The LCS Factor

[Hope]

Dear Friends,

In 1972, in Dallas, I taught school in a 99% minority school. At the same time, in my home area in rural Eastern Arkansas, a terrible racial strife was unfolding. My father was a member of the local school board. He and two other members out of the five were attempting to integrate the county school system.

My home area was a classic example of the racist south. About half the population was African-American. Then the polite word was Colored. You all know about the N word. On many occasions my father admonished me regarding how the Black folks should be treated. I heard him often lament that he believed the USA would be punished by God for the way the Blacks had been treated. He had built up a small business and about half of his patrons were black. I worked for him and he was very careful about the respect I showed the blacks. In those days, black adults were called by their first names never by Mr. So and So or Mrs. So and So. My dad made sure I always referred to the black patrons as Mr. … or Mrs…. Or Miss …

Because my dad took a stand for the blacks and integrating the school system he was forced to carry a pistol for protection. An asasination attempt had been made on the chairman of the board. My younger brother was beaten. My dad would have secret meetings late at night among whites and blacks who desired peace and harmony. They had to meet in the dark and come by foot to his building at different times lest they be seen. Among the white racist the worst person was a N-Lover. A N-Lover was much worse than a plain ole N. Eventually my dad had to close his business.

So on the one hand, in Arkansas, I was being assailed as the son of a N-Lover. On the other hand, I was drug into the black principal’s office on several occasions and accused of being a white man. Because I was a white man from the South, I was allegedly not treating some student fairly and giving him a low grade simple because he was black. Fortunately math work is very straight forward. I had documentation regarding why a student was failing. I also could marshal support from black teachers and parents and other students about how fair I was. I believe I could have lost my job had I not had documentation and backing from blacks.

What was I? A N-Lover or a white racist. It was all in the eye of the beholder. Some of my former colleagues in the local churches see me as some kind of negative opposer who is deceived and lost his vision. Some former local churchers see me as a former LC elder who is acting out some kind of abusive deviant behavior and in need of a lobotomy to rid himself of his corrupt thoughts and toxic behavior.

What was interesting and painful in the past was the value judgments of each camp. If the East Arkansas racists had know that I had failed a black boy regardless of the merit of the action, they would have hailed me for putting the little N in his place. Had my principal known that my parents and family had suffered for standing up for blacks she would have given me a party and bestowed honors on me. My principal was a very good lady but I wish that I had opened up to her about what my family was going through. But when you have been accused of being a racist de facto just because you are white, it is difficult to be open.

I originally desired to write a history about the local church movement for the benefit of any who had been stumbled or disillusioned by the failures or the offenses on their conscience. In addition, I hoped it would be of some value for those who desired to learn from the past and to pursue the Lord in a strong way. Now I am not sure. I have been warned by the LSM. I have been told directly by some posters that they were trying to stop me. Perhaps that is what should happen. Thus, for the time being I am signing off. May the joy of the Lord be the strength of you all.

Hope, Don Rutledge

A believer in Christ Jesus who is seeking to be a true disciple.

[OBW]

Far from taking potshots as you'll recall I started this thread and I find it quite interesting that it is the most popular thread in this entire forum. Quite a telling point don't you think?I will respond to this one point because I have considered the same fact, but from a different view.

This thread has been a place to whip whoever certain persons wanted to whip. The rancor got so bad that several people dropped out of the forum altogether. At this point, the only thing I see happening is a request for Don to concur in the details or the events that BlessD and JulieP have presented. Whether those details are absolutely 100 percent accurate or were mired in the trauma of what actually happened, never to be clearly remembered again, I presume that something happened that was effectively what they described. I actually think that Don does as well.

But if you tell me I must agree that the details are correct, that is impossible because I do not know the details. I may be able to say that I have no reason to doubt them. I may be able to say that while some details seem unlikely for some reason, I have no reason to doubt the overall story. But if I say that the details are correct, I would be lying because I have no factual basis for that statement. I would be that witness in the trial that was spoon-fed a testimony of facts to which I could not actually say that I observed with my own eyes. It’s called perjury.

This thread has caused most of the people to back away. Notice that there is almost no activity in any other thread. And the activity in this thread is only from a few and only a few total posts a day. This thread is almost dead, and the rest of the forum is a ghost town. And every time it seems to get too light, certain ones (often the outsider, you) come back with some inflammatory line that gets people back in the fight.

And to top it off, this thread had languished for over a month until Ohio and I came here to make some apologies ─ not to get the thread started again, but to clear the air with respect to what had gone on. Maybe we needed to do a better job. It seems that a few started to refocus and clear their heads, then a new ruckus was created. And as it started up, everyone else just backed away.

Why is it that the ex-LC is fighting itself so strongly here? I suggest that the topic of the thread was too subject to manipulation. And there is much pushing by someone who is not actually an ex-LCer, or a current LCer, but someone with nothing to do but poke around at things that he gets second hand. There are/were some that had an agenda and would challenge anyone who disagreed to a duel. I cannot confirm this, but I have suspicions that BlessD and JulieP may have been pushed into their participation. I cast no dispersions at them for it. If it is not true, then it is not true. If it is true, then someone may have wanted the fight that erupted, or at least were trying to make a point that the stories did not make. That seemed fairly clear the first time BlessD came with her story. She simply told the story. But others made it into something more. There was an agenda. It was all but admitted at one point. I’m truly sorry for the hurt they endured because of this agenda. It was not their fault and it shouldn’t have happened.

I just may refuse to do more than lurk with respect to this thread. Anyone else think that is a good idea? This is destroying the discussions. I note that hashing it out with Albert on the other forum is getting much more fun.

[djohnson]

OBW it is my understanding that the purpose of a local church discussion forum on the world wide web is to discuss the local churches. I did not think it was limited to current or former members. Did you? And since this is a discussion forum I am here discussing. And it so happens that the topic of this particular thread is the abuses in the LCS and especially of the youth. And as things would turn out some ladies came here to discuss their experiences and they were basically called liars by a former elder of the LCS. And that is what we are currently discussing.

You may be influenced by the fact that Hope was a former elder of the LCS but I'm not in the least bit impressed. He was a leader in an oppressive, unhealthy, cultic, abusive group that has caused untold damage to many. And if it was my mother or sister or daughter being called a liar by this guy I wouldn't be sitting wringing my hands and worrying about how pleasant and lovely and nice this thread should be, would you?

[YP0534]

I just may refuse to do more than lurk with respect to this thread. Anyone else think that is a good idea? This is destroying the discussions. I note that hashing it out with Albert on the other forum is getting much more fun.

I've tried to engage on an entirely different topic.

I believe I discovered that a good part of Lee's "recovery" notes were actually "recycled" notes from old Sunday School lessons.

I posted an example.

Nobody even nibbled.

:justlurking:

[kisstheson]

I originally desired to write a history about the local church movement for the benefit of any who had been stumbled or disillusioned by the failures or the offenses on their conscience. In addition, I hoped it would be of some value for those who desired to learn from the past and to pursue the Lord in a strong way. Now I am not sure. I have been warned by the LSM. I have been told directly by some posters that they were trying to stop me. Perhaps that is what should happen. Thus, for the time being I am signing off. May the joy of the Lord be the strength of you all.

Dear brother Don,

I didn’t want to let you go away without saying that I am very sorry to hear that there may not be a Chapter 3 to your book. :verysad: I publicly stated on the other forum that I thought a faithful telling of “The Rise and Fall” of the LC, especially one written by an former “insider”, would be extremely helpful to both hurt ex-members and confused current members. I also thought that it would serve as a faithful warning regarding past mistakes to help safeguard future generations of seekers. My hope was that your book would serve a somewhat similar function regarding the LC's past as dear brother H.A. Ironside's book A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement did regarding the history of the Plymouth Brethren. I have been a big believer in this project right from the start!

You certainly need to do what you believe to be right before the Lord. We trust that you will be faithful to His leading. No matter what you decide to do, may our dear Lord bless you richly and may He draw you ever deeper into His heart of love. May the God of peace keep you in His perfect peace.

I love you in Christ, dear brother Don.

[finallyprettyokay]

Here I go --- wading in again to water probably too deep for my head. I'll just do my best.

First of all --- Don, I love your dad. I mean, of course, I love your story about him. God bless him. I am thinking maybe he is no longer with you, but the thought occurs to me that all politics aside, he would have been happy on Inauguration Day. I just have to tell you, my father still hasn't learned what your father seemed to know all along. Hurray for people like your dad.

Secondly --- anyone paying attention to my posts will know that I have had issues with Don more than once. Maybe still do --- some. Still, I have to say that I have seldom seen anyone apologize more than Don has on this board. I give him all sorts of credit for that.

DJ, you wrote this to OBW: You may be influenced by the fact that Hope was a former elder of the LCS but I'm not in the least bit impressed.. I wonder how you think any of us could have survived escaping from the LC if we felt that way. I don't know that it would be possible to go through the process it took to get out of that system, and (a slower process, to be sure) to get that system out of us, if we held that idea. No one gets a pass from me based on what position they hold --- anywhere, let alone there. Please give us more credit than that. I think we must have gotten past that pedestal-putting. Healthy respect of each other? Priceless.

[kisstheson]

I've tried to engage on an entirely different topic.

I believe I discovered that a good part of Lee's "recovery" notes were actually "recycled" notes from old Sunday School lessons.

I posted an example.

Nobody even nibbled.

:justlurking:

Dear brother YP0534,

I must have missed something! Free time for reading and posting on the forums has been in extremely short supply for me lately, and most of this time has been spent either posting on "the other forum" or posting comments related to the LC-related article over at christianitytoday.com (christianitytoday.com).

Last I remember, you felt that the "plagarism" charge was not the real issue; rather, the real issue was the authority which is given to Lee's ministry by the LC faithful. As I remember, you did no appreciate how many of us jumped on the "dear brother Nigel" bandwagon. If I understand your recent post on this thread, you have found some additional material which Lee recycled for his RcV footnotes?! And this additional material is old "Sunday School Lesson" notes??!! :eek:

I'm nibbling, I'm nibbling!! Please let us know more details on whichever thread is most appropriate.

[djohnson]

FPO I agree with you generally speaking. But in this particular issue Hope has basically positioned himself as a former elder "in the know" and is therefore qualified to say in essence that the ladies who told their stories of abuse are lying. It is easy to assume "While he must know. He was an elder." But my assumption is not that. For example, if someone told me about abuse in the RC and a former priest told me: "Oh I was there and that couldn't have happened. I know I was a priest myself." What do you think most sane people will think about that?

