Daystar Updates...

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-01

[00:00:01]Is Daystar's leadership finally facing its reckoning?

[00:00:06]>> And I want to tell you what happened just 2 [music] days before Marcus passed, I received a call.

[00:00:14]>> So, welcome to our deep dive. Today, we are looking at the absolute chaos that is currently tearing apart the Daystar Television Network following the death of its founder, Marcus Lamb.

[00:00:24]>> Yeah, the gap between what the audience believes was intended in that hospital room and the actual legal reality of what is happening at the network.

[00:00:33]>> It's massive.

[00:00:34]>> It's a completely fractured chasm. We are basically looking at the anatomy of a modern succession crisis.

[00:00:41]>> And the sources we've gathered for you today are, honestly, they're fascinating.

[00:00:45]>> Like they aren't your typical dry, reductive legal briefs.

[00:00:48]>> Exactly. We are looking at the raw reaction of the public and this massive, deeply impassioned stack of public comments from Daystar viewers.

[00:00:58]>> They have essentially formed their own digital jury.

[00:01:00]>> They really have. And our mission for this deep dive is to reconstruct this clash.

[00:01:05]We want to understand what happens when a deceased founder's alleged final spiritual wishes collide head-on with the the cold, hard legal machinery of a corporate religious network.

[00:01:16]>> But before we go any further into this timeline, I really need to set a very firm boundary for you, the listener, right here at the start.

[00:01:22]>> Yeah, this is crucial.

[00:01:23]>> As we unpack these sources, you are going to hear some highly charged, >> [music] >> completely unverified allegations.

[00:01:29]>> Very intense stuff.

[00:01:30]>> We are talking about claims of deep financial corruption, infidelity, and severe abuse. Our job today is strictly to unpack [music] the narratives, the claims, and the ideas contained in the specific source material to understand the public controversy.

[00:01:46]>> We are analyzing the story the audience believes. [music] >> Exactly. We are not writing a legal verdict.

[00:01:51]>> Okay, let's unpack this.

[00:01:56]Imagine, uh you're the founder of a multi-million dollar television empire.

[00:02:01]>> Okay, quite the setup.

[00:02:02]>> Right, you're lying in a hospital bed nearing the very end of your life and you need to finalize [music] the transition of this immense power and wealth.

[00:02:10]>> So, you probably call your lawyers, right?

[00:02:12]>> Exactly, you'd think so.

[00:02:14]Do you call your board of directors? Do you summon your corporate attorneys to draft this like ironclad legal trust?

[00:02:22]>> I mean, that would be the standard business move.

[00:02:24]>> But, no. You bypass all of that. You pick up the phone. You call a family friend and you verbally dictate who gets the keys to the kingdom.

[00:02:32]>> Wow.

[00:02:33]>> And, uh to make matters worse, you completely leave out your co-founder wife.

[00:02:37]>> Which is just a recipe for absolute disaster.

[00:02:40]>> It really is. [music] The inciting incident that set this entire crisis into motion isn't a boardroom succession meeting >> Right. [music] >> or like a newly discovered will.

[00:02:51]It is a single alleged phone call made just days before Marcus Lamb passed away.

[00:02:55]>> Yeah, so he is very ill at this point and he calls a long-time family friend named Denise Boggs.

[00:03:01]>> Okay.

[00:03:02]>> According to her account, which by the way has circulated wildly among the network's viewers, Marcus dictates a very specific outline for who should take over the network after he is gone.

[00:03:11]>> I received a call.

[00:03:14]And the call was him on the other line. He had had one [music] of his girls to dial my number.

[00:03:25]>> And what makes that call so incredibly controversial isn't just who he named.

[00:03:29]>> No, it's it's who he completely left out.

[00:03:31]>> Right. So, who did he name?

[00:03:33]>> Well, according to Boggs, the instructions named his son Jonathan Lamb as the leader.

[00:03:38]>> Okay, makes sense for a family business.

[00:03:40]>> Right. And Jonathan was to be supported by his wife Suzy and Marcus's daughters.

[00:03:45]That is the succession [music] plan.

[00:03:47]>> But, noticeably absent from that directive >> is his wife Joni Lamb, who uh happens to be the co-founder of Daystar.

[00:03:54]>> Which is wild.

[00:03:55]>> And he also notably omits a figure named Joshua Brown.

[00:03:59]>> So, when he finished, I knew he had left someone out, but I did not say anything.

