According to the above articles, IA EXCO members are elected by the WDC. Thus, the WDC is responsible for taking disciplinary action against IA EXCO members and their removal from office.
b. The IA Executive Committee does not have the authority to take disciplinary action or to remove IA EXCO members from office.
c. The IA EXCO’s decision on March 23, 2012 to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as IA EXCO member is clearly in breach of the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations. Thus, the resolution is illegal and invalid.
d. Since the above resolution is illegal and invalid, the IA ought to immediately
-i. reinstate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member,
-ii. send a letter of correction to all the churches worldwide explaining the matter and apologizing to Preacher YM Yang.
e. If the IA insists that it is not suitable for Preacher YM Yang to be an IA EXCO member, it should take one of the following two courses of action:
-i. convene an extraordinary WDC, submitting this proposal to the delegates of the 2011 WDC (note: the term of office of these delegates ends at the date that the 2013 WDC convenes), and asking these delegates to discuss the request of the IA and put it to a vote, or
-ii. submit this proposal to the delegates of the 2013 WDC, asking them to discuss and vote on the IA’s proposal at the March 2013 WDC to be held in Irvine church, California, USA.
f. Regardless of which course of action the IA EXCO adopts to deal with the matter, it needs to prepare for the WDC evidence and materials which are true, complete, detailed, fair, and which have been checked and verified, so that the world delegates may decide on this important issue.
My wife and I asked Elder Lin why the contents of the IA announcement to churches around the world regarding the termination of Preacher YM Yang’s status were different from the resolutions of the IA Executive Committee (see Evidence, pp. 10– 11).
a. On March 31, 2012, my wife and I had a meeting in Taipei church with the five IA EXCO members who live in Taiwan (Elder Yung Ji Lin, Elder FM Tse, Elder EZ Chang, Deacon Bill Tseng, and Preacher MY Chao). We asked Elder Lin why the aforementioned IA document contained such serious errors.
b. Unmoved, Elder Lin replied lightly, “The IA did this to protect Preacher Yang; it was done out of love for Preacher Yang and his family members”!
c. Suppressing the deep pain and disappointment within me, I made my solemn reply to Elder Lin and the other IA EXCO members: “In all my life, I have never seen such an unloving document than this IA announcement on the termination of Preacher YM Yang”!
d. Following my statement, at the presence of Elder Lin and other 4 IA EXCO members, I
i. analysed the differences between the contents of IA announcement to the world and the actual resolutions passed by the IA EXCO, and
ii. questioned why the IA EXCO’s resolutions were changed by the IA administrative staff?
iii. as it turned out, two following two of the three resolutions/conditions of the termination passed by the IA EXCO had been deleted:
--1) the EXCO’s decision to provide Preacher Yang with three months’ living allowance had been cancelled and
--2) the clause concerning possible reinstatement by the EXCO.
iv. This fabricated, false and manufactured IA announcement to the world was completely heartless and without love!
v. Going by this fabricated document,
--1) the IA has not only not given Preacher Yang the opportunity to return,
--2) it does not even want Preacher Yang to return!
3.32
After the analysis, I asked Elder Lin and the IA to send a letter of correction to all GAs, Coordination Boards and IA-directed churches (see Evidence, p. 12).
a. Six days later (April 6, 2012), Elder Lin sent out a letter of correction, but it was written in English.
b. Think about it:
i. When Elder Lin wishes to point out Preacher Yang’s wrongs, he announces them in Chinese (e.g. the IA announcement letter), which the vast majority of church members can understand and read.
ii. However, when Elder Lin has to admit his mistakes and/or correct mistakes that the IA has committed, Elder Lin announces them in English, which the vast majority of members cannot read nor understand.
iii. The trust I had in Elder Lin and in the IA was greatly damaged.
c. Leaving the matter of the false document aside, it would be more critical for the church to investigate:
i. Which of the administrative staff had overstepped his/her authority and modified the three resolutions passed by the IA EXCO?
ii. Why Elder Lin would put his signature to a document which differed from the IA EXCO’s resolution? Moreover why would Elder Lin send this false document to churches all over the world?
d. This incident once again reveals
--1) how serious and excessive the current IA’s administrative lapses are and
--2) how greatly it has deviated from the way of the Lord.
3.33
The IA’s termination of Preacher YM Yang’s position as IA EXCO member is in violation of the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations. As a result, this resolution is illegal and invalid (see section 3.35 below).
a. Effective March 24, 2012, the IA
--1) not only terminated Preacher YM Yang’s office and duties as TJC preacher,
--2) at the same time; it also terminated Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member.
b. However, according to the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations (March 2011 edition),
i. IA EXCO members are elected by the WDC; therefore, the WDC is responsible for taking disciplinary action against IA EXCO members and their removal from office; ii. the IA Executive Committee does not have the authority to take disciplinary action against any IA EXCO member or remove him or her from office.
c. It is clear that the IA EXCO’s decision at the 6th meeting of the 10th Executive Committee held on March 23, 2012 to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member was in violation of the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations.
d. Therefore, the IA EXCO’s decision on March 23, 2012 to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member is illegal and invalid.
e. I wrote to the IA Executive Committee on April 27, 2012, asking Elder Lin and the other EXCO members to rectify this serious error; I have yet to see the correction measure or receive a reply.
f. This was the fourth time during my time as facilitator that Elder Lin had foregone the opportunity to resolve the conflict between himself and Preacher YM Yang.