[kisstheson]

Why is it that the ex-LC is fighting itself so strongly here?

An excellent question, dear brother OBW/Mike. Why are we fighting amongst ourselves so strongly here?

I hate the thought that the brothers over on La Palma can get grim satisfaction out of watching the fights erupt here at "the leper colony". Even worse, of course, is the damage and the hurt we may be inflicting on one another. Dear Lord, have mercy on us! Also, think of the discouragement we may be causing those dear confused ones in the LC who want to get out but who see nothing better.

I take the quotation in my "tag line" very serioulsy: "The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better."

[Terry]

But if you do your homework you will notice that this is “an online community of former and current members of the local churches”. Far as it is advertised and as far as I can see this is a discussion forum and not a place for people to settle old scores and browbeat people who are trying to work through a very difficult experience in their lives. Some are still right smack dab in the middle of the whole thing right now. Some obviously still have family and loved ones right in the middle of the whole thing.

Yep jdavidson. That is how I see it. It's not for settling old scores. I have appreciated being able to connect with former attendees of local churches. I still have relations still meeting in the local churches. As long as I do, I'll still a have a limited interest in the present and past.
I have appreciated Hope's first two chapters. At this moment it appears this thread has done more to hinder the third chapter than what LSM could conceivably do.

Terry

[djohnson]

Terry that is how I see it too which is why I'm wondering about those ladies who posted their experiences and were essentially dismissed as being liars by a former elder. Thankfully this forum is not a LCS where whatever the "elder" says settles it.

[djohnson]

Hope if you feel God has commissioned you to write a history of the LCS why let the LSM or this little forum deter you from it? But as you know being a historian esp in the first person is a thankless task because there are many views of the same history. Yours will be one of many.

Personally I truly wish a third party historian with complete access to all people involved and documents would write a history of the LCS. I think that would give it some objective scholarship.

[Terry]

Thankfully this forum is not a LCS where whatever the "elder" says settles it.
No it's not. There are no elders here. For the most part, just brothers and sisters in the Lord. A lagging effect of the LCS system is the ability by posters to separate a brother and his former function as an elder.

Terry

[blessD]

I will respond to this one point because I have considered the same fact, but from a different view.
...At this point, the only thing I see happening is a request for Don to concur in the details or the events that BlessD and JulieP have presented. Whether those details are absolutely 100 percent accurate or were mired in the trauma of what actually happened, never to be clearly remembered again, I presume that something happened that was effectively what they described...
...I cannot confirm this, but I have suspicions that BlessD and JulieP may have been pushed into their participation. I cast no dispersions at them for it. If it is not true, then it is not true. If it is true, then someone may have wanted the fight that erupted, or at least were trying to make a point that the stories did not make. That seemed fairly clear the first time BlessD came with her story. She simply told the story. But others made it into something more. There was an agenda. It was all but admitted at one point. I’m truly sorry for the hurt they endured because of this agenda. It was not their fault and it shouldn’t have happened.



The details were not mired in the trauma. It happened just as I have said it happened. No more, no less. It was what it was. How many times must I say this?

Your suspicion is exactly that. I was not pushed into participating on this forum. I have repeatedly said this. JulieP also stated the forum could be cathartic for her. Is it so hard to believe that we could actually want to talk out some of the pain with friends since almost no one in our current life can relate to the weird upbringing we had (lol)? After all, I kind of thought this is what this thread was about. Since I personally had a melt down in my life much like the #1 post on this thread, I sort of took it as an invitation to Come Just As I Am, Without One Plea. Little did I expect to be clobbered with questions and then brazenly told what happened could not have happened as I said it (almost 6 months after I shared the story in the first place).

I will venture to say, I believe some have an agenda here and this is why I was lambasted as I was. If what I said did not or does not support some point that is trying to be made, then the story must be discounted, pushed down, put aside, proven false, or brought into question by the use of words like 'mired'.

There were so many things that led me to the conclusion I was in a cult. How about the little tidbit of the Perfecting Training? How about how I married someone when I knew little more than the person's name and after repeatedly conveying to the elders that we had too little in common to marry? How about having very little family life, moving constantly, or my closest friends (brothers & sisters) always moving away? How about a sister committing suicide and a couple of days later we were told in a meeting not to talk about it, and basically we just need to move on? How about the constant battle of hearing things that did not line up with God's word? How about when brothers stood up and told testimonies that included statements about their wives that were rude and how marriage was such a cross (at best)? How about seeing the fake humility and sometime blatant arrogance of some men who took advantage of the power they perceived they had? How about all that? Was all that false, too? Was it mired in trauma?

Oh and there is more where that came from, dear brother.... So, you can see some little incident that occurred when I was 16 was of little effect in my history in the LC and my conclusion I was in a cult. (Just in case I second guess myself as memories fade, I can always go read the Perfecting Training transcript attached in an earlier post on this thread and I am certain very quickly).

[Paul Cox]

Dear Brother Don,

As a non-hyphenated American, with some African blood running through my veins, I much appreciated the telling of your father's experience in the ole south.

I was disappointed, also, to hear that there may not be a third chapter of your book. I'm sure that one of the things you must have learned from your father is to stick to your guns and follow through with your original intention, no matter from where the rocks fly.

I have a much less enthusiastic view of the early Local Church, but that's okay. Every history is indeed unique to the writer, and I think I have much to learn from your account. This is not something we could enjoy under the iron fist of LSM. O offer my humble encouragement for you to continue.

Roger


PS: Tell those stuffed suited bobble heads over on LaPalma to shove it.

[YP0534]

I offer my humble encouragement for you to continue.
Roger


Ditto.

I had close care early on by some great eldership as well as some lousy eldership later on. I realize that the reason for the latter was the same as the reason for the former, i.e.: the great eldership I was benefited by was a meek and humble fleshly effort whereas the lousy eldership I was injured by was a ferocious and prideful fleshly effort. When the latter materialized, the former evaporated. That is merely human nature, though - two sides of the same coin.

The worldly-religious institution that the Local Church has become has an entrenched mythology that whatever it does is what God does and this leaves its members entirely unable to appropriately handle or even accept the obvious negative aspects of their practice.

The key is to see through the mythology and I believe your contribution, dear brother Hope, is one of the best keys available.

I encourage you to reconsider, for the sake of all.

[Overflow]

It makes me vomit to hear the guys beg and plea for Don to write a chapter in a book (that will inevitably be slanted) and yet two ladies recount of abuse is over and over again dismissed and belittled! BlessD, I completely believe your story and I am so sorry for the disrespect of women that we were raised with and continue to see on this forum.

When I wrote my response to Don, I regret being naive and believing that he could switch from an Angry Mean Spirited Man to Mr. Calm and Collect in 2.2 seconds. I always thought that the cult we were a part of did severe brainwashing, but to learn of the "perfecting training" and the time that it was introduced in the LC, I'm convinced that my dad (who wanted to make sure his family of origin didn't break up as his parents had when he was young - so would have naturally gripped too hard) was trained to abuse my mom, sisters and I.

Unfortunately my older sister got the brunt of it (I've seen a trend in my friends that the oldest got the most major sting of abuse). I hope one day my sister will get on here and share her painful stories (not that she will be believed because she's a female). I remember being up from 10pm-2am several nights a week (beginning in the mid 80s) listening to her in hysteria as she was questioned by my dad. I would just wish she'd apologize...little did I know that he was breaking her being, crushing her spirit, and teaching her to despise the very beautiful sweet girl that God had formed her to be. (As a side note, she was a people pleaser and never rebelled despite the constant abuse).

Some nights I would sneak into mom's room, but I'd have to knock hard to get mom to finally UNLOCK the door! She would be perched on her bed with a "sneaked" library book (heaven forbid dad let her read books outside of the LC). She'd retreat to another place and never even blink twice at the wretched situation in her own dining room table. As soon as I entered the room she'd lock the door behind me so as not to be disturbed by the drama!

This is just one of many issues at the heart of our perfect family growing up! After reading about perfecting training on Saturday night, on Sunday at church, I weaped as I sang and then couldn't sing because I was hit hard by an ugly cry! It hit me how big of a mess the LC was/still is! I pray for complete healing for my beautiful older sister and an ability to separate all of the lies from the truth! And I feel angry that my dad in the midst of all this yuck still holds firm to the notion that he was and is one of God's BEST and GREATEST instruments! The truth is He is a very broken man who was taught strategically how to rip apart that which God had created! He continues to play God with his wife and my baby sister still to this day!

Galatians 6:1-2 1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

I do pray that the man that has caused me the greatest anger, pain, anguish and torment, would one day bow to his knees and repent and be restored to a humble servant of the Lord.

[OBW]

OBW it is my understanding that the purpose of a local church discussion forum on the world wide web is to discuss the local churches. I did not think it was limited to current or former members. Did you? And since this is a discussion forum I am here discussing. And it so happens that the topic of this particular thread is the abuses in the LCS and especially of the youth. And as things would turn out some ladies came here to discuss their experiences and they were basically called liars by a former elder of the LCS. And that is what we are currently discussing.

You may be influenced by the fact that Hope was a former elder of the LCS but I'm not in the least bit impressed. He was a leader in an oppressive, unhealthy, cultic, abusive group that has caused untold damage to many. And if it was my mother or sister or daughter being called a liar by this guy I wouldn't be sitting wringing my hands and worrying about how pleasant and lovely and nice this thread should be, would you?
And I never said that this forum is open only to current and former members. I commented on the way that you conduct yourself here. You can’t engage me in a straw man argument that easily.

As for my opinion of Don, whatever it is, I base it upon his actions, past and present, and upon my present assessment of him, not some system of which both he and I were once members. You assess people on virtually nothing but association. You have no basis to do otherwise. Yet you continue to assert your opinion as if it is rock-solid fact.

Last, without insinuating anything specific, have you ever seen the “Big House?” If you had, then some desire for a reconciliation of contradictions would be understood.

[YP0534]

I have certainly never dismissed or belittled the ladies' stories that were told here. They are insightful examples of underlying tendencies, not commonly practiced to my knowledge, but certainly neither unheard of nor unexpected. I don't know of a case of physical abuse but psychological drama was part and parcel of the LC experience and it got extremely out of hand sometimes.

Stories like theirs are part of the whole history and these tales need to be told and the wounded ones need our support. However, some fair amount of challenge and scrutiny is obviously necessary since impostors with other agendas can post the same things falsely. No one should just gullibly believe everything they read, particularly what is posted on the Internet.