[00:04:08]>> That is such a huge distinction. So, if the audience believes a verbal blessing overrides corporate law, how are they justifying that visually? [music] >> What do you mean?

[00:04:17]>> Because normally in a business, you'd rely on a signed contract to prove intent, right? If they don't have a contract, what are they holding onto to prove [music] Jonathan is the guy?

[00:04:26]>> Uh well, they have something they consider significantly stronger than a contract. They have a video.

[00:04:31]>> A video of the phone call?

[00:04:32]>> No, there's footage circulating heavily online of Marcus washing Jonathan's feet and praying over him.

[00:04:37]>> Oh, wow.

[00:04:37]>> Yeah.

[00:04:39]>> Thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing Jonathan >> [music] >> into my life and to mine and Joni's life and to our entire family's life.

[00:04:48]>> For an audience steeped in this tradition, that's not just a nice father-son moment. That is a literal passing of the mantle.

[00:04:55]>> It's heavily symbolic.

[00:04:56]>> Highly symbolic. It is the ultimate visual confirmation of a father-to-son transfer of anointing.

[00:05:03]>> So, the commenters watch that video, they hear the Denice Boggs phone call, and they completely solidify their verdict.

[00:05:08]>> Exactly. [music] Jonathan is the undisputed, divinely appointed heir.

[00:05:13]>> And because of that, they view Joni Lamb not as the rightful co-founder taking over the business she helped build, >> but as an absolute usurper. Man.

[00:05:22]>> One commenter even pulls out the ultimate betrayal card. They compare Joni to Queen Athaliah.

[00:05:28]>> Right. Basically accusing her of violently usurping a divine birthright from her own family just to consolidate power.

[00:05:34]>> Which is a heavy accusation.

[00:05:36]>> Reaching for that specific, bloody, biblical narrative shows you how intensely the digital jury views this.

[00:05:42]>> It's life or death for them.

[00:05:44]>> This isn't a corporate disagreement to them. It is a profound spiritual battle.

[00:05:48]It's a theft.

[00:05:49]>> But here's where it gets really interesting, at least to me.

[00:05:52]>> Okay, lay it on me.

[00:05:53]>> If Joni helped build this multi-million-dollar empire from the absolute ground up alongside her husband, isn't it naturally hers to run?

[00:06:02]>> That's the secular logic, yeah.

[00:06:04]>> Why is the audience so incredibly quick to demand that a female co-founder step aside for her son the second her husband dies?

[00:06:12]>> It's a glaring double standard.

[00:06:14]>> I mean, in any secular business, the surviving co-founder taking the reins wouldn't even make the back page of the news. It would be entirely expected.

[00:06:21]>> You are touching on the core tension driving this entire crisis. It's the friction between ministry and business.

[00:06:28]>> Okay, explain that.

[00:06:29]>> Legally, the landscape leans heavily toward Joni. Daystar is headquartered in Texas, which is a community property state.

[00:06:37]>> Right.

[00:06:38]>> Now, how does that translate to corporate control of a multi-million-dollar religious network?

[00:06:43]>> That's where it gets messy.

[00:06:45]>> Very. In many family-founded ministries, the corporate structure, which is often a 501c3 overseen by a board, is deeply intertwined with the founders' marital assets, their influence, and their voting power.

[00:06:57]>> Meaning the business and the marriage are essentially the same entity on paper.

[00:07:00]>> Precisely. When a spouse dies without a highly specific overarching legal trust that explicitly carves out a different succession plan.

[00:07:08]>> Like a scribbled note to a friend.

[00:07:10]>> Right. The surviving spouse doesn't just inherit the family home, they maintain effective control over the marital assets.

[00:07:18]>> And in this case, those assets include the levers of power at Daystar.

[00:07:23]>> On top of that, the sources mentioned an email that reportedly exists stating Joni should lead the network. So Joni has the legal rulebook firmly on her side.

[00:07:32]>> Wow. So the audience is playing by the rules of a biblical monarchy, and the legal system is playing by the rules of Texas corporate law.

[00:07:39]>> Exactly.

[00:07:41]But having legal control does not grant you public legitimacy in the eyes of an audience that believes you violated a spiritual mandate.

[00:07:48]>> Okay, but a fight over a legal framework versus a spiritual blessing doesn't usually result in an entire audience forming a digital jury and hurling accusations of absolute betrayal.

[00:07:59]>> No, it doesn't.

