Truth Controversies: Chronology of Events

1. Is devil self-existing? (Yuh Ming Yang)

2007 Resolution:

1. All of the TRC members in this meeting did not agree to the view that Satan is self-existing. Therefore, the church's common belief on the origin of Satan remains unchanged.(Please refer to the church publication "Essential Biblical Doctrines") 

2. If there is any new observation on the theory of "Satan's Self-Existence", it can be submitted to the TRC for further discussion. But it should not be presented or discussed on other occasions. 



The IA office subsequently amended the English version: 

Dear all:

Sorry for bothering you again. Please use this file instead of the previous one.

The English version should be : 

None of the participants of this TRC meeting indicated his/her agreement to the view that "Satan is self-existing", hence the church's common understanding regarding the origin of Satan remains that of the traditional belief. (Please refer to our church publication "Essential Biblical Doctrines.") 



(The IA office had amended the words “common belief” to “common understanding”. This change of one word indicates that this topic has no bearing on the common faith, and relates only to the general consensus. This is a million miles away from the claims of the senior levels that Yang has denied and shaken the foundations of our faith.)



After 2007, those in the highest levels repeatedly slandered Yang, claiming that he had continued to discuss the topic openly “everywhere” (in actual fact, Yang’s scope of work had been severely limited by those in the senior levels of the administration, so that he was unable to move beyond the boundaries they had imposed; what was this “everywhere” they were referring to?). In addition, he was repeatedly “dealt with” in the IA EXCO meetings. Unable to withstand this any longer, Yang told the Western Hemisphere Department of World Missions, “All my sermons are on the internet. I will fork out NT$40,000 so that you can hire one of your associates to spend a month listening to all my sermons online, to see whether there is any truth in the charges which those in the senior levels have so indiscriminately accused me of!” Alas! An unnamed preacher said it well when he commented: “If there are people who want Yang [dead], what can (we) do about it?”... Especially when the ones who want you dead are acting as both your opponents and your judges! 

In addition, a certain episode emerged from the TRC meeting that year: as the resolution for this particular topic was being submitted to the World Delegates Conference for approval, it was discovered that the Chinese version of the resolution had been altered such that it was substantially different from the English version of the resolution! This was discovered during the conference itself; it was so serious that the meeting had to be adjourned !

In March 2009, during an IA EXCO meeting, Elders HT Chen and EY Hou pointed out on the spot that these resolutions had not been made during the conference. Furthermore, YM Yang, who had himself attended the conference, had not been informed of the existence of such resolutions! The IA’s intention of stirring up trouble in Paris was thus revealed.

After March 2009, the IA issued a correction of the false resolutions. These actions are similar to those of March 2009, when the IA Standing Committee entered the fabricated, defamatory letters concerning Paris church and YM Yang into its records and distributed the information to the IA EXCO members, with the intention of “dealing with” YM Yang during the meeting. However, this tactic failed and the case was withdrawn one year later.

YM Yang’s IA co-workers habitually use their administrative privileges to publish false information detailing his faults in order to achieve certain objectives. However, not only do they not meet with success, they leave behind glaring evidence of their fabrications. As a result, they use their administrative privileges once again, to remove their fabricated materials or simply “withdraw the case”. (In spite of this, the original records have become the basis by which Yang’s detractors can continue to attack him, saying to those who don’t know any better: “IA says that YM Yang has done such and such a thing...”.) In this way, YM Yang’s IA co-workers are able to kill two birds with one stone. Firstly, fabricated material can be left for Yang’s attackers to use as they please. Secondly, when people admonish the IA for their fabrications, IA can say “I’ve already made the amendments and withdrawn the records!” And so they will carry on in this way until they finally take Yang down.

1. FM Che, saying that the contents of the documents were false and would have a catastrophic effect on Paris church. Che was asked to rectify it. This letter was copied to MX Zhao and HJ Zhou. Che ignored the letter. (In the March 2009 IA EXCO meeting Elders Chen and Hou pointed out that the contents of this document were false. The IA therefore issued a “correction”. But did this really rectify things? Couldn’t those who wanted to continue their attacks on Yang still show the false document to others? Who was to know that a subsequent correction had been issued?)
2. IA EXCO, a letter entitled “Points of doubt”, in which questions regarding the false letter were raised.

表單的底部热门关键字： 　诗歌 　心情 　教会 　团契 　朋友

通知：博客所有用户请注意，在本博客里禁止转载杨昱民传道的文章内容，否则将清空用户所有信息。我们将保留最终解释权

Notice: All users of this blog - please note that reproducing the contents of Pr YM Yang’s articles on this blog is prohibited.Those doing so will have all their user information deleted. We reserve the right of final explanation.



A member from mainland China, Sign, went on the Newlife website to ask why this was being done. The answer he received was: “whoever supports Yang will be beaten; the louder he shouts, the harder he will be hit.”

Below is his testimony:

In 2008, the biggest TJC Chinese website in mainland China, “The Light of Life”, posted an announcement: ““It is forbidden to post Pr. YM Yang’s essays and articles on this website. Violators will have their user data deleted. (Before this, two members had posted Yang’s articles from the “Holy Spirit Monthly” and had had their user registration details deleted). I went on the website and asked a question: “Who authorized the ban, and why?” My blog registration details were deleted that very day. Although I took the initiative to contact the webmaster in order to try to get a handle on the situation, I received no response. I asked an “insider” friend to make some inquiries, and the response I got was: this was a joint resolution between the IA and a Chinese local organization known as the “board of ministers” (Zhang Zhi Hui). (Was there a meeting and a record of the minutes?) Moreover, it was said: whoever supports Yang will be beaten; the louder he shouts, the harder he will be hit.

2011.12.09 A believer from China asked Brother Erock to relate his testimony: Indeed, Elder YJ Lin came over and said that publishing Yang’s articles and listening to his sermons was prohibited. This is absolutely true and is what I as a mainland Chinese believer personally experienced. Moreover, I do not belong to Putian district church and am not related to them in any way.