But if someone can't see how a larger treatment of the entire history of all of this needs to be told by someone who had the higher-up contacts to speak knowledgeably about the main players, the problematic slant is plain.

[Overflow]

There was also physical abuse...arguably perhaps easier to heal from then the emotional damage of destroying the very being of a person.

Also know of accounts of incest and molestation within the LC that I am very aware of, perhaps someday I'll go there.

To say that this did happen but not throughout, I DEFINITELY disagree. I do assume that it was worst when your dad was trained as an elder in this group, but every family I know of had a very neglectful and abusive relationship. The families that I saw the least harm had fathers that were detached from the LC or loosely associated. If a man got involved, the harm was GREAT!

Sorry...for the "every," but that's my recount!

To say that Don's history as an "higher-up" would give him credibly or insight baffles me. I think he was just more tangled in the mess and I still haven't heard of counseling that has been a part of his process of leaving and cleaving to Christ.

I think our group parallels that of crazy sects of the Mormon church, I don't think many would argue that they didn't need detoxing and healing from that mess...nothing different with the LC in my opinion. Crazy beliefs have to be sorted. The making of a man to be cold and heartless towards their family has to be worked through (as seen in the LC). The wounds of children are deep...especially the oldest children. The biblical falsehoods need to be relearned.

A person can insist that they were merely around it but didn't indulge in the practices, but history proves that misery loves company...Satan doesn't normally leave one little special someone alone and twist the hearts of the rest. I think its rather egotistical to say you were above the painful practices of this male chauvinist group/cult.

Oops...did I step out of all the guys comfort zone!??!

[djohnson]

OBW you referred to me as an outsider who drops in once in a while to make inflammatory remarks just to cause fighting. That is what I was responding to. I would add that it seems to me in general the LCS, the former LCS and this forum itself doesn't need an outsider to inflame anything because it's already inflamed. E.g. Several people left this thread and this forum. I wasn't even involved when they left i.e. there was "fighting" going on back and forth on this thread and I wasn't even here.

Apparently there is a reason why this thread is a hot topic. I inadvertently hit a nerve when I started the thread. So be it. Recently we have be able to witness in real time how people with stories of abuse are treated.

Regarding Hope I am assessing his actions in this particular situation at this particular time: how is he responding to these claims of abuse? That's all.

[Paul Cox]

Oops...did I step out of all the guys comfort zone!??!

Overflow,

I hope you don't think I am one of your enemies because I am a man. I love women (although I loathe "femenism") and I believe in equal everything for women. Let's not make this carry the tone of "all men are dopes."

I can't speak for others, but I was not begging Don to do anything, so I hope you can hold on to your breakfast. Everybody comes from the Local Church with a different perspective. I don't think Don has to show proof of counseling, or any such thing in order to just record his account of having been there. I've already learned a lot I didn't previously know about the system from reading his first two chapters. What he needs to do so far as his former membership as an elder in the Local Church, I will leave that to be between the Lord and him.

I can believe that a brother like Don could have gone through the system partially without having been totally distorted to the extent that some of the Texas Brothers were. Let's give honor where honor is due, and not paint everybody with a broad stroke.

Roger

[YP0534]

I think its rather egotistical to say you were above the painful practices of this male chauvinist group/cult.

Oops...did I step out of all the guys comfort zone!??!

Ha!

Not at all.

The patriarchal arrangement of the Local Church and most of Christianity in general is a topic that should definitely be explored. The "So, What About Woman?" threads are still here, I think. Try this one:
Women weren't even permitted speak on such topics for most of the last 2000 + years!
How can they be "silent in the church" and simultaneously the leaders of the heresies??? :rollingeyes2:

On a personal note, I was disciplined back when for treating the sisters like brothers by fellowshipping with them (in groups of 3 or more, not alone!) out of the presence of the "responsible ones" aka "brothers." Primarily, those conversations related to what I observed the Local Church doing with their own children and the Lord's stern warning about a millstone. I was more of a sounding board for their concerns than anything else, but that's another tale and it isn't really mine to tell.

[kisstheson]

I think its rather egotistical to say you were above the painful practices of this male chauvinist group/cult.

Oops...did I step out of all the guys comfort zone!??!

Hello dear Overflow,

Aiee! :eek: O my fragile male ego!

The story about your family is very troubling. I can not even state how sorry I was to read about the psychological abuse of your older sister.

Just for the record, if dear brother Don does finish his book, I plan on printing it out and putting it in a binder on my bookshelf - right next to dear sister Jane Anderson's book The Thread of Gold. I really believe that the more testimonies that come forth regarding the LC, the better. Female and male viewpoints are needed, as well as those of both "leading ones" and "common saints".

I will readily admit that I was really touched many times reading The Thread of Gold. Dear sister Jane and her husband sent me several very encouraging messages when I first announced that my family and I were going through the turmoil of leaving the LC several years ago.

Now that I have begun to read the writings of so many other precious ministers of Christ, I have learned that the neglect of families for the sake of "the church life" is one area where WL/LSM/LC deviated terribly from the Scriptures and from the writings and practices of so many others. Everywhere else I find a much healthier balance between family and "church life". For example, Stephen Kaung, that "other co-worker of Watchman Nee" who settled in the U.S. before WL, has a wonderful book entitled God's Purpose for the Family. Most recently, I have been reading through the "Classic Portraits" series by F.B. Meyer. Dear brother Meyer's speaking is full of exhortations and practical fellowship regarding healthy families.

[Ohio]

It makes me vomit to hear the guys beg and plea for Don to write a chapter in a book (that will inevitably be slanted) and yet two ladies recount of abuse is over and over again dismissed and belittled! BlessD, I completely believe your story and I am so sorry for the disrespect of women that we were raised with and continue to see on this forum. When I wrote my response to Don, I regret being naive and believing that he could switch from an Angry Mean Spirited Man to Mr. Calm and Collect in 2.2 seconds.


Overflow, your story is indeed painful to read, and I am in no way diminishing what sad events have transpired in your family. I also have some nasty memories to tell growing up in a large family in the Catholic church. That church never helped my Dad either, but we are all responsible for our own actions, and parents most of all. When some of my siblings retell some of the "horror stories," the responsibility stops with the family, and no one ever blamed the church.

No one has "dismissed and belittled" your accounts. I saw that happen on the Bereans forum, but not here. DonR happened to be nearby and said he didn't see it happen. So he asked for clarifications. I would have done the same. I don't like getting blamed for other's actions, and I'm sure you don't either. Abusive people like to act in secret, and that's why many of those even closeby don't know what has happened. That's life. I don't like it, but it happens. It happened far too often in the LC.

The above two paragraphs are to me disrespectful to DonR, beyond what is fair. Regardless of how hurt you were, it does not help you to lash out at other posters, men in general, or specifically Don. None of us did anything to hurt you. It was your father who did what he did, and he bears full responsibility, along with the one who appointed him to the eldership. If I don't appear as sympathetic as you would like in this post, that does not mean I "disrespect of women that we were raised with and continue to see on this forum." What it means is this -- I protest the way you were mistreated, and I also disagree with the way you are responding now.

Statements like this to DonR -- "Angry Mean Spirited Man to Mr. Calm and Collect in 2.2 seconds" -- is unfair, just like the abuse you have suffered. One wrong does not correct another wrong. The difference is that you suffered as a helpless child, which is quite unfortunate indeed. Now you are lashing out at people on this forum who have never hurt you. The Lord is very sympathetic to the hurting. Many other posters are sypathetic too, including DonR. Please do not think we are in any way discrediting you or your story. It's a story that is yours to tell.

Here's just one area where the LCS failed miserably. Many elders were appointed by reason of their allegiances. That's pitiful. The Biblical prescription is appointments based on character, including how one manages his own household. Paul wrote that for a reason. The LC thought they had invented a better way, and now we find out, via stories like yours, how bad their way really was.

[djohnson]

Ohio what Hope did was state the following:

"The big 16 elder meeting over two teenagers kissing just could not have occurred in the way it was described. I would have known about it. Nothing comparable ever occurred. The second, an effort to back up the first, of 6-7 elders confronting a teenager did not happen."

He is not saying it could have happened and he was just not aware of it. That is not his position. This is not only a discrediting of their story it is in essence saying these ladies are lying.

[djohnson]

Overflow I really feel bad for the ladies in the LCS and those who left it and have to deal with the aftermath. I heard that one husband was so upset about what happened to his wife in the LSM office that he went for his gun. The elders had to calm him down but come to find out the elders basically knew what was going on towards women in the LSM office already. They covered it up for Witness Lee for years and let the women of their church go unprotected to serve in that office. The husband not the elders had the manhood to stand up to Lee for the sake of the honor of his wife once he found out what was going on.

[OBW]

Regarding Hope I am assessing his actions in this particular situation at this particular time: how is he responding to these claims of abuse? That's all.Are you accusing him personally of abuse? Or are you merely lumping him in with all LC elders, some of which were abusers? There is no actual evidence of abuse on his part in any way on record here of which I am aware.

If you are talking about the abuse on the part of others, he has not denied that it happened. But when you force issues, you will discover that the results are not what you want. And as long as you want everyone to simply say affirmatively that everything happened exactly as claimed, that is not possible, even if it is, in fact, completely true to the finest detail. Only those present can say with certainty that it happened. The rest of us can only say that others have said that it happened and that we have no reason to disbelieve them.

But whether or not advisable, questions were raised. It is entirely OK to simply drop the questions. But attacking the questioner rather than dealing with the questions is not a righteous approach. Everyone presumed that the questions were designed to discredit the accounts. But actually, the questions were because knowledge of the venue suggested that either the details were not quite as mentioned, or something about the description seemed to say something that it did not. I had the same questions. Clearing that up would strengthen my ability to simply say “I believe it without questions” instead of saying “I believe the substance of it although some of the details seem unlikely.” In the latter case, some might presume a cloud over the whole account. I do not. But if I had been asked about it, that is what I would have had to say.

And I would not have been making any kind of statement about the veracity of the ones bringing the claims ─ only in the clarity of the fine, and possibly irrelevant details after these many years.

[djohnson]

OBW please read my post #1286 where I quote Hope. His position on this issue is clear. I am not accusing him of anything. But some ladies here are accusing some elders of something and Hope is essentially vouching for these elders that it never happened thus discrediting the narrative of the ladies involved.

[YP0534]

I heard that one husband was so upset about what happened to his wife in the LSM office that he went for his gun.

I guess I'd be over the line to suggest that it's probably not a good idea to repeat hearsay about a brother with murderous intent.

