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!
No comments:
Post a Comment