3.34
After a year of denial, Elder Lin finally admitted that the spurious document he had sent to the EXCO members the night before the special Forum held by the IA on March 22, 2011 had been fabricated by him.
a. In Taipei church on March 31, 2012, my wife and I discussed with the five EXCO members living in Taiwan (Elder Yung Ji Lin, Elder FM Tse, Elder EZ Chang, Deacon Bill Tseng and Preacher MY Chao) the matter of the false documents concerning the IA’s termination of Preacher YM Yang as an IA preacher and IA EXCO member. I once again asked Elder Lin why, the night before the Forum held on March 22, 2011, he had sent the IA EXCO members fabricated documents that were different from the IA documents that he and Elder FM Tse had handed over to me on Sept 16, 2010.
b. Below are the main points that were covered during the conversation my wife and I had with Elder Lin; the conversation took place in front of the other 4 IA EXCO members:
Question 1. Why was the false document you sent the night before the Forum different from the document that the IA had handed me? Elder Lin replied: “I do not recall having given you any documents on September 16, 2010.”
Note: Elder Lin’s reply reminds me of how, when adults are unwilling to admit their mistakes, they often respond with “I don’t remember”).
Question 2. Why was there such a great difference between the fabricated document and the genuine version? Elder Lin replied: “The document sent out that night was typed up by my secretary.”
Note: Elder Lin’s reply clearly proves that the false document came from his office. But, unfortunately, Elder Lin tried to shift the responsibility for it onto his secretary.
Consider: Elder Lin is a well-known hands-on, detail orientated person. In view of this, can his secretary have fabricated this spurious document?
When Elder Lin and Elder Tse handed me the 37 pages of document on September 16, 2010, Elder Lin’s secretary was not present.
Therefore, unless Elder Lin had given his secretary the documents which he himself had selected from the IA archives, Elder Lin’s secretary
--1) would not have known which documents Elder Lin had given me,
--2) would not have known which documents she was supposed to type up out of the more than 700 pages in the IA’s archives,
--3) would surely not have randomly chosen a few documents, then told Elder Lin, “These are the documents that you handed over to Bro. Michael Young a year ago.”
Having lied for more than a year, Elder Lin finally admitted his mistake. Unfortunately, he did not have the courage to bear full responsibility for it, but tried instead to blame his secretary for his own wrongdoing!
This simple example shows once again that, in order to cover up his mistakes, Elder Lin uses every possible means to shift his liability to others including wrongly and falsely discrediting and attacking others without reason or evidence.
Question 3. Elder Lin: “if what you say is true (i.e., that your secretary selected, typed up and fabricated the false document, then passed it to you), then may I ask: is it you or your secretary who is leading and directing the IA”?
Elder Lin kept silent and did not answer this question.
3.35
Reference material on who can discipline IA EXCO members: This section presents Articles in the IA Constitution and Rules & Regulations concerning the duties and election of members of the IA Executive Committee, disciplinary action against them and their removal from office
The Constitution of the International Assembly (IA) of the True Jesus Church and its Rules and Regulations (March 2011 edition) concerning this issue include the following:
a. The World Delegates Conference (herein also known as “WDC”) is the highest decision-making body of the International Assembly (= Rules/Constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, Article 6).
b. IA will convene the World Delegates Conference once every two years. If necessary, an extraordinary WDC may be called (= Rules/Constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, Article 8).
c. It is one of the functions of the WDC to take disciplinary action (including removal from office) against any IA Executive Committee member (= Rules/Constitution of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 4, Article 10).
d. The WDC is to be convened according to the following:
--1. WDC shall be convened once every two years,
--2. An Extraordinary WDC may be convened at any time or place if so resolved in an IA EXCO Meeting or when requested by two-thirds or more WDC delegates (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 8).
e. The IA EXCO shall be made up of fifteen (15) members to be elected from among the delegates during the WDC. The first fifteen persons who have obtained at least half (1/2) of the total votes shall be taken. Otherwise, Chairmen of GAs who are not among the fifteen elected members shall be automatically added to the IA EXCO (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 2, Article 13).
f. The term of office of the IA EXCO members is from the date of election to the next IA EXCO election held at the WDC (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 2, Article 14).
g. The IA shall keep or cause to keep: 1) Appropriate and accurate books and records of accounts of the Assembly, 2) Compilation of minutes of all meetings and proceedings of the WDC, of the IA EXCO, of the Standing Committee, and other committees of the Assembly, 3) A record of all the Assembly’s member church body (unit) showing their names, addresses and types of membership (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 9, Article 51).
h. Inspection by IA EXCO members: Every Council or Committee member shall have the absolute right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy all accounting books, records, and documents of any kind and to inspect the properties of the Assembly for a purpose reasonably related to one’s interests as a Council/Committee member (= Rules and Regulations of the International Assembly of the True Jesus Church, Chapter 1, Section 9, Article 54).
Conclusion:
a. According to the above articles, IA EXCO members are elected by the WDC. Thus, the WDC is responsible for taking disciplinary action against IA EXCO members and their removal from office.
b. The IA Executive Committee does not have the authority to take disciplinary action or to remove IA EXCO members from office.
c. The IA EXCO’s decision on March 23, 2012 to terminate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as IA EXCO member is clearly in breach of the IA’s constitution and its rules and regulations. Thus, the resolution is illegal and invalid.
d. Since the above resolution is illegal and invalid, the IA ought to immediately
-i. reinstate Preacher YM Yang’s position and duties as an IA EXCO member,
-ii. send a letter of correction to all the churches worldwide explaining the matter and apologizing to Preacher YM Yang.
e. If the IA insists that it is not suitable for Preacher YM Yang to be an IA EXCO member, it should take one of the following two courses of action:
-i. convene an extraordinary WDC, submitting this proposal to the delegates of the 2011 WDC (note: the term of office of these delegates ends at the date that the 2013 WDC convenes), and asking these delegates to discuss the request of the IA and put it to a vote, or
-ii. submit this proposal to the delegates of the 2013 WDC, asking them to discuss and vote on the IA’s proposal at the March 2013 WDC to be held in Irvine church, California, USA.
f. Regardless of which course of action the IA EXCO adopts to deal with the matter, it needs to prepare for the WDC evidence and materials which are true, complete, detailed, fair, and which have been checked and verified, so that the world delegates may decide on this important issue.