Probably would better to lionize a would-be killer as a hero among snakes and mice.

Yeah.

Nevermind.

[djohnson]

YPO534 as I recall I read about the incident in a book by Mr. Ingalls. Sad that it came to what it came to before the leaders of the church got up enough backbone to actually do something instead of brown nosing Witness Lee.

[YP0534]

as I recall I read about the incident in a book by Mr. Ingalls

I don't know where it came from, which was half of my point. "Read about the incident in a book" isn't quite the same as "heard" but thanks for the additional information upon which to help evaluate credibility of the claim. I guess if you think Mr. Ingalls is an honest man, then you can accept that. I don't really know Mr. Ingalls. I suppose it's a true story.

The other half of my point?

If Ingalls was the one who lionized an attempted murderer in a book about snakes and mice, ditto. Someone just a little while ago was instructing about how two wrongs don't make a right.

Anything that can earn you prison time is not behavior I'd care to uphold as a paragon.

I'll stand by that. :p

[djohnson]

YPO534 I have a wife and daughter so I understand the man's reaction when his wife was violated. What I don't understand is how elders could knowingly cover up Witness Lee and the antics going on at LSM for so long until such a breaking point was reached.

[Ohio]

YPO534 I have a wife and daughter so I understand the man's reaction when his wife was violated. What I don't understand is how elders could knowingly cover up Witness Lee and the antics going on at LSM for so long until such a breaking point was reached.


dj, who are these elders who knowingly covered up?

[djohnson]

The ones in Anaheim. They knew the track record of the misconduct that was going on at the LSM and yet they did nothing to discourage innocents and especially women from serving there and in fact encouraged it. At the time of the event I have been discussing one elder was on the board of the LSM and the other was the GM. The impetus for them to take any action was a husband in their church seeking to defend the honor of his wife. What could they do once the whole thing became publicized? Finally they had to stop brown nosing Witness Lee and do something substantial. And after the blow up the man who was the GM said something to the effect: The situation at LSM was actually worse than what most people know.

[Terry]

The ones in Anaheim. They knew the track record of the misconduct that was going on at the LSM and yet they did nothing to discourage innocents and especially women from serving there and in fact encouraged it.

djohnson, I don't know much about the words you're speaking. However my impression is the LSM office on Ball Road was considered a separate entity from the Church in Anaheim even if the localities' meetings took place in the very LSM building.

Terry

[djohnson]

Terry the elders of the church encouraged people to serve in LSM knowing full well what the track record was. Furthermore apparently at the time there was a "move of the Lord" for the oneness between the church and LSM to increase even more. With the elders publicly promoting this so called "move". Shortly thereafter the incident I am discussing occurred. Here is what Mr. Ingalls writes in his book about it:

"The grievous conduct reported by the sister from the LSM office had a precedent that we were well aware of."

[YP0534]

YPO534 I have a wife and daughter so I understand the man's reaction when his wife was violated.

Yes, I have a wife too. It's a fairly common thing. So too are reactions to events of the world as you have suggested is a good idea. But we don't "go for a gun" in civilized society. If there was a wrong of the type you say was reported by Mr. Ingalls, clearly the appropriate response is either police involvement or a lawsuit, not firearms like a gangbanger hoodlum. This is not the Wild West or the Old South where one must resort to vigilantism to defend "honor" nor is it a Hollywood movie where such actions have no real consequences. At a MINIMUM, "going for a gun" in such circumstances is the mark of an irresponsible gun owner. It gives us supporters of 2nd Amendment rights a really bad name. Not to mention what it can do to one's Christian reputation.

You can keep going with your attack on the eldership in Anaheim which "let it come to this" or whatever. I care not. It's probably deserved on some level it seems to me.

What I'm calling attention to is your seeming inability to appreciate that siding up with a would-be murderer puts you in most peculiar company and you are fully comfortable with that because to your judgment someone else was worse. It's not just that the gun-slinger is a symptom of the problem for you. You actually admire the guy. And that's just twisted and bizarre to me for a believer to publicly espouse in this day and age. Both unchristian and unenlightened wasn't something I was expecting from a keyboard here, really...

[Overflow]

I think DJohnson's example was intended to be a metaphorical example! The story shows that the heart of that man (who wasn't a Spirtual giant in the eyes of LC) responding with sensitivity to the huge call of being a Godly husband, willing to protect his wife at any cost, laying down his life for his wife...he didn't shoot the guy, it just shows the rage that stirred in him when his wife was being abused. A different story for a men that seemed Ultra Spiritual and yet, abused or allowed other women to be abused without any protest or move of emotion. The latter is so far from God I can't even go there.

Thanks to those that recognize the pain of being abused, and even more so by someone who has spent a lifetime building an image as God's extra special chosen one! It is a high calling to be a christian parent....showing your children the heart of God through your own love and actions!

And for those that need proof to believe that the LC indeed messed with families, just google more info about the LC....there are lots of accounts similar to the one that JDavidson shared. It was/is rampant.

[YP0534]

The story shows that the heart of that man (who wasn't a Spirtual giant in the eyes of LC) responding with sensitivity to the huge call of being a Godly husband, willing to protect his wife at any cost, laying down his life for his wife


Completely unbelivable.

"laying down his life"???

You've gotta be kidding me.

Pardon me, but those of us who have to live where real life happens, where real guns kill real people, have very little patience for such naive and romantic fantasies as have now been displayed here.

Very revealing.

Utterly clueless is the main word that comes to mind...

[djohnson]

YPO534 I think you are missing the point. As a man with a wife and daughter I understand the feelings of this husband. I understand his natural reaction. I understand his manhood. Does this mean I would condone it if he carried out the act? Of course not!

[John]

Dear Don,

A few weeks ago, I came back to the forum to read and was surprised to find that you were referring to my wife and our book. After that, I began praying and considering how to respond. I decided I should address these matters with you publicly where they occurred, so as to clear the air as regards my wife and me on this forum.

In spite of the fact that you appear to have signed off, I feel that I should still post the things I have taken much time to write. I do this for the record because I do not think some of the things you have written about us should be left unaddressed on this public forum.

I have prepared a few initial posts which I will present now. Also, because I have continued to follow what has been happening on this thread, I have written about a few related matters. These are in various stages of writing, editing, and prayer that I may or may not present. I hope that you will give what I write your attention and prayerful consideration.

Your brother,
John Anderson

[John]

Dear Don,

First of all, I must address with you the most personal matter to me—the way you have written about my wife.

Texas is a large area and had and still does have many different local churches with hundreds of many different brothers and sisters. I know personally the posters here who came from Texas. None of them was just your average bear. Jane Anderson is a very unique personality and one of the most intense persons I ever knew. She was not then and is not now just the average sister you might run into. Matt, Mike, Nell are all very strong personalities (a good thing). Jane and Nell were in Houston and OK City. Ray Graver and James Barber had a thing about subduing strong personalities. No doubt they were among their targets. I would suppose they received more than their fair share of abuse.

You write as if you knew Jane personally in the past. You write that she was not “your average bear,” “a very unique personality," and “one of the most intense persons” you ever knew. With regard to the past, I believe that you did not know my wife well enough to make such statements.

I asked Jane how she felt about your statements, and she said that they bothered her. She remembers being around you a few times during the first year or two in the Church in Houston, but she does not remember speaking much when she was around you and other “spiritual” brothers because you were scary to her. I am not saying that you never spent any time around her or never spoke with her. What I’m saying is that I believe that you have overstepped your boundaries in characterizing her past personality. Therefore, please refrain from commenting about my wife’s personality.

In the Local Church, for the most part, I would say that we really didn’t know anyone personally since we were not allowed to have any friends in the Church. Add to that the divide between the brothers and the sisters, and between the leaders (which she considered you to be) and the non-leaders, and she does not feel like you knew her or vice versa. As regards most of the others you mentioned, I believe that, in the past, you knew Nell even less and Matt less still. By the way, Nell was not targeted by Ray or James, as you suggested. She was called on the carpet by other leaders in the region, but that is for her to share.

That being said, even if you do know some posters personally, I do not think that it is wise to write an assessment of any poster’s personality here, regardless how minor the assessment might be. If you find it necessary to think about the personalities of the ones you have mentioned, I suggest you distinguish for yourself between the distant past and the present.

Further, do not take what you know about Ray and James and assume you know something about what happened to Jane. If you want to know the truth, why not just read her book, The Thread of Gold? Then you will have more accurate knowledge about her, what she was like, whether or not it was her personality that brought about her trouble, and how she became the person she is today.

Your brother,
John Anderson

[John]

In this post, I will address what you have written about our book, The Thread of Gold: God’s Purpose, the Cross, and Me.

…. Jane Anderson wrote a book about the local church. The book began with an account of a humiliating experience she suffered. The date was 1977. I believe she and her husband had been associated with the local churches since at least 1968. I have found it more than interesting that she starts the story with this event. Any reader would have to assume this was more than an isolated event.
Don, I do not believe that any reader would have to assume that chapter one described more than an isolated event. Surely you don’t believe that you can read everyone’s mind. Hopefully, many readers would find chapter one interesting enough to read the rest of the book and find out more about the person and the event. I would recommend that you do so rather than engage in useless speculation.

Later another humiliating experience is recounted which was suffered by a teenage girl. It has many similarities to her experience.

I can only speak from my experience. From 1965-1986, I cannot recall being in such a called gathering. I knew nothing of the one that occurred in Houston. I heard of some people in some places being called down publicly but never of a called meeting for the purpose of humiliating an individual or group of individuals. Yes, during Max Rapoport's time there were called elders gatherings for this purpose. Yes, there were such meetings after 1986. They were called and directed at specific leading brothers, but not at individual brothers or sisters or teenagers. When I complete my history, I will detail some of these. But I hope to first set a clear stage that this was not the way it always was and it was the great exception to the day to day church life….

…. How accurate are the accounts? I cannot say since I was not there in either case nor did I ever hear of the events until the forums. But I can say this kind of event was not what was going on! What about the 8-9 years before this infamous meeting?

…. The forum should not be a place where any may take a free shot and vent….

Don, your leaps of assumption are amazing to me. Regarding the meeting about Jane, if you knew nothing of the meeting, how can you claim to know the purpose of those who called the meeting?

I note that your question, “How accurate are the accounts?” includes questioning the accuracy of the opening account in our book. Let me assure you, it is as accurate as we could make it. How do I know? I was there and am a witness; you were not and are not.

