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?
No comments:
Post a Comment