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 12
3.26
What actually happened when the IA EXCO members met and considered reports that I submitted to the IA?
a. I was told by members of IA EXCO that when they on March 22-23, 2012 in Seoul, Korea,
-i. the agenda was so packed and the time was so tight caused by lengthy and serious discussions on how to handle the Pr. YM Yang Incident; there was literally no time to discuss the 3 reports that I had submitted to the IA EXCO.
-ii. when the topics came up, IA EXCO members only heard a brief oral report from Elder Lin, the chair of the meeting; Elder Lin's short comment was followed by briefer remarks by one or two EXCO members. The IA EXCO did not have any discussions on the matter, nor did they reach any conclusions or vote on the reports.
3.27
The first false IA letter sent to me by Elder Lin (see Evidence, p. 5)
a. In the first letter (IA letter #G12-030), Elder Lin informed me: “At the 6th meeting of the 10th Executive Committee held on March 23, 2012, an oral presentation was made on your reports of suggestions/advice. All the EXCO members would like to thank you for your concern and advice for the IA. In terms of the overall growth of the divine work of the church, if Brother Young could provide concrete suggestions in an objective way, it would be more helpful for the development of the church as a whole and all the IA divine workers would surely accept your suggestions in a humble manner.”
b. Translating the above excerpt into simple terms readily understood by the average person, Elder Lin was telling me:
-i. thank you for the materials and suggestions you have sent; I have made an oral report to the IA Executive committee on your reports
-ii. as the reports you have written concerning the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations are neither objective nor concrete, the IA has therefore decided not to accept your reports,
-iii. furthermore, since your reports are neither objective nor concrete, the IA will put your reports and suggestion aside (i.e. ignore them) and no longer consider them.
3.28
My questions regarding the IA’s first false letter (#12-030) (see Evidence, p. 6)
a. After reading the first letter, I wrote to Elder Lin and asked him:
-i. How did he report to the IA Executive Committee concerning my reports?
-ii. Did the IA EXCO Committee discuss my reports or take any votes about them?
-iii. Based on what evidence did the IA EXCO Committee conclude that my reports were not objective?
-iv. Could Elder Lin clearly and specifically point out to me which item(s) or point(s) in my reports that was not objective?
-v. Finally, I asked Elder Lin directly: was the lack of objectivity alluded to in the IA letter (#12-030) his personal opinion? Or was it a resolution arrived at by the IA EXCO members after they had discussed and voted on my reports?
b. Elder Lin did not reply to these questions, but he sent me a second letter a few days afterwards.
3.29
After having been questioned, Elder Lin sent me a second letter (IA letter #12-033) (see Evidence, p. 7)
a. Elder Lin sent me a second/revised letter concerning the same IA EXCO meeting. This action alone clearly indicates that the first letter (#12-030) that Elder Lin had previously sent was incorrect; the 1st letter was being replaced by the 2nd letter.
b. I thought to myself at the time: 1) since Elder Lin has acknowledged that his 1st letter was false how is he to guarantee that the 2nd letter is true? 2) If the second letter is true, why didn’t Elder Lin send me the second letter the first time round?
c. In his 2nd letter, Elder Lin
-1) no longer said that my reports were not objective,
-2) changed the words the IA EXCO "received an oral report” to the IA EXCO “made a resolution”; thus putting the matter in a different light and completely changed the nature of the subject EXCO meeting.
i. The 2nd letter made a 180-degree change to the nature and outcome of the same IA EXCO meeting.
ii. Consider this: The subject IA EXCO meeting had already taken place; as chair of the meeting, could Elder Lin
-1) not remember the nature of the meeting?
-2) Did Elder Lin think that he can arbitrarily change and determine afresh the nature (i.e. changing the nature of the meeting from the IA EXCO “receiving a report” to “making a resolution”) and the result of the meeting (i.e. changing from EXCO members passively listened to Elder Lin's oral report to actively discussed and voted on my reports)?
iii. Via the second letter (#12-033), Elder Lin informed me: “According to the resolution of the 6th meeting of the 10th IA Executive Committee held on March 23, 2012...” This phrase clearly indicates that the IA EXCO members had discussed my reports and had voted on reports' contents.
d. What described in IA letter #12-033 is completely at odds with the information other IA EXCO members had shared with me (i.e., that as there were too many other pressing issues on the agenda and as they were too busy discussing Pr. YM Yang matters during the meeting in Seoul, Korea, the IA EXCO members did not discuss nor vote on my reports).
e. I then wrote once again to Elder Lin asking him to explain whether the “resolution” mentioned in his second letter 1) was reached after the IA Executive Committee had discussed my reports and had actually voted on the matter, or 2) whether “resolution” was simply a word that Elder Lin had chosen to use in his 2nd false and fabricated letter on the proceedings of the meeting?
f. Not only that, the second letter contained several other points of doubt. For example:
i. Since the IA Executive Committee had discussed my reports and put the reports to the vote, why did the second letter not record in detail the contents and particulars of the Executive Committee’s discussion, including 1) which of my suggestion/advice were accepted by the IA EXCO, and 2) which of my suggestion/advice were not accepted by the IA EXCO?
ii. Since the IA EXCO had decided in its first letter (#12-030) that it would “humbly seek to improve” in view of the suggestion/advice it had received, why did the second letter not clearly identify
--1) which of my suggestions the IA had accepted, and
--2) how the IA would rectify the administrative lapses associated with these suggestions?
iii. Since the IA EXCO had gone through the trouble of discussing and voting on my reports, why were the conclusions from these discussions so hastily passed over and left unsettled in the meeting minutes? [Note: After March 22-23, 2012 meeting several IA EXCO members told me that they had not even received IA letters #12-030 and #12-033. This again shows how Elder Lin 1) has hidden his mistakes from his co-workers, 2) misled the IA EXCO members and 3) conducted evil things secretly without the knowledge of others].