The Thread of Gold is Jane’s personal testimony. It is her story of her life with Jesus. The backdrop is the Local Church. In chapter one, she told what happened to her. Don, why do apparently try to cast doubt on her account? Would you respect her testimony more if she could bring forward a Local Church leader to corroborate it?

You commented that you found Jane’s placement of the account in chapter one “more than interesting,” leaving the reader to wonder why you found it so. Then you say, “Later another humiliating experience is recounted which was suffered by a teenage girl. It has many similarities to her experience.” Are you implying that such accounts were the focal point of our book? Are you implying that she had some negative vendetta or had the need to “vent”? Don, please do not conjecture and write about the book before reading it. This is simply an expected common courtesy.

Since you have questioned the placement of chapter one, let me tell you why it is at the beginning. The book was originally written telling the events in her life sequentially. One of our reviewers suggested that this particular event, which was a turning point in Jane’s life, should be put at the beginning, as a matter of writing style. It was that simple and is a common way of presenting historical accounts.

Here is one of the things that I find interesting about chapter one: The leading elder in Houston was not present at that kangaroo court. It seems he was absent, just like you were from blessD’s and juliep’s inquisitions. Years later, he told us that he, too, like you, knew nothing about the meeting. My point is that I don’t believe anyone should assert that only their perspective and assessment of what happened in the Local Churches is the proper and authoritative one.

You write as if Jane failed to mention the eight or nine years prior to the 1977 event. If you had read our book, you would know that she covered these years in some detail. Please do not follow the example of a person on the Berean’s forum. He gave his opinions about the book and about Jane’s motivation for writing it. He later admitted that he hadn’t read the book!


A Plea for You to Read the Book

Here is a little history about our book (some of which is related on the book’s website). First of all, Jane did not want to publish anything but was encouraged to do so by others. She eventually became convinced, over a period of time, and by some providential occurrences, that the Lord did indeed want her to publish her testimony. She began reworking journals and notes that she had made over the years, but she lacked an editor. God provided one through a timely layoff, which is how I came to be on the project, being an editor and writer by profession. At that time, I felt that the Lord wanted me to dedicate my full time to the book, which turned out to be a period of nine months. Items in the book were researched and verified. The book went through a number of reviews by people who knew of the events as well as people who did not, people who were in the Local Church and people who were not. In fact, one of our reviewers was a non-Christian who later accepted Jesus. As the writer of our “Foreword” wrote, “This story is for everyone,” and I think that many would agree. In fact, if people are only looking for bad things about the Local Church, they may be disappointed. If, however, they are looking to know more about Jesus, I think that they will be thankful they read it. (As an aside, I could not in good conscience agree with the title of the book being The Thread of Gold if its main theme was simply to present the dark side of some church.)

Don, I would like to send you a complimentary copy of the book. Please send your mailing address to TheThreadOfGold@verizon.net, and we will put one in the mail to you. We offer the book for sale on our website, www.TheThreadofGold.com, to make it widely available; however, Jane has given away hundreds of free copies, so you would not be taking advantage in any way. The book is meant to be a service to the Lord and His body, not a money-making venture (which it is not). Her intent from the beginning was always to give it to those who could benefit from it.

Why not read a book by an ordinary person who was in the Local Church? You might even receive a blessing, as many have testified that they did, including a current and former Local Church elders. To me, based on all that has taken place on this thread, you may have some prejudice against Jane which has caused you to make assumptions about our book. At least take the time, if you have not, to read the book’s website. (From what you have written, it appears that you have not.) It has a “Feedback” tab that accesses many testimonies about the book. Some wrote that the book had no bitterness in it at all, and one of those people was in the Local Church. (By the way, Jane is no longer putting new feedback from readers on the book’s website.)

Don, in the interest of your credibility, I would think that you would want to read her book if for no other reason than to be well-informed on the subject about which you purport to write authoritatively. How can you consider to be writing a balanced history of the Local Church when you ignore a book that presents a perspective you do not have? As far as I know, there are only two ink-on-paper books that give testimonies from ones about their experiences while in the Local Church of Witness Lee: Speaking the Truth in Love and The Thread of Gold. Of course, you know John Ingalls; why not really get to know Jane as she presents her experiences of Jesus?

In addition to describing events that are more historical in nature, Jane also presents in the last three chapters how she was freed from the deceptive teachings of the Local Church. This part is written in an outline fashion and, in my opinion, is almost “worth its weight in gold.” I would consider this to be very worthwhile for any who were immersed, as we were, in the teachings of Witness Lee. For me, there are many golden nuggets in The Thread of Gold.

Don, in what I have written to you, I do not want to sound mean-spirited; I do, however, want to remain firm and truthful. If you have corrective facts about the events described in The Thread of Gold, we will be happy to receive them. If you have corrective facts related to the testimonies on this thread, we are ready to hear them as well. I hope that there will be no more speculation about our book or our motives until you have read it from cover to cover.

Your brother,
John Anderson

[Terry]

And for those that need proof to believe that the LC indeed messed with families,

Overflow, it cuts both ways. There are times individual(s) sought to impose the mindset on a family. There are instances where the parent(s) rebuked the individual and there are instances where the parent(s) relented to peer pressure for the sake of one accord.

Terry

[Terry]

Here is one of the things that I find interesting about chapter one: The leading elder in Houston was not present at that kangaroo court.


I was not aware of this. That was amazing and apalling. Amazing in the fact that a leading elders responsibility for a locality was usurped. For this brother to not know about it indicates a neglect in fellowship. Whether it's a brother or sister to be blindsided in such a manner is sorrowful.
Having read the Thread of Gold I wondered what would have happened had John and Jane not attended that meeting?
What if you're a current brother or sister whose presence is needed in a similar meeting, would the responsible brothers be just as willing to meet if the venue was in a restaurant or coffee shop instead of a room at a meeting hall?

Terry

[blessD]

My husband has considerately requested for me to stop participating in this forum. My history with the LC is not shared together so he feels left out and also believes it is the past so should remain in the past. I understand and respect his viewpoint. I have many other priorities that need my time. After all, God is doing a present work in our lives that does not include my history in the LC.

I would like to say thanks to members for sharing your stories and viewpoints. I have enjoyed reading and participating (even through the experience of being questioned and accused). Keep the faith! Everything will work out, just keep on believing. I know God is working here and He will get the glory.

I would ask one thing, please do not discuss my personal story if it is only to make your own point or win an argument. This was not my purpose in sharing. I respectfully request my history not be misused or further questioned since I will not be present to clarify or defend myself from accusation. I have shared some details in private messages to help answer questions of accuracy. I shared in confidence and have come to find some of these personal details were later distributed between others in private messages. This was quite disheartening and clearly unethical.

You may email me at laweaver_okc@yahoo.com if you have anything you want to discuss privately.

Peace to all,

BlessD

[djohnson]

Best wishes to you and your husband blessD!

[bookworm]

In this post, I will address what you have written about our book, The Thread of Gold: God’s Purpose, the Cross, and Me.

Don, I would like to send you a complimentary copy of the book. Please send your mailing address to TheThreadOfGold@verizon.net, and we will put one in the mail to you. We offer the book for sale on our website, www.TheThreadofGold.com (http://www.TheThreadofGold.com), to make it widely available; however, Jane has given away hundreds of free copies, so you would not be taking advantage in any way. The book is meant to be a service to the Lord and His body, not a money-making venture (which it is not). Her intent from the beginning was always to give it to those who could benefit from it.

Why not read a book by an ordinary person who was in the Local Church? You might even receive a blessing, as many have testified that they did, including a current and former Local Church elders. To me, based on all that has taken place on this thread, you may have some prejudice against Jane which has caused you to make assumptions about our book. At least take the time, if you have not, to read the book’s website. (From what you have written, it appears that you have not.) It has a “Feedback” tab that accesses many testimonies about the book. Some wrote that the book had no bitterness in it at all, and one of those people was in the Local Church. (By the way, Jane is no longer putting new feedback from readers on the book’s website.)

Don, in the interest of your credibility, I would think that you would want to read her book if for no other reason than to be well-informed on the subject about which you purport to write authoritatively. How can you consider to be writing a balanced history of the Local Church when you ignore a book that presents a perspective you do not have? As far as I know, there are only two ink-on-paper books that give testimonies from ones about their experiences while in the Local Church of Witness Lee: Speaking the Truth in Love and The Thread of Gold. Of course, you know John Ingalls; why not really get to know Jane as she presents her experiences of Jesus?

In addition to describing events that are more historical in nature, Jane also presents in the last three chapters how she was freed from the deceptive teachings of the Local Church. This part is written in an outline fashion and, in my opinion, is almost “worth its weight in gold.” I would consider this to be very worthwhile for any who were immersed, as we were, in the teachings of Witness Lee. For me, there are many golden nuggets in The Thread of Gold.

Don, in what I have written to you, I do not want to sound mean-spirited; I do, however, want to remain firm and truthful. If you have corrective facts about the events described in The Thread of Gold, we will be happy to receive them. If you have corrective facts related to the testimonies on this thread, we are ready to hear them as well. I hope that there will be no more speculation about our book or our motives until you have read it from cover to cover.

Your brother,
John Anderson

It has been several months since active posting on this thread, The LCS Factor, in the discussion of spiritual abuse including neglect of family relationships. I am curious; tell us John, during this time have you heard from Don (Hope) regarding your plea for him actually to read The Thread of Gold? Has he taken you up on your offer to send him a copy of the book?

Recently in the congregation we now meet with we have begun a Biblical study of developing and maintaining healthy relationships. Today some verses from the book of Nehemiah were quoted in the context of sharing healthy ways to nurture and care for family relationships.

Now, keep in mind that my knowledge of the book of Nehemiah was primarily gained in the Local Church. I remember several experiences in the Local Church of sharing of verses from the book of Nehemiah regarding "the building."
The examples many of us remember surely are:
Nehemiah 1: 9 "But if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name."
Nehemiah 4:18 "and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked."
And 4:20 "Wherever you hear the sound of the trumpet, join us to fight there. Our God will fight for us!"

Imagine my surprise and delight when these verses (also from chapter 4) were shared in our worship service today:
Nehemiah 4:13-14: "Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears, and bows. After I looked things over, I stood up and said to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people, 'Don't be afraid of them. Remember the Lord who is great and awesome and fight for your brothers, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes.' "

Note the emphasis and value placed on fighting the battle for your children and wives and your own home.

What a blessing to feed on these verses and realize how valuable family units are to the Lord and what a responsibility we have to fight for them.