[00:08:00]>> There has to be something deeper driving this outrage and the total breakdown between a mother and her son.

[00:08:04]>> And there is. The fallout between Jonathan and Joni was swift, public, and severe.

[00:08:09]>> Yeah, according to the narrative we were tracking in the comments, Jonathan and his wife Suzie were entirely removed or fired from their positions at Daystar.

[00:08:16]>> And the digital jury has very specific theories about why that termination happened.

[00:08:22]>> They allege that Jonathan started looking too closely at the network's finances.

[00:08:27]>> Which is always a dangerous game in these situations.

[00:08:29]>> Specifically, there are rumors circulating in these comments about Jonathan questioning a massive $100,000 honeymoon.

[00:08:38]>> Funded by the network, allegedly.

[00:08:40]>> Right. And even more critically, they claim he outright refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

[00:08:47]>> Now, in the corporate world, an NDA is standard operating procedure.

[00:08:50]>> Sure. Everyone signs them.

[00:08:52]>> But in a ministry, demanding an NDA shatters the illusion of transparency.

[00:08:57]>> That doesn't make sense.

[00:08:58]>> Refusing to sign one suggests a complete breakdown of trust.

[00:09:02]It implies a refusal to be silenced about internal operations.

[00:09:06]>> But the timeline of that $100,000 honeymoon you mentioned, it introduces another major, highly emotional source of friction.

[00:09:13]>> Joni's rapid remarriage.

[00:09:15]>> The timeline of this remarriage is something the commenters absolutely cannot let go of.

[00:09:19]>> According to the sources, Joni married a marriage counselor named Doug Weiss. The timeline the commenters cite is incredibly compressed, and it had a profound psychological impact on the viewership.

[00:09:30]>> What's the timeline they're looking at?

[00:09:31]>> They note that Doug announced his divorce from his previous wife on February 8th.

[00:09:36]>> Okay, February 8th.

[00:09:37]>> Two days later on February 10th, Joni announced their engagement.

[00:09:41]>> Right.

[00:09:41]>> And they were married by June 10th.

[00:09:44]>> February [snorts] 8th, divorce to February 10th engagement. That is a 48-hour window.

[00:09:50]>> It's jarring.

[00:09:51]>> For an audience that is used to highly produced, prolonged periods of religious mourning, that kind of turnaround must feel completely disorienting.

[00:10:01]>> It felt like a violation of the audience's parasocial grieving process.

[00:10:05]>> Yeah, they watched Marcus for decades.

[00:10:06]They feel like part of the family.

[00:10:07]>> So, when Doug Weiss is suddenly heavily featured on Daystar programming, stepping into the on-air void left by Marcus, it creates massive resentment.

[00:10:18]>> I can imagine.

[00:10:19]>> Doug is essentially taking up the presence and authority that the commenters believe rightfully belongs to Jonathan.

[00:10:24]>> Right.

[00:10:25]>> They see Doug as having usurped Jonathan's birthright alongside Joni.

[00:10:29]>> So, if Jonathan was fired and he's refusing to sign an NDA, an NDA implies a massive secret.

[00:10:36]>> It does.

[00:10:37]>> A $100,000 honeymoon might be frowned upon. And a fast remarriage might anger the viewers, but that isn't usually destroy the family dynasty material.

[00:10:46]>> No, usually families can weather that kind of storm.

[00:10:49]>> So, what is the actual secret the audience thinks Jonathan is refusing to keep quiet about?

[00:10:53]>> This is where we must tread very carefully into the darkest part of these sources.

[00:10:58]>> Yeah.

[00:10:58]>> The commenters are heavily focused on unverified but pervasive allegations of a severe covered-up abuse scandal.

[00:11:05]>> This is the core of it.

[00:11:06]>> They frequently refer to a figure they call Pete, who they allege is Joshua Brown.

[00:11:11]>> Okay.

[00:11:11]>> The claim suggests that this individual was involved in an SA scandal regarding Jonathan's daughter, who the commenters refer to affectionately as Little Lamb.

[00:11:20]>> That is just It's horrifying. And the theory that ties this all together for the audience is devastating. They believe this alleged abuse and the alleged cover-up of it by network leadership is the exact reason Marcus made that hospital bed phone call to Denise Boggs.

[00:11:37]>> That's the prevailing theory.

[00:11:38]>> The commenters are convinced Marcus deliberately left Pete and his own wife Joni out of his final succession wishes because he knew about this cover-up.