g. Conclusion: The contents of these two IA official letters (IA letters #12-030 and #12-033) signed and issued by Elder Yung Ji Lin were inconsistent with the actual proceedings as well as outcome of the meeting. Both letters were fabricated by Elder Lin for his own purposes and then packaged to appear as official IA letters with the aim of
-1) misleading church members,
-2) attacking and discrediting members and workers who offered him suggestion/advice,
-3) bearing false witness against others, and
-4) using his fabricated documents to control the opinions of the church toward certain people and matters.
h. Alas! Why has the true church, the house of God, undergone such attack and destruction? Why did the IA EXCO members, having received these two letters whose contents were inconsistent with the facts, not confront Elder Lin, rectify Elder Lin’s error and ask him to issue a correct letter, thereby upholding the truth, honesty, righteousness and reputation of the true church?
i. As shown in these two IA official letters, if the minutes of IA meetings can be changed and/or re-written up after IA meetings by Elder Lin according to his own personal wishes and motives, then what need is there for the IA to spend such large amounts of time and money gathering all the IA EXCO members from their various countries and flying them to Seoul, Korea to have a meeting?
3.30
The document concerning the IA’s termination of Preacher YM Yang as a True Jesus Church preacher was tampered with; the conditions of the termination stated in the document were not the same as the resolutions passed during the IA EXCO meeting (see Evidence, pp. 8–12).
a. According to the IA records, it was decided during the IA EXCO meeting held in Korea on March 22-23, 2012 that Preacher YM Yang would be dealt with in the following three ways:
i. Preacher YM Yang’s office as preacher and position as IA EXCO member would be effectively terminated from March 24, 2012.
ii. According to the love and mercy of the Lord, and out of concern for Preacher Yang’s daily needs after his termination, the IA would provide him with three months’ living allowance.
iii. If Preacher Yang was willing to make a written statement of his intentions to turn back, he could apply to the IA Executive Committee to be reinstated.
b. Unfortunately, these 3 resolutions of the IA EXCO were openly tampered with by the administrative personnel after the resolutions were passed. As a result, another IA official letter that did not reflect what had actually been discussed (as stated above in Section 3.30 Bullet a, resolutions 1, 2 and 3) was sent to TJCs all over the world. This false document was issued and signed by Elder Lin. In it, Elder Lin
i. Only mentioned the first of the three resolutions made by the EXCO: Preacher YM Yang’s office as an IA TJC preacher and his IA-related duties would be terminated with effect from March 24, 2012.
ii. However, the 2nd resolution of the termination (i.e. the 3 months’ living allowance to be issued by the IA) and the 3rd resolution (if Preacher Yang was willing to make a written statement of his intentions to turn back, he could apply to the IA Executive Committee to be reinstated) had been mysteriously deleted!
What actually happened when the IA EXCO members met and considered reports that I submitted to the IA?
a. I was told by members of IA EXCO that when they on March 22-23, 2012 in Seoul, Korea,
-i. the agenda was so packed and the time was so tight caused by lengthy and serious discussions on how to handle the Pr. YM Yang Incident; there was literally no time to discuss the 3 reports that I had submitted to the IA EXCO.
-ii. when the topics came up, IA EXCO members only heard a brief oral report from Elder Lin, the chair of the meeting; Elder Lin's short comment was followed by briefer remarks by one or two EXCO members. The IA EXCO did not have any discussions on the matter, nor did they reach any conclusions or vote on the reports.
3.27
The first false IA letter sent to me by Elder Lin (see Evidence, p. 5)
a. In the first letter (IA letter #G12-030), Elder Lin informed me: “At the 6th meeting of the 10th Executive Committee held on March 23, 2012, an oral presentation was made on your reports of suggestions/advice. All the EXCO members would like to thank you for your concern and advice for the IA. In terms of the overall growth of the divine work of the church, if Brother Young could provide concrete suggestions in an objective way, it would be more helpful for the development of the church as a whole and all the IA divine workers would surely accept your suggestions in a humble manner.”
b. Translating the above excerpt into simple terms readily understood by the average person, Elder Lin was telling me:
-i. thank you for the materials and suggestions you have sent; I have made an oral report to the IA Executive committee on your reports
-ii. as the reports you have written concerning the deficiencies in the IA’s administrative operations are neither objective nor concrete, the IA has therefore decided not to accept your reports,
-iii. furthermore, since your reports are neither objective nor concrete, the IA will put your reports and suggestion aside (i.e. ignore them) and no longer consider them.
3.28
My questions regarding the IA’s first false letter (#12-030) (see Evidence, p. 6)
a. After reading the first letter, I wrote to Elder Lin and asked him:
-i. How did he report to the IA Executive Committee concerning my reports?
-ii. Did the IA EXCO Committee discuss my reports or take any votes about them?
-iii. Based on what evidence did the IA EXCO Committee conclude that my reports were not objective?
-iv. Could Elder Lin clearly and specifically point out to me which item(s) or point(s) in my reports that was not objective?
-v. Finally, I asked Elder Lin directly: was the lack of objectivity alluded to in the IA letter (#12-030) his personal opinion? Or was it a resolution arrived at by the IA EXCO members after they had discussed and voted on my reports?
b. Elder Lin did not reply to these questions, but he sent me a second letter a few days afterwards.