[OBW]

I note that the kind of thought expressed in John's post keeps coming up. The problem is not what the book says or what Don may have said about it. The problem is the emphasis that this very thread put on everything. It reeks of the presumption that everything in all places was the same. It also presumes that all leaders in all places lead with the same king of uneven and even schizophrenic morphing between shepherd and ogre. There is a record of some who did operate in this manner. Jane’s book gives a little window into a few such persons.

But no matter how I tell my story, or you tell your story, it can only be the story of the one doing the telling. That does not preclude others from piecing the different accounts together to draw pictures that are somewhat different from what any of the separate accounts portray. I have been challenging Don in another context ─ not to refrain from having a viewpoint, but to understand that as factual as his account is, it is not the whole story, just his story. His accounts of the various personalities during the 60s, including that of Lee, paint a picture that, taken alone, would leave one wondering how things turned out like they did. But what Don cannot have known and possibly even suspected is that in some cases there was something at work inside these people that had not yet come out. Or there were forces at work from the outside that would cause changes in some that would have different results.

But none of these changes what he actually saw at the time. He might, in hindsight, consider that there were signs that he missed at the time. But if he tells the story from the perspective of that period in time, the sign was missed and to act as if it was not miss-tells the story.

So to suggest that Don needs someone else’s perspective to tell his story is to not be willing to take the facts that are but instead ask for the facts you want. If you have alternate facts, then provide them. Without both we cannot get the whole picture. Neither denies the other, but enhances the search for truth. To pretend to have all the facts when you only have part of them is dishonest. Not necessarily in a willful way, but nonetheless dishonest.

When I have questioned Don about his accounts, it has not been to suggest that he is telling us an incorrect history, but to ask whether in analyzing the person of Lee (or any other of the early players in this story) he is swayed too much by his own observations to the exclusion of those of others. If all are placed side-by-side, I question whether his account could be the whole story. Same goes for the other accounts.

The objective of this forum is not to create an entirely black picture of Nee, Lee, Benson, Ray, or any of the others. It is to come to some understanding of the truth as it relates to the history and continued existence of the LC. But we need Don’s story, and Jane’s, along with those of Steve I., SpeakersCorner, Ohio, Paul C., and so many others. We need the writings of the Concerned Brothers and even the DCP. I would never call Jane’s accounts isolated. But if it had been too prominent, Benson would have had a hard time rising to his current status among the BBs. Even Benson’s dream of leading a religious organization cannot be viewed as, in itself, entirely evil. Many are given some kind of vision of some aspect of their destiny. Others dream big and expect to find a way to achieve it. We cannot presume that having this “dream” means either, or something else. It is just one fact in a maze of facts that in isolation make the object a “Saint” in one case and Satan himself in another. Surely the second precludes the first from being the whole story, but neither is the latter the whole story.

Now I have taken Don to task, both publicly and privately, concerning the appearance of disagreeing with another’s account (or “story”) because it is different from his own. My conclusion is that while there may have been a little of this in play, he was more concerned with the idea that some other account was being used to paint everything when he had an experience that did not match. Maybe his manner in taking exception was not the best at the time, but he was correct. If it was all as black as some were trying to say, why did any of us stay for even a few meetings? How could this kind of gross behavior be hidden from the new ones? The answer is because it was not the whole of the church or even of the people that we are dissecting.

Last, I note that this particular thread has, almost from its inception, been one of “calling others out” to answer for their sins. Even the one time that someone came along to try to bring some harmony to the thread by resurrecting it and apologizing for his part in the problem(s), it seems that it could not be allowed to happen and another hornet’s nest was stirred up to begin another lynching. It may have been entirely a happenstance ─I’m not saying it was intentional. But this thread seems cursed. It only seems to bring out the worst in so many of us.

Bookworm. Your own comments are good. But the quote from older posts was to resurrect one of those "challenges."

Let it die and be buried. If there is something that is truly worthy of discussion, start a new thread. And I’m not sure that demanding that someone read anything is a good starting point. We might as well require everyone who wants to say anything about Lee to read every book he ever wrote (or spoke and had edited down into a book and/or repackaged into several books) before they are qualified to comment.

[bookworm]

Now I have taken Don to task, both publicly and privately, concerning the appearance of disagreeing with another’s account (or “story”) because it is different from his own. My conclusion is that while there may have been a little of this in play, he was more concerned with the idea that some other account was being used to paint everything when he had an experience that did not match. Maybe his manner in taking exception was not the best at the time, but he was correct. If it was all as black as some were trying to say, why did any of us stay for even a few meetings? How could this kind of gross behavior be hidden from the new ones? The answer is because it was not the whole of the church or even of the people that we are dissecting.

Last, I note that this particular thread has, almost from its inception, been one of “calling others out” to answer for their sins. Even the one time that someone came along to try to bring some harmony to the thread by resurrecting it and apologizing for his part in the problem(s), it seems that it could not be allowed to happen and another hornet’s nest was stirred up to begin another lynching. It may have been entirely a happenstance ─I’m not saying it was intentional. But this thread seems cursed. It only seems to bring out the worst in so many of us.

OBW,

If one reads John Anderson's posts #1303 and 1304 on this thread it is apparent that he is appealing to Don to read for himself Jane Anderson's account so that he can see for himself that it does not paint it all "as black as some are trying to say." Don's reading The Thread of Gold would defuse much of the defensive attitude that he displays and that fosters the ideas that "lynching" as you say, is taking place on this thread.

You are free to take anyone to task--even Don R.--on this thread but I would say you are way out of line in labeling a thread "cursed."

[OBW]

You are free to take anyone to task--even Don R.--on this thread but I would say you are way out of line in labeling a thread "cursed."First, thank you for the freedom.

I call it "cursed" because virtually everything is being misread and misunderstood. It has brought out the worst in almost everyone who has been involved. It has reopened very old wounds concerning those who claim that they are healed, but their words say otherwise. It was almost single-handedly responsible for the exit of several of the most prominent members of this forum.

And while I am not sure that it is entirely against the forum rules, calling others out to meet your challenge is poor. I admit that many of us do it when we note that a particular point has been ignored; or a participant suddenly drops out of one thread while continuing in another. But making a challenge, such a "read a book or don't say anything" is not a valid point. It is not grounds for sound discourse. And opening a long-dead thread to reissue such a challenge after months have gone by is antagonistic.

And antagonism has been the battle cry of this thread from its early posts. We dissected the accounts of non-leaders who were not present on the forum to allow their stories to be told. We sometimes used names. There was a period when the error of the day was so broad that it was pointless for identifying LC error and instead set us all upon each other.

What more do you want? Even putting the challenge in your re-opening post is more of the same. I have a hunch that you would not consider yourself to be among those who would be so antagonistic to others, and yet somehow we all have been guilty in this thread.

I just went back and read the posts by Don that John was referring back to. While the quote was accurate, Don's words appear to be stating that the account in Jane's book were situated in such a way that the implication might be drawn that this was somehow commonplace. He did not say that this was intended. But within the context of the discussions that had been happening on this forum, and specifically within this thread, there were some who seemed to be intentionally doing just that. And they were using TTOG as part of their ammo. Jane didn't do it. But it was being used in that way here.

If you think that John was merely pointing out that the book never intended to suggest that the event was commonplace, he could say that. There was no need to challenge anyone to read the book. But there were some who were trying to paint an almost entirely dark picture of significant aspects of the LC, and that all localities were essentially in the same condition. When they brought Jane's book, and BlessD's story to bear, the injustice was to both to the storytellers (Jane's book and BlessD's experience), and to the gathering of truth concerning the LC. Jane didn't say her experience was the norm. John set out to establish that again. But the context in which it was introduced in this thread was to say that this evil was going on everywhere and how could anyone, especially an elder even suggest that it was not widespread and commonplace.

Then Don stated rather clearly that he had personally seen none of any such "meetings" although he did note that there were talks/rumors about it happening in some places. The only thing that I could see him saying was that it was not so commonplace that every elder in the region who had been in such a position for many years must have seen such a thing. That would suggest that there is something quite uneven in the administration of the LCs. That is a significant point. But it was to be ignored and we needed to simply “paint it black.”

As to any other opinions that might have been expressed about TTOG by Don or anyone else, I can only say that everyone is entitled to their opinions on any subject, even if I do not agree.

I would much rather that Jane, Nell, John, Matt and many others (some of whom had only joined to get caught up in this thread and then left, never to return again) were again regular and active in the discussions of the LC and its personalities. But arguing opinions about what impression something in a book gives to someone sounds more like a need to have everyone agree. And casting a net of "idolatry" so wide that no one escapes loses the distinction that is worthy of note. (We are out to find that some say "I am of Lee" and not that some like to sleep late on Sunday morning and often miss church as a result.)

If you think Don said something with which you disagree, ask what he meant. This forum has become much too sterile. There is even a slowness to simply discuss the doctrines. The experiences are not out of bounds. But they need cool heads. That does not mean no passion. It just means to leave the uzzis at home.

This thread is Mt. St. Helens. It has already blown 1,000 ft off its top in the form of forum members. The latest lava dome is not the place to build a hotel for tourists to come see our collective folly. Let it die. Let it become archived back on the umpteenth page behind better discussions. Even better discussions on the same topics. Everytime we pick it up and post in it, we bring the dirtiest of our laundry to the top and shout for every newcomer to see the ugliness that went on.

This is my plea for sanity and is based entirely on my opinion. I do believe that opinion to have a sound base in fact. But I ask that rather than dismiss it as just “that guy's opinion,” you take a look at the totality of the landscape of this thread. We joyously started looking for the evidence of the LC in the things that sent the second generation running for the doors, sometimes to reject God and get into the worst that life can provide. But it quickly turned to shouts that one piece of evidence was all that was needed and anything that contradicted in any way was to be expunged at all costs. How quickly? Within 4 days of the first post this line was published: “I don't think one example ... mitigates the application of a broad brush” It went downhill from there. The broad brush was out. The witch hunt had begun. The result was nuclear. There is a hole in the forum. Why may be an opinion, but the hole is very real.

[kisstheson]

Hello dear ones,

I am in much fear and trembling. Too many painful memories on this thread. Too many dear ones who never came back. :verysad:

I do not blame anybody in particular - not the author of the opening post nor anyone else who participated. I myself posted on this thread numerous times. It just happened - it brought out the worst in us, collectively.

As one who lurked for years and who was literally saved from LSM and the LC by the posts on "the other forum", I would humbly ask everyone to remember that we do live "in a fishbowl". This forum is very public and many whom we never hear from are influenced by the discussions here, one way or the other.