[00:11:48]>> And he wanted to protect his son's family and clean house at the network.

[00:11:52]>> Exactly.

[00:11:53]>> If you look at commenter at lightningrod007, they state "Marcus was uncomfortable involving mystery Pete, but failed to take action for the sake of image."

[00:12:03]>> So, the commenters are essentially accusing the network of prioritizing its PR machinery and financial stability over the safety of a child within their own family.

[00:12:12]>> Yes.

[00:12:12]>> It sounds like winning the CEO title isn't just about controlling the bank accounts, it's about controlling the thermostat in the room where all the family skeletons are kept.

[00:12:20]>> That's a great way to put it.

[00:12:21]>> If Jonathan gets the keys, he opens the door.

[00:12:23]If Joni keeps them, the door stays locked and the NDA remains the barrier to entry. So, what does this all mean?

[00:12:30]The audience believes the legal battle is just a proxy war for the truth.

[00:12:35]>> If we connect this to the bigger picture, we have to look at the historical context of the Lamb family to understand why the audience is so primed to believe a massive cover-up is occurring.

[00:12:46]>> Because there's a history here.

[00:12:48]>> The legacy of Marcus Lamb himself is complicated. He previously confessed to a 7-year affair, which he and Joni publicly navigated on the network years ago.

[00:12:58]>> That history hangs heavy over this entire succession crisis.

[00:13:02]>> Because it established a precedent.

[00:13:04]>> Exactly. It established a precedent within the network that personal trauma, public image, and financial survival are deeply intertwined.

[00:13:12]>> They chose the network over everything else.

[00:13:14]>> When the founders went through their own highly publicized moral crisis, the ultimate priority was preserving the ministry and the business. They survived by controlling the narrative.

[00:13:24]>> And the commenters are now viewing Joni's current actions through that exact same historical lens.

[00:13:29]>> You see it everywhere in the comments.

[00:13:31]>> They believe she's running the old playbook, operating from a place of prioritizing the business entity, and perhaps her new marriage, over the messy, painful truth of her son's allegations.

[00:13:43]>> Yes. A commenter named outright theorized that Joni is acting out of bitterness from that past adultery, actively targeting the son who was closest to Marcus.

[00:13:56]>> We obviously don't know if that's true.

[00:13:57]>> No, we don't. But it highlights just how deeply the audience is psychoanalyzing this family based on their publicized past.

[00:14:04]>> They're connecting dots across decades of television broadcasts.

[00:14:08]>> The audience feels they know this family intimately. So when Denise Boggs comes forward with this account of a missing name in a dying man's final wishes, >> it acts as a catalyst.

[00:14:17]>> It takes all these simmering, disparate rumors, the questionable finances, the shockingly rapid remarriage, the devastating essay allegations, >> and it weaves them into a single, cohesive narrative of a stolen legacy.

[00:14:29]>> For the digital jury, this isn't about corporate governance anymore.

[00:14:32]>> Not at all.

[00:14:33]>> It is a pure narrative of good versus evil. Jonathan is cast as the exiled, righteous prince demanding transparency, >> while Joni and Doug are viewed as the corrupt rulers who have seized the castle and locked the gates.

[00:14:47]>> What's crucial to understand is that in the court of public opinion, the legal reality of community property in Texas simply doesn't matter.

[00:14:55]>> They don't care.

[00:14:56]>> The commenters don't care about the corporate bylaws. They don't care about the email saying Joni should lead.

[00:15:02]>> What do they care about?

[00:15:03]>> They care about the foot-washing video.

[00:15:05]They care about the desperation of a bedside phone call.

[00:15:08]>> Right.

[00:15:09]>> The legal structure is viewed as a cold instrument of corporate corruption, while the informal, unwritten wishes are viewed as divine, absolute truth.

[00:15:18]>> It is an absolute master class in >> what happens when a leader fails to align their private wishes with their legal reality.

[00:15:26]>> is.

[00:15:26]>> Marcus Lamb, a man who built a global television network with vast resources at his disposal, somehow left the most important transition of his entire life completely up to interpretation.

[00:15:37]>> It's baffling.

[00:15:38]>> He left a legal framework that empowered his wife, but allegedly left a spiritual, verbal framework that empowered his son.

[00:15:46]>> And the resulting collision between those two realities has torn his family and his life's work apart.

[00:15:51]>> It's tragic, honestly.