3.29
After having been questioned, Elder Lin sent me a second letter (IA letter #12-033) (see Evidence, p. 7)
a. Elder Lin sent me a second/revised letter concerning the same IA EXCO meeting. This action alone clearly indicates that the first letter (#12-030) that Elder Lin had previously sent was incorrect; the 1st letter was being replaced by the 2nd letter.
b. I thought to myself at the time: 1) since Elder Lin has acknowledged that his 1st letter was false how is he to guarantee that the 2nd letter is true? 2) If the second letter is true, why didn’t Elder Lin send me the second letter the first time round?
c. In his 2nd letter, Elder Lin
-1) no longer said that my reports were not objective,
-2) changed the words the IA EXCO "received an oral report” to the IA EXCO “made a resolution”; thus putting the matter in a different light and completely changed the nature of the subject EXCO meeting.
i. The 2nd letter made a 180-degree change to the nature and outcome of the same IA EXCO meeting.
ii. Consider this: The subject IA EXCO meeting had already taken place; as chair of the meeting, could Elder Lin
-1) not remember the nature of the meeting?
-2) Did Elder Lin think that he can arbitrarily change and determine afresh the nature (i.e. changing the nature of the meeting from the IA EXCO “receiving a report” to “making a resolution”) and the result of the meeting (i.e. changing from EXCO members passively listened to Elder Lin's oral report to actively discussed and voted on my reports)?
iii. Via the second letter (#12-033), Elder Lin informed me: “According to the resolution of the 6th meeting of the 10th IA Executive Committee held on March 23, 2012...” This phrase clearly indicates that the IA EXCO members had discussed my reports and had voted on reports' contents.
d. What described in IA letter #12-033 is completely at odds with the information other IA EXCO members had shared with me (i.e., that as there were too many other pressing issues on the agenda and as they were too busy discussing Pr. YM Yang matters during the meeting in Seoul, Korea, the IA EXCO members did not discuss nor vote on my reports).
e. I then wrote once again to Elder Lin asking him to explain whether the “resolution” mentioned in his second letter 1) was reached after the IA Executive Committee had discussed my reports and had actually voted on the matter, or 2) whether “resolution” was simply a word that Elder Lin had chosen to use in his 2nd false and fabricated letter on the proceedings of the meeting?
f. Not only that, the second letter contained several other points of doubt. For example:
i. Since the IA Executive Committee had discussed my reports and put the reports to the vote, why did the second letter not record in detail the contents and particulars of the Executive Committee’s discussion, including 1) which of my suggestion/advice were accepted by the IA EXCO, and 2) which of my suggestion/advice were not accepted by the IA EXCO?
ii. Since the IA EXCO had decided in its first letter (#12-030) that it would “humbly seek to improve” in view of the suggestion/advice it had received, why did the second letter not clearly identify
--1) which of my suggestions the IA had accepted, and
--2) how the IA would rectify the administrative lapses associated with these suggestions?
iii. Since the IA EXCO had gone through the trouble of discussing and voting on my reports, why were the conclusions from these discussions so hastily passed over and left unsettled in the meeting minutes? [Note: After March 22-23, 2012 meeting several IA EXCO members told me that they had not even received IA letters #12-030 and #12-033. This again shows how Elder Lin 1) has hidden his mistakes from his co-workers, 2) misled the IA EXCO members and 3) conducted evil things secretly without the knowledge of others].
g. Conclusion: The contents of these two IA official letters (IA letters #12-030 and #12-033) signed and issued by Elder Yung Ji Lin were inconsistent with the actual proceedings as well as outcome of the meeting. Both letters were fabricated by Elder Lin for his own purposes and then packaged to appear as official IA letters with the aim of
-1) misleading church members,
-2) attacking and discrediting members and workers who offered him suggestion/advice,
-3) bearing false witness against others, and
-4) using his fabricated documents to control the opinions of the church toward certain people and matters.
h. Alas! Why has the true church, the house of God, undergone such attack and destruction? Why did the IA EXCO members, having received these two letters whose contents were inconsistent with the facts, not confront Elder Lin, rectify Elder Lin’s error and ask him to issue a correct letter, thereby upholding the truth, honesty, righteousness and reputation of the true church?
i. As shown in these two IA official letters, if the minutes of IA meetings can be changed and/or re-written up after IA meetings by Elder Lin according to his own personal wishes and motives, then what need is there for the IA to spend such large amounts of time and money gathering all the IA EXCO members from their various countries and flying them to Seoul, Korea to have a meeting?
3.30
The document concerning the IA’s termination of Preacher YM Yang as a True Jesus Church preacher was tampered with; the conditions of the termination stated in the document were not the same as the resolutions passed during the IA EXCO meeting (see Evidence, pp. 8–12).
a. According to the IA records, it was decided during the IA EXCO meeting held in Korea on March 22-23, 2012 that Preacher YM Yang would be dealt with in the following three ways:
i. Preacher YM Yang’s office as preacher and position as IA EXCO member would be effectively terminated from March 24, 2012.
ii. According to the love and mercy of the Lord, and out of concern for Preacher Yang’s daily needs after his termination, the IA would provide him with three months’ living allowance.
iii. If Preacher Yang was willing to make a written statement of his intentions to turn back, he could apply to the IA Executive Committee to be reinstated.
b. Unfortunately, these 3 resolutions of the IA EXCO were openly tampered with by the administrative personnel after the resolutions were passed. As a result, another IA official letter that did not reflect what had actually been discussed (as stated above in Section 3.30 Bullet a, resolutions 1, 2 and 3) was sent to TJCs all over the world. This false document was issued and signed by Elder Lin. In it, Elder Lin
i. Only mentioned the first of the three resolutions made by the EXCO: Preacher YM Yang’s office as an IA TJC preacher and his IA-related duties would be terminated with effect from March 24, 2012.
ii. However, the 2nd resolution of the termination (i.e. the 3 months’ living allowance to be issued by the IA) and the 3rd resolution (if Preacher Yang was willing to make a written statement of his intentions to turn back, he could apply to the IA Executive Committee to be reinstated) had been mysteriously deleted!