One of the biggest areas where I take WL and the BB's to task is in the area of evil speaking. When we start exhibiting the same kind of unrestricted speaking here, I believe it is a real shame to us.

Ultimately, the main reason why I would like this thread to never be resurrected again is because something appeared to happen here which never should have happened - we appeared to forget the fact that, when all is said and done, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

I love you in Christ, dear bookworm and OBW. Much grace, peace, and love to all.

[UntoHim]

As one who lurked for years and who was literally saved from LSM and the LC by the posts on "the other forum", I would humbly ask everyone to remember that we do live "in a fishbowl". This forum is very public and many whom we never hear from are influenced by the discussions here, one way or the other.
One of the biggest areas where I take WL and the BB's to task is in the area of evil speaking. When we start exhibiting the same kind of unrestricted speaking here, I believe it is a real shame to us.

How ironic that on a thread entitled "The Local Church System Factor" we find ourselves entangled by some of the very worst of the many negatives of this LC system. Witness Lee was a man of great exaggeration - positively towards himself and the religious system he invented, and negatively towards just about every other person, place and thing in the universe. (hows that for exaggeration) Those of us who sat under Lee's "ministry" for any length of time could not help but have been heavily influenced by this "spirit of exaggeration". It works real fine when you are on the positive side of the ledger, but when you are on the negative side, let me tell you, it's a bummer of biblical proportions.

Recently I have come to the conclusion that "once a Local Churcher - always a Local Churcher". To put this in medical terms, it's kind of like a virus that never leaves your system. The best you can do is just deal with it. So here we are folks, here we are dealing with it. The good, the bad and the ugly. Some of us, even long after departing the system, are still very prone to Lee's spirit of exaggeration. For whatever reason, some have a tendency to fight tooth and nail to keep alive the recollection and recounting of only the positive, and then there are those on the polar opposite – they have a tendency to insist that we do nothing but recount and rehash the negative. Finally there are those (probably the silent majority) caught in middle of the crossfire. I won’t even pretend to know what might be the motivations of those on either side (I know mine of course, but I’ll keep them to my little ole self for now) Of course I am framing all this in the simplest terms possible to make a point.

For over 5 years now, right here on the Internet, we have seen a kind of battle waged between the various positive and negative views of the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee. Most of the time wars include a "good guy" and a "bad guy". Sometimes, as was the case with the US civil war, it really isn't so much of a good guy - bad guy thing as much as it is a good idea - bad idea thing. (in the case of the South, a really, really bad idea) It saddens me very much to see this "civil war" between current and ex LC members - what saddens me much more is the "cold war" that seems to exist between some of the ex LC members themselves. And it always seems to come down to how one views the person and work of one Mr. Witness Lee. For most Christians it is a matter of how one views, teaches and practices the various facets of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, but no, not for us – for us it always has to boil down to the person and work of Lee and our various views, experiences and history with the religion (LC system) he invented.

Please believe me when I say that I do don't have just one forum member in mind here. There is plenty of blame to go around.

I would invite anybody who has participated in this thread to post a final "wrap up" statement (not too long please) covering any of the major thread themes. Then I might just lock this thread and let it disappear into the archives.

-

[ABrotherInChrist]

I would invite anybody who has participated in this thread to post a final "wrap up" statement (not too long please) covering any of the major thread themes. Then I might just lock this thread and let it disappear into the archives.


I for one would welcome seeing this thread locked. If someone needs to restart part of it under another thread, so be it, but let's let this smoldering fire finally burn itself out and not add more fuel.

[OBW]

At first I felt to just let the thread be locked without any further comment from me. But as I have been one who has challenged the direction it has taken on various occasions, I decided that a review of the value of the discussion might be in order.

Disclaimer: This is my opinion. You are free to consider me presumptuous to make any of these statements.

No matter the origins of the thread, there was probably something of value to consider, but little of hard evidence to gain because virtually everything within its topic is subjective and has many potential causes — causes which might include something of LC teachings and practice. I would be willing to accept that those prone to serious parenting errors might also be influenced by undercurrents of teachings that emphasize things like "hate father, mother, sister and brother" and other such extremes being taught as more than metaphorical devices to establish a hierarchy of love and allegiance to God first. Some who might have never acted in the manner they did may have done so because of LC teachings and practices. But how do you establish the link? It would take direct questioning of the parents/individuals in question and they would have to be willing to dig into their own issues and reveal their true motivations and drivers. We were not the perpetrators, therefore we did not have the answers, only the questions. And they were good questions, but questions without available answers.

Even to get testimony of the children affected does not establish causality. They cannot know that the temperament for such ways was not already there and might or might not have be active even without the LC and its teachings. The best we could hope for was an anecdotal link between the LC and people who did not do well at raising their children or dealing with their spouses.

Yes, the specific events in which LC leadership interjected itself where it had no business going are a different kind of issue. But those do not appear to be so widespread as to be called standard operating procedure except maybe with respect to certain individual leaders. I’m sure that BillW, Jane, and BlessD, among others, would object if we even suggested that it never happened, and rightfully so. Even if the environment had turned out more nurturing for the stories that came out, would we ever have much more than the three that were brought up? Even if we got six, would that create evidence of general problems? It seems that the whole of the events actually cataloged gives testimony to the misconduct of a few somewhat linked individuals. As such, this may have been worthy of discussion for what it was. But it never was evidence of general issues with LC doctrine and practice.

Recurring problems with BP, GD, JB, or even BB (all but one of whom were in Dallas at one time or another) do not connect enough dots to create a uniform pattern of wanton misconduct that can be laid at the feet of every LC and every LC leader in any way.

To the extent that there are things to discover and discuss, it is time to be specific rather than general. It is time to put away the broad brush and focus.

[bookworm]

Recurring problems with BP, GD, JB, or even BB (all but one of whom were in Dallas at one time or another) do not connect enough dots to create a uniform pattern of wanton misconduct that can be laid at the feet of every LC and every LC leader in any way.

To the extent that there are things to discover and discuss, it is time to be specific rather than general. It is time to put away the broad brush and focus.

The strong, verbose response to my quoting of scripture and attempt at followup on postings from this otherwise forgotten thread speaks volumes regarding the spiritual battle going on regarding this thread. Think about it. This thread containing actual testimonies from second-generation LC members leads to such a defensive response from a "former elder" that it causes strong condemnation by those apparently still strongly influenced by him. None of these testimonies insisted that there was a "uniform pattern of wanton misconduct that can be laid at the feet of every LC and every LC leader in any way." These testimonies were, indeed, very focused on each individual's experience. The defensive response was to accuse such testimonies of "painting with a broad brush."

[OBW]

The strong, verbose response to my quoting of scripture and attempt at followup on postings from this otherwise forgotten thread speaks volumes regarding the spiritual battle going on regarding this thread. Think about it. This thread containing actual testimonies from second-generation LC members leads to such a defensive response from a "former elder" that it causes strong condemnation by those apparently still strongly influenced by him. None of these testimonies insisted that there was a "uniform pattern of wanton misconduct that can be laid at the feet of every LC and every LC leader in any way." These testimonies were, indeed, very focused on each individual's experience. The defensive response was to accuse such testimonies of "painting with a broad brush." You are correct that the testimonies themselves did not insist upon, or even try to say that there was such a broad pattern of misconduct. It was the words of those surrounding the testimony and using it to say it anyway. They sought to use specific instances to cast blame onto others or to deny their own testimonies that everything was not "one size fits all."

The testimonies themselves were not a broad brush. And in no case did any of the persons who gave such testimonies try to paint more than their own testimony. It was the insistence of others to make those testimonies into more than they were. And what were they? Primary evidence of gross misdeeds of some of the LC leadership. Misdeeds that should have resulted in their removal from "office."

And if you think that I am influenced by any past elder, even weakly, you are mistaken. My own comments were my own. But do you assert that any past elder who has spoken on the issue has lied about anything? Has anyone done anything worse than note that he could not understand how something with as broad an attendance as was suggested could have escaped his knowledge? He could be wrong. Do you deny anyone else the right to ask other questions about other things just because you don't like the possible implications?

And as to my "strong verbose response to your quoting of scripture" you completely missed the thrust of my post(s). I acknowledged that what you actually wrote was good. I did appreciate the verses. But they were almost completely disjointed from the quote that preceded it. So there were two major things in your post. First, a quote from a few months back with a note that it had been some time. Then came the rest of your post. I made no specific comment about your quoting of scripture. If you choose to mis-characterize my response in this manner, it is simply further evidence of the nature of this thread and what it has done to so many of us. It underscores the reason that this thread should be locked. If you want to ask about John's challenge, start a new thread. If you want to dig into anything about what the accounts of BlessD and JulieP might tell us beyond their actual facts, start a thread. (I dread the latter because, even with no former elder around it will require a thorough revelation of details and I don't think that those sisters really want that. And I don't blame them.)

[UntoHim]

...It underscores the reason that this thread should be locked. If you want to ask about John's challenge, start a new thread. If you want to dig into anything about what the accounts of BlessD and JulieP might tell us beyond their actual facts, start a thread. (I dread the latter because, even with no former elder around it will require a thorough revelation of details and I don't think that those sisters really want that. And I don't blame them.)

Earlier:
I would ask one thing, please do not discuss my personal story if it is only to make your own point or win an argument. This was not my purpose in sharing. I respectfully request my history not be misused or further questioned since I will not be present to clarify or defend myself from accusation

Ok, carry on then guys. I don't think it's a good thing to start another thread that is just going to carry on with one of the major themes of this existing thread.

One thing I would ask is that we all try extra hard to not "misunderstand on purpose". I have seen a lot of that in this thread. Didn't we all get enough of the ole "saying something without really saying it" gig in the Local Church?:thumbsdown: Some poster mentioned something recently about "evil speaking". Well, frank dialogue, even if it gets a little personal, or even if it hits home a little hard, is not evil, except maybe within the little sheltered world of the Local Church system.

So maybe there is still a lot to be gained here, that is if cooler heads prevail. Remember "you can listen as well as you hear".

-

[ABrotherInChrist]

So maybe there is still a lot to be gained here, that is if cooler heads prevail. Remember "you can listen as well as you hear".


Thanks... now I'll have that song in my head all day... And SO appropriate to this thread (and forum) I might add.

Thanks a lot, UntoHim... now I'll need to play a Petra CD or something to drive Mike & the Mechanics outta my head :)

[OBW]

Thanks... now I'll have that song in my head all day... And SO appropriate to this thread (and forum) I might add.