[00:15:53]>> It really emphasizes the danger of assuming that spiritual authority automatically translates into legal authority.

[00:16:01]>> You can't just rely on faith for business.

[00:16:03]>> You can anoint someone all day long in front of a camera, but if the corporate bylaws say otherwise, you are just setting the stage for a civil war.

[00:16:11]>> It really makes you think about how we all communicate our own boundaries and wishes.

[00:16:16]Not just billionaires with global TV networks, but all of us. You know.

[00:16:20]>> Absolutely.

[00:16:21]>> How often do we assume our family just knows what we want without ever taking the time to put it in writing?

[00:16:27]>> We do it all the time.

[00:16:28]>> We think our legacy is secure because of the casual conversations we've had, entirely ignoring the actual, legally binding paperwork that will govern our estates when we are gone.

[00:16:37]>> This raises an important question for anyone watching this unfold.

[00:16:40]>> What's that?

[00:16:40]>> While the absolute truth of what happened in those hospital rooms or what happened behind closed doors regarding these abuse allegations may forever be obscured by legal battles, unsigned NDAs, and the algorithms of social media, >> Yeah.

[00:16:53]>> the damage to this family's legacy is very, very real. The public trust is fracturing in real time, the brand is deeply wounded.

[00:17:01]>> And the family unit itself appears completely shattered.

[00:17:04]>> Even if one side ultimately wins the legal battle and secures the network, the legacy they inherit is permanently scarred.

[00:17:12]>> We spend our whole lives trying to build a legacy, assuming we get to write the final chapter. We think we are the definitive authors of our own story.

[00:17:19]>> We really do.

[00:17:20]>> But once you're gone, your legacy doesn't belong to you anymore.

[00:17:24]It belongs to the people left behind.

[00:17:26]And their interpretation of your life might look nothing like what you intended. What are you leaving entirely up to interpretation?

[00:17:32]>> So, to the viewers dissecting this narrative, leaving the co-founder of the network entirely out of a final succession outline is a massive flashing red light.

[00:17:42]>> I mean, I have to push back on this cuz I am thinking about it from a purely practical secular standpoint, you know.

[00:17:46]>> Sure.

[00:17:47]>> Yeah. Imagine the CEO of a Fortune 500 company scribbling their succession plan on a napkin.

[00:17:53]>> Right.

[00:17:54]>> And then just handing it to their neighbor over the fence instead of taking it to their corporate attorneys.

[00:17:58]>> It sounds absurd when you put it like that.

[00:18:00]>> Right.

[00:18:01]Why would a brilliant, highly successful television executive use a casual phone call to a family friend to dictate the future of an empire?

[00:18:10]>> It's a fair question.

[00:18:11]>> I mean, could he have just been venting?

[00:18:13]Could he have been expressing like a hope for the future rather than issuing a binding legal directive?

[00:18:20]>> What's fascinating here is the fundamental difference in how last words are processed in a religious context versus a business context.

[00:18:28]>> Oh, interesting.

[00:18:28]>> Yeah, you're looking at it through a corporate lens, which makes perfect sense for a television network with massive assets.

[00:18:34]>> Because it is a business.

[00:18:35]>> It is. But for the public, for the commenters we are studying, this verbal directive isn't just a casual conversation or a man venting his frustrations.

[00:18:45]>> How do they see it?

[00:18:46]>> It is treated as a spiritual mandate. In their eyes, the dying words of a spiritual patriarch carry an anointing that that supersedes any piece of paper, any corporate bylaw, or any lawyer's office.

[00:19:00]>> So, to the audience, the fact that it isn't notarized doesn't weaken the claim.

[00:19:04]>> Not at all.

[00:19:05]>> The informality almost makes it more raw, more real for them.

[00:19:09]>> Exactly. One commenter going by the name @grithappens literally asks, "Why didn't Marcus put this legally in writing with an attorney? Denise Boggs is not an attorney."

[00:19:19]>> So, they know it's legally shaky.

[00:19:21]>> You can actually read the cognitive dissonance in the sources. The audience recognizes the legal vulnerability. They know a phone call won't hold up in court.

[00:19:30]>> But, they don't care.

[00:19:31]>> Right. They don't let that legal reality invalidate the spiritual weight of his words. They view it as a failure of the legal system to capture God's will, rather than a failure of Marcus to secure his business.

[00:19:44]>> Recently, I heard a podcast by Lorna Lee Inn really encouraging those that knew the truth to come forward.