The 3rd letter submitted by Brother Michael Young to the IA on Sept 3 2012 Part 11
3.21
Elder Lin rejected the advice given to him by the five senior elders
a. It is my understanding (I was not personally involved in this matter) that after the above mentioned special meeting and equipped with manufactured document that Elder Lin provided, the IA in December 2011 sent Elder HT Chen to visit and pastor churches in continental Europe and to talk things over with Preacher YM Yang.
b. After talking with Preacher YM Yang, Elder Chen discovered that there were significant discrepancies between Preacher Yang’s account of things (supported by evidence that YM had presented to him and the information that Elder Chen had received from Elder Lin.
c. The same meeting attendees (i.e. the 5 senior elders and IA EXCO members who reside in Taiwan) held a second meeting in January 2012 in Taichung to listen to Elder Chen’s trip report. After listening to the report, the attendees suggested to Elder Lin that
-i. before the IA EXCO meeting due to be held in Korea in March 2012, Elder Lin and Preacher YM Yang should meet in Taiwan, and with the help of the five senior elders, discuss and talk things over with each other concerning their long dispute.
-ii. since Elder Lin was one of the key parties entangled in the dispute with Preacher YM Yang, Elder Lin should not act as chair of any meeting that discusses and/or resolves the incident of Preacher Yang when IA EXCO members meet in Korea in March 2012.
d. Elder Lin agreed with and accepted both these suggestions made by the five elder seniors.
e. Unfortunately,
-i. when Elder Lin got wind of the fact that Preacher YM Yang had prepared his evidence and was looking forward to meeting with Elder Lin and 5 senior elders in Taiwan (prior to traveling to Seoul, Korea), Elder Lin decided at the last minute that it was not necessary to first meet with Preacher YM Yang in Taiwan to discuss matters and come to an agreement with help from 5 elders.
-ii. when the IA EXCO members were discussing Preacher YM Yang related matters at IA EXCO meeting in Seoul, Korea, people reminded Elder Lin that he should not act as the chair of the meeting. Elder Lin replied, “the suggestion of 5 senior elders was merely for information only; it is not legally binding.”
f. This was the third time Elder Lin had foregone the opportunity to resolve this conflict during my time of serving the IA.
3.22
During IA meetings, Elder Lin, who chairs the meetings, often makes important decisions based on unverified material and/or fabricated false information.
a. According to IA records and meeting minutes, there are many examples of such occurrences; here I give just two examples.
b. Example 1: Shortly before an IA EXCO meeting held on March 25, 2009, Elder Lin, through a French-speaking member, wrote a letter to a Congolese holy worker, urgently asking the worker to send him (Elder Lin) any accusations which he (the worker) may have had against Preacher YM Yang, as the IA EXCO members were just about to have a meeting.
c. Example 2: when the IA EXCO discussing my reports at IA EXCO’s March 22-23, 2012 meetings in Seoul, Korea. As per the fake meeting minutes, crucial decisions were made on these matters solely based only on Elder Lin’s brief, one-sided and biased oral report, without the use of any witnesses or evidence.
d. At these two IA meetings (just like in many other IA meetings), the only form of testimony used is unproven material collected at the last minute and fake and misleading information manufactured by Elder Lin who is the central party of the dispute. Final judgments are made on issues without first verifying or cross-checking the information.
e. After these two IA meetings, Elder Lin immediately sends out meeting decisions/resolutions to churches all over world, thus cemented the “decisions”, misled church members, and controlled “public” opinions on the subject matters.
f. Consider:
-i. Why are IA meetings held in this manner?
-ii. Can the decisions made during such meetings be honest, fair, correct and just?
-iii. If it is subsequently discovered that the decisions made at a meeting are wrong and inconsistent with the facts, has the IA ever
1) admitted its mistake, apologized to the innocent members/workers whom Elder Lin / the IA have falsely accused?
2) made it up to the victim and issued correction letter to all churches to repair the damage to the victim’s reputation?
3) healed the wound and helped the innocent party recover from the spiritual, emotional and physical pains, humiliation and torment they have suffered?
3.23
When faced with evidence not favourable to himself during IA meetings, Elder Lin as chair of the meetings, 1) discredits and attacks his admonishers, 2) brushes aside the evidence and refuses to examine and verify the evidence, and 3) excludes these pieces of evidence from the meeting.
a. Although each deficiency identified in my reports was factual and supported by evidence, but following the requirements of the law of evidence, I specifically wrote to Elder Lin and IA EXCO, months before the meeting, requesting the EXCO to verify each deficiency that I had listed so that when the IA EXCO meets in Seoul, Korea on March 22-23, 2012, they would be able to make right decisions based on the evidence on these weighty issues fairly, honestly, and justly.
b. However, as the Chairman of the IA, Elder Lin ignored the request of verifying the evidence. Furthermore, as chair of the EXCO meeting, Elder Lin biasedly did not permit open discussion. As a result, the IA EXCO members only listened to his one-sided accounts of the matter and was not given time to discuss the issues and evidence before making decisions on the matter.
c. After the meeting, Elder Lin abused his powers as chair of the meeting and informed me via IA official letter that all my reports were “not objective”.
d. Following this, Elder Lin had his fake meeting conclusion that he had come up with himself recorded in the IA EXCO meeting minutes. Thus, I have been made out to be an unobjective believer who uses unobjective material to attack the IA and workers of the church!
e. Just think, how could this sort of groundless, unjustified defamation and malicious slander have occurred in the highest levels of the administration of the true church?!
f. Elder Lin’s not-afraid-of-man, not-fear-God attitude and brazen acts, his deceptive and biased practices and his autocratic abuse of power have 1) caused the IA to lose its honesty, fairness and righteousness, 2) raised a warning signal for the church, and 3) brought shame to the true church and her members.
3.24
Even though Elder Lin was one of the parties (the defendant) under investigation, he appointed himself as legislator and judge of the inquiry. Such biased practices cast doubt on the truthfulness, authenticity and authority of IA resolutions and meeting minutes (see Evidence, pp. 2–7).
a. Sensing the seriousness of the IA’s administrative lapses from my reports, the IA Standing Committee asked the IA Executive Committee to look into my reports and the accusations contained therewith in.
b. When the IA Executive Committee was discussing my reports on March 22-23, 2012 in Seoul, Korea, Elder Lin as the leader of the IA
-1) ignored a principle universally observed in the holding of meetings (namely, avoid conflict of interest),
-2) refused to follow the advice of the five senior elders that he should not chair the meeting when the IA discussed the Pr. YM Yang Incident in Korea, and
-3) insisted on acting as the chair of the meeting despite his position as defendant in the inquiry.
c. Moreover, Elder Lin also became a legislator in this inquiry, as he used his status as chair of the meeting to decide on
-i. the kinds of testimony the IA EXCO members should listen to (i.e., only his own onesided oral report was allowed)
-ii. how the inquiry should be conducted (= only Elder Lin himself should be allowed to make oral reports. Elder Lin as chair of the meeting practically ruled it was not necessary to listen to the testimonies of others, call upon other witnesses or discuss various evidences presented in my reports).
d. Even more absurdly, after the meeting, Elder Lin appointed himself as the judge, recorded his personal biased view as the final verdict and judgment concerning the case, and issued such as the minutes of the IA EXCO meeting.
e. By assuming these three different roles in the meeting, Elder Lin was able to act according to his personal motives, writing and sending two versions of the meeting minutes whose contents were 1) completely at odds with the actual proceedings of the meeting, and 2) mutually conflicting. What’s worse, the two versions of the meeting minutes created by Elder Lin were both fabricated and spurious.
f. Think about it: under these conditions, are the IA’s meeting minutes and the decisions made during the meetings likely to be true, honest, fair and just?
3.25
After the IA EXCO meeting on March 22-23, 2012, Elder Lin, as the IA chairman, sent me two false IA documents (i. e. IA letters 12-030 and 12-033 which are presented in Evidence section, pp. 5, 7)
a. Just think about this: at a meeting held by the same people (the IA EXCO members), at the same time (March 22-23, 2012), in the same place (Seoul, Korea), to discuss the same issue (my 3 reports on the deficiencies of IA administrative operations), Elder Lin and the IA nevertheless have issued, two versions of the meeting minutes whose contents are completely different and mutually conflicting?!
b. These two letters (IA letter #G12-030 and #G12-033) provide the most direct evidence and most powerful testimony as to
i. how morally confused, chaotic and dishonest the IA administrative operations have become
ii. how Elder Lin has been
--i) leading the IA with an ungodly and unloving heart,
--ii) misleading his workers,
--iii) confusing the membership, and
--iv) manipulating public perception and opinion in the church.
iii. These documents are also indicative of the serious challenges and trials that the true church faces today.
c. Alas! How has the true church, so beloved and treasured by her members, been damaged to such an extent?
Elder Lin rejected the advice given to him by the five senior elders
a. It is my understanding (I was not personally involved in this matter) that after the above mentioned special meeting and equipped with manufactured document that Elder Lin provided, the IA in December 2011 sent Elder HT Chen to visit and pastor churches in continental Europe and to talk things over with Preacher YM Yang.
b. After talking with Preacher YM Yang, Elder Chen discovered that there were significant discrepancies between Preacher Yang’s account of things (supported by evidence that YM had presented to him and the information that Elder Chen had received from Elder Lin.
c. The same meeting attendees (i.e. the 5 senior elders and IA EXCO members who reside in Taiwan) held a second meeting in January 2012 in Taichung to listen to Elder Chen’s trip report. After listening to the report, the attendees suggested to Elder Lin that
-i. before the IA EXCO meeting due to be held in Korea in March 2012, Elder Lin and Preacher YM Yang should meet in Taiwan, and with the help of the five senior elders, discuss and talk things over with each other concerning their long dispute.
-ii. since Elder Lin was one of the key parties entangled in the dispute with Preacher YM Yang, Elder Lin should not act as chair of any meeting that discusses and/or resolves the incident of Preacher Yang when IA EXCO members meet in Korea in March 2012.
d. Elder Lin agreed with and accepted both these suggestions made by the five elder seniors.
e. Unfortunately,
-i. when Elder Lin got wind of the fact that Preacher YM Yang had prepared his evidence and was looking forward to meeting with Elder Lin and 5 senior elders in Taiwan (prior to traveling to Seoul, Korea), Elder Lin decided at the last minute that it was not necessary to first meet with Preacher YM Yang in Taiwan to discuss matters and come to an agreement with help from 5 elders.
-ii. when the IA EXCO members were discussing Preacher YM Yang related matters at IA EXCO meeting in Seoul, Korea, people reminded Elder Lin that he should not act as the chair of the meeting. Elder Lin replied, “the suggestion of 5 senior elders was merely for information only; it is not legally binding.”
f. This was the third time Elder Lin had foregone the opportunity to resolve this conflict during my time of serving the IA.
3.22
During IA meetings, Elder Lin, who chairs the meetings, often makes important decisions based on unverified material and/or fabricated false information.
a. According to IA records and meeting minutes, there are many examples of such occurrences; here I give just two examples.
b. Example 1: Shortly before an IA EXCO meeting held on March 25, 2009, Elder Lin, through a French-speaking member, wrote a letter to a Congolese holy worker, urgently asking the worker to send him (Elder Lin) any accusations which he (the worker) may have had against Preacher YM Yang, as the IA EXCO members were just about to have a meeting.
c. Example 2: when the IA EXCO discussing my reports at IA EXCO’s March 22-23, 2012 meetings in Seoul, Korea. As per the fake meeting minutes, crucial decisions were made on these matters solely based only on Elder Lin’s brief, one-sided and biased oral report, without the use of any witnesses or evidence.
d. At these two IA meetings (just like in many other IA meetings), the only form of testimony used is unproven material collected at the last minute and fake and misleading information manufactured by Elder Lin who is the central party of the dispute. Final judgments are made on issues without first verifying or cross-checking the information.
e. After these two IA meetings, Elder Lin immediately sends out meeting decisions/resolutions to churches all over world, thus cemented the “decisions”, misled church members, and controlled “public” opinions on the subject matters.
f. Consider:
-i. Why are IA meetings held in this manner?