[00:19:54]And I was convicted deep in my heart because I know some truths that needs to be brought forward.

[00:20:03]My name is Denise Boggs.

[00:20:06]I was a friend of the Lamb family.

[00:20:10]And I want to tell you what happened just [music] 2 days before Marcus passed I received a call.

[00:20:19]And the call was him on the other line. He had had one of his girls to dial my number.

[00:20:31]And he said, "Miss Denise, I need you to write some things down for me." I said, "Okay, [music] Marcus. I'll be glad to."

[00:20:40]And he said, "You know Joni and I have built Daystar, [music] but I really believe it's time for me to say that we built it so the children could carry it on."

[00:20:57]And I said, "Okay." And he said, "Did [music] you write that down?" I said, "Yes."

[00:21:03]And then he said "Well, first of all, there's our son, Jonathan.

[00:21:10]And he would be the first one that needs to step in and carry things on.

[00:21:18]He's the first Lamb.

[00:21:21]And then there's his wife, Susie.

[00:21:24]She took his name, Susie Lamb.

[00:21:28]And she'll be beside him to support him.

[00:21:32]I said, "Okay."

[00:21:34]And then he said, "And then there's Rachel Lamb [music] Brown.

[00:21:40]And she will be beside him on the other side helping him to keep everything going."

[00:21:51]And I need to make sure [music] now you're writing it down.

[00:21:56]Yes? Yes, Marcus, I'm writing it down.

[00:22:00]And then he said, "Then [music] there's Rebecca Rebecca Lamb Wise.

[00:22:10]And she will be like on the other side, like Aaron and her holding up Jonathan's arms.

[00:22:20]And her husband, [music] Jonathan Wise, will be alongside her to help her.

[00:22:29]Are you writing that down?

[00:22:31]>> [music] >> He said. I said, "Yes, Marcus, I'm writing it down."

[00:22:36]And so, when he finished, [music] I knew he had left someone out, but I did not say anything.

[00:22:46]And I knew that there was some deep pain because of what had happened in the family.

[00:22:56]And I knew that that's probably why he did not mention Joshua Brown.

[00:23:04]But, I did not question him on that.

[00:23:09]This was his time to speak from his heart and not be controlled or manipulated in any way.

[00:23:19]And I said, "Okay, I've got it all written down."

[00:23:22]And he [music] said, "Okay, thank you.

[00:23:25]You make sure it gets where it needs to go." I said, "Okay, I will."

[00:23:32]And so, he hung up the phone or he had someone else to hang it up.

[00:23:38]And then, I did submit it to different family members.

[00:23:45]I told Joni about [music] it.

[00:23:48]I told Rachel and I told Rebecca about what had happened.

[00:23:54]So, they all knew.

[00:23:56]>> Welcome to today's celebration.

[00:23:58]This is not Marcus and Joni Lamb, but this is Marcus and Jonathan Lamb. Hey, Jonathan.

[00:24:05]>> Thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing Jonathan into my life and to mine and Joni's life and to our entire family's.

[00:24:16]For he has been such a wonderful son and such a godly Christian young man.

[00:24:22]I thank you how you kept him, how you protected him, how you've led him. Thank you, Lord, that you >> [music] >> sent Susie to him and Lord, now these two precious grandchildren.

[00:24:34]And Lord, I know that there's a great, great future for Jonathan.

[00:24:39]And I pray God every day help him to be led by your Holy Spirit. Help him to watch and observe and listen and learn.

[00:24:48]Help him to grow in the things of the Lord. Let him be strong in his relationship with you, [music] in his relationship with Susie, with his children Lord and especially Lord as well with his siblings.

[00:25:02]>> Yes Jesus. You know that it's his desire.

[00:25:05]>> Of my heart.

[00:25:06]>> Mhm. Take me to the judge.

[00:25:08]>> Lord let your anointing increase and avail upon him. Let him be amazed Lord that he will understand things that he would not have be of this world that would be beyond Lord even his training. And that you would go with him before him with great favor. The doors would open before him [music] and that you would help him to walk softly and walk humbly always depending upon you.

[00:25:34]We thank you Lord that that you would be his assistant and it's not depending on a star or the resources here but the resources that come from you. In Jesus name I pray.

[00:25:47]Amen.

[00:25:47]>> Amen.

[00:25:48]>> Amen.

[00:25:49]>> Wow.

[00:25:50]>> Okay. All right, good luck with the first.