-ii. Can the decisions made during such meetings be honest, fair, correct and just?
-iii. If it is subsequently discovered that the decisions made at a meeting are wrong and inconsistent with the facts, has the IA ever
1) admitted its mistake, apologized to the innocent members/workers whom Elder Lin / the IA have falsely accused?
2) made it up to the victim and issued correction letter to all churches to repair the damage to the victim’s reputation?
3) healed the wound and helped the innocent party recover from the spiritual, emotional and physical pains, humiliation and torment they have suffered?
3.23
When faced with evidence not favourable to himself during IA meetings, Elder Lin as chair of the meetings, 1) discredits and attacks his admonishers, 2) brushes aside the evidence and refuses to examine and verify the evidence, and 3) excludes these pieces of evidence from the meeting.
a. Although each deficiency identified in my reports was factual and supported by evidence, but following the requirements of the law of evidence, I specifically wrote to Elder Lin and IA EXCO, months before the meeting, requesting the EXCO to verify each deficiency that I had listed so that when the IA EXCO meets in Seoul, Korea on March 22-23, 2012, they would be able to make right decisions based on the evidence on these weighty issues fairly, honestly, and justly.
b. However, as the Chairman of the IA, Elder Lin ignored the request of verifying the evidence. Furthermore, as chair of the EXCO meeting, Elder Lin biasedly did not permit open discussion. As a result, the IA EXCO members only listened to his one-sided accounts of the matter and was not given time to discuss the issues and evidence before making decisions on the matter.
c. After the meeting, Elder Lin abused his powers as chair of the meeting and informed me via IA official letter that all my reports were “not objective”.
d. Following this, Elder Lin had his fake meeting conclusion that he had come up with himself recorded in the IA EXCO meeting minutes. Thus, I have been made out to be an unobjective believer who uses unobjective material to attack the IA and workers of the church!
e. Just think, how could this sort of groundless, unjustified defamation and malicious slander have occurred in the highest levels of the administration of the true church?!
f. Elder Lin’s not-afraid-of-man, not-fear-God attitude and brazen acts, his deceptive and biased practices and his autocratic abuse of power have 1) caused the IA to lose its honesty, fairness and righteousness, 2) raised a warning signal for the church, and 3) brought shame to the true church and her members.
3.24
Even though Elder Lin was one of the parties (the defendant) under investigation, he appointed himself as legislator and judge of the inquiry. Such biased practices cast doubt on the truthfulness, authenticity and authority of IA resolutions and meeting minutes (see Evidence, pp. 2–7).
a. Sensing the seriousness of the IA’s administrative lapses from my reports, the IA Standing Committee asked the IA Executive Committee to look into my reports and the accusations contained therewith in.
b. When the IA Executive Committee was discussing my reports on March 22-23, 2012 in Seoul, Korea, Elder Lin as the leader of the IA
-1) ignored a principle universally observed in the holding of meetings (namely, avoid conflict of interest),
-2) refused to follow the advice of the five senior elders that he should not chair the meeting when the IA discussed the Pr. YM Yang Incident in Korea, and
-3) insisted on acting as the chair of the meeting despite his position as defendant in the inquiry.
c. Moreover, Elder Lin also became a legislator in this inquiry, as he used his status as chair of the meeting to decide on
-i. the kinds of testimony the IA EXCO members should listen to (i.e., only his own onesided oral report was allowed)
-ii. how the inquiry should be conducted (= only Elder Lin himself should be allowed to make oral reports. Elder Lin as chair of the meeting practically ruled it was not necessary to listen to the testimonies of others, call upon other witnesses or discuss various evidences presented in my reports).
d. Even more absurdly, after the meeting, Elder Lin appointed himself as the judge, recorded his personal biased view as the final verdict and judgment concerning the case, and issued such as the minutes of the IA EXCO meeting.
e. By assuming these three different roles in the meeting, Elder Lin was able to act according to his personal motives, writing and sending two versions of the meeting minutes whose contents were 1) completely at odds with the actual proceedings of the meeting, and 2) mutually conflicting. What’s worse, the two versions of the meeting minutes created by Elder Lin were both fabricated and spurious.
f. Think about it: under these conditions, are the IA’s meeting minutes and the decisions made during the meetings likely to be true, honest, fair and just?
3.25
After the IA EXCO meeting on March 22-23, 2012, Elder Lin, as the IA chairman, sent me two false IA documents (i. e. IA letters 12-030 and 12-033 which are presented in Evidence section, pp. 5, 7)
a. Just think about this: at a meeting held by the same people (the IA EXCO members), at the same time (March 22-23, 2012), in the same place (Seoul, Korea), to discuss the same issue (my 3 reports on the deficiencies of IA administrative operations), Elder Lin and the IA nevertheless have issued, two versions of the meeting minutes whose contents are completely different and mutually conflicting?!
b. These two letters (IA letter #G12-030 and #G12-033) provide the most direct evidence and most powerful testimony as to
i. how morally confused, chaotic and dishonest the IA administrative operations have become
ii. how Elder Lin has been
--i) leading the IA with an ungodly and unloving heart,
--ii) misleading his workers,
--iii) confusing the membership, and
--iv) manipulating public perception and opinion in the church.
iii. These documents are also indicative of the serious challenges and trials that the true church faces today.
c. Alas! How has the true church, so beloved and treasured by her members, been damaged to such an extent?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)