Thanks a lot, UntoHim... now I'll need to play a Petra CD or something to drive Mike & the Mechanics outta my head :)Hey. I like that song. It may be secular, but it is quite profound.

[UntoHim]

Why ABiC and OBW what ever are you talking about............

darn, darn, darn... thought maybe I could slip one past ya'll and think that I made it up!:littledevil:

I cried like a baby the first time I head that one again after my dad died. Owch...still hurts big time. Wow...."the living years"....yes, very profound.

So, now that the cat's outta the bag...
In The Living Years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8mPS0-2Xq8)


-

[ABrotherInChrist]

Hey. I like that song. It may be secular, but it is quite profound.

I like it too, secular or not. :) But it really does stick in the head if you don't quickly drown it out with something else, I find. Thankfully, my father is still alive, and I have had the chance to see him eye to eye (as much as is possible with two separate people, of course). There is a LOT of my father in me, I've found as I grew up.

[OBW]

I like it too, secular or not. :) But it really does stick in the head if you don't quickly drown it out with something else, I find. Thankfully, my father is still alive, and I have had the chance to see him eye to eye (as much as is possible with two separate people, of course). There is a LOT of my father in me, I've found as I grew up.Believe me. I know what you mean. My wife tells me all the time how much I look and act like my Dad.

But I am one of those that unless the song is something really stupid like "I've got a lovely bunch..." I'm quite happy to let it play for a while in the quadraphonic world in my head. A Question of Balance is playing right now, both figuratively and literally. I'll be humming one of those songs for a while. Probably "And the Tide Rushes In" or "Its up to You." Most will have no idea about those songs.

[OBW]

I cried like a baby the first time I head that one again after my dad died. Owch...still hurts big time. Wow...."the living years"....yes, very profound.
I must admit that it had some of the same effect the first time I heard it after my Mom died. Like you, we were not strangers, but I'm sure that I would have liked to clear some things better than happened during that six months as her health failed.

[kisstheson]

Some poster mentioned something recently about "evil speaking". Well, frank dialogue, even if it gets a little personal, or even if it hits home a little hard, is not evil, except maybe within the little sheltered world of the Local Church system.



Aiiiiiieeeeeee!! :eek: I think this was aimed at me! Yes, dear ones, that "some poster" who mentioned "evil speaking" was indeed me.

OK, dear brother UntoHim. I do receive your verbal correction. I admit that dialogue can be frank without being "evil speaking".

Carry on, dear ones. Just keep in mind dear brother Igzy's "Rule #1 for internet discussion forums": "Don't get touchy!!"

Much grace, peace, and love be with us all.

[UntoHim]

Not to worry dear kts, that part was aimed at the comment and not you personally!

Yes, much grace, peace and love be with us all. And you know what...we can have all these without seeing eye to eye.

-

[Ohio]

I must admit that it had some of the same effect the first time I heard it after my Mom died. Like you, we were not strangers, but I'm sure that I would have liked to clear some things better than happened during that six months as her health failed.

It's now been a quarter century since my own mother's sudden death, at a time when I was a total ministry junkie. How I regret all my condemnations and arguments with her about idols and holidays. There's no way to see "eye to eye" with the ones we love, when all we are eating is the ministry of condemnation.

[bookworm]

And as to my "strong verbose response to your quoting of scripture" you completely missed the thrust of my post(s). I acknowledged that what you actually wrote was good. I did appreciate the verses. But they were almost completely disjointed from the quote that preceded it. So there were two major things in your post. First, a quote from a few months back with a note that it had been some time. Then came the rest of your post. I made no specific comment about your quoting of scripture. If you choose to mis-characterize my response in this manner, it is simply further evidence of the nature of this thread and what it has done to so many of us. It underscores the reason that this thread should be locked. If you want to ask about John's challenge, start a new thread. If you want to dig into anything about what the accounts of BlessD and JulieP might tell us beyond their actual facts, start a thread. (I dread the latter because, even with no former elder around it will require a thorough revelation of details and I don't think that those sisters really want that. And I don't blame them.)

Mike,

I am glad to know that you did appreciate the verses I quoted from Nehemiah. Actually they do fit well with my original post, asking John Anderson regarding his posts #1303 and 1304, in which he defends his wife and family and requests that Don R. actually read The Thread of Gold before making judgments regarding Jane and her personality/character.

Your quite flippant demands that I "start a new thread" and assumption that I would like to "dig deeper" into the accounts of these second-generation LC members is off the wall and a gross "mis-characterization of my response" -- to use your own words.

You have your opinion that "this thread needs to be locked" but that is just what it is-- your opinion. I agree with Unto and his statement of "maybe there is still a lot to be gained here, that is if cooler heads prevail. Remember 'you can listen as well as you hear'".

It would be generous of you to back off from your accusations of ulterior motives and allow others to read and post on this thread as they are led.

[OBW]

Your quite flippant demands that I "start a new thread" and assumption that I would like to "dig deeper" into the accounts of these second-generation LC members is off the wall and a gross "mis-characterization of my response" -- to use your own words.When I suggest that new threads be started for specific purposes, it was an explicit admission that there may be reasons to continue some of the sub-topics that went on. And even if not, that is any member's prerogative. The point was not to grant my permission. Mine is not needed.

But I am serious about how this thread has turned out. My hope in suggesting that this thread die is that there might be a better chance of getting those "cooler heads" if we take the discussion somewhere else and not simply continue to build upon this horrible foundation.

I must assume that you do not actually read much on this forum. When I said what I did about "digging" it was not an accusation of evil intention on your part or anyone else's. I will admit that there is probably some useful information to be gained if we did dig. Neither was I suggesting that you specifically seemed to want to do that. I merely said "if." It may not be your desire. But in a public forum in which every discussion is not in isolation, I know that there are some that want to do that. I accused you of nothing.

You have your opinion that "this thread needs to be locked" but that is just what it is-- your opinion. I agree with Unto and his statement of "maybe there is still a lot to be gained here, that is if cooler heads prevail. Remember 'you can listen as well as you hear'".And I have said that it is my opinion on more than one occasion. The history is that every time it starts up, cooler heads do not prevail. I'm simply looking at history and suggesting that despite some attempts by cooler heads in the past to ramp down the extreme rhetoric, they appear unable to prevail. So we should try one more time and see if it works this time? Still just an opinion offered in hopes of peace. Do I think that I was always a cooler head? No. But I really don't recall much of anyone being exempt except one or two who mostly stayed out and came back occasionally to ask "what is going on here?"

It would be generous of you to back off from your accusations of ulterior motives and allow others to read and post on this thread as they are led.I don't recall accusing any of ulterior motives. But I did state that some were clearly painting with a broad brush that was not consistent with the available data. I can disagree with that without thinking they have ulterior motives. I did question motives a few months ago when certain posts were made saying one thing while others in support of those posts caused them to be understood to say another. I was eventually convinced that the original posts were entirely voluntary and that the misuse of those posts was an illogical reach by others to say something not present in those posts. This is part of the broad brush issue. I can acknowledge the error in thinking that there was motive in the underlying posts, but am free to conclude that what others made of it was not a rational or logical extension. You are free to disagree. Others can decide for themselves who is correct.

I will not respond again on this topic. Other than note that your recent resurrection of this thread was in the form of a "calling out" which is consistent with the bad blood of this thread (which many of us have shared, including myself) I have presented my reasons for letting this now 1,300+ post landmark to our ability to shred each other disappear into the archives. UntoHim is the one who will ultimately decide whether to simply lock it so that its fate is certain. Without that, I only suggest that we all treat as if locked and carry separate discussion elsewhere. I do not deny the possibility of relevant inquiry. I just hate to look back into the quagmire in the earlier pages. It is a place of death.

Last. It is just my opinion.

[YP0534]

It is a place of death.

Last. It is just my opinion.


Opinion and discernment are not incompatible things.

[awareness]

Roger:
But I have an idea who he is, and he has a history with the Local Church, also. His comment about the ministry of Witness Lee being an addiction is spot on. I have first hand evidence of this. It may not have been an addiction to you, but believe me, brother, it is to many.

I'm with you Roger. I undoubtedly felt I was coming off an addiction when coming out of the LC.

Maybe that's why I'm like DJ. And say things like "Lord save the saints but kill the beast. Die, die, die, beast..."

There's nothing worse than an ex-something. Ex-smokers are typically the most legal and condemnatory, and so too are recovering alcoholics. They have to be. The addiction can get 'em again. Harsh boundaries are required.

And I've been harsh toward the LC ever since coming out. It's saved me many times from falling for other addictions. And since then no one, ever, controls me. I'll have none of it, even when working for someone. I'll tell any such ones to pack sand in a heart beat. Moreover, no one gets my mind. No one! Period. I think for myself. I work at sniffing out any thoughts where I'm thinking them because of conventions, and such like.

I'm a recovering Lee-alcoholic. I admit it. I'm playing with fire even being this close to the LC.

So thank God for DJ. Shout it from the rooftops brother.

And DJ, due to an addict wife, I joined Al-anon. I've learned much about addiction, and what it does to children ; even children that never knew one of their parents were alcoholic because it was hidden from them. The damage is still done, even when it's hidden.

[PriestlyScribe]

In the LCS there was a real lack of vision regarding the very crucial and critical role of the family in God's plan and purpose. Sadly, in the LCS, many parents made serious mistakes and did not receive needed healthy instruction regarding raising children for the Lord. Frankly, I absolutely love to speak of the family and how powerful the four generational wall of testimony is. (By the way the scriptures reveals the principle of four generations standing together for the Lord's testimony.)

Hope, your words above describe the very realization that compelled me to make Chuck Debelak's speaking available to all Christian parents, whether inside or outside of the churches. I have more of it on hand that has not yet been processed for posting on the internet.

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Debelak05tbsp.jpg

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gif Family: God's Unit of Salvation (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/DebelakDetroit2000/)
See Also: OurSecondGeneration.com (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/)

P.S.

[PriestlyScribe]

One further suggestion I would like to make, after having skimmed all the way back to the disturbing start of this thread. Our God is well able to heal much of the damage that we or others may have caused, if we will just open our hearts up to the light of His countenance.

For some, the following message on recovering from "Spiritual Abuse" can serve as a catalyst in moving toward healing and restoration:

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/sonship/RTCFtrsz.jpg

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gif Restoring The Christian Family (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/sonship/caution2.htm) - by Jack Frost:hurray:
Find More Material At: MendingFamily.com (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/sonship/)

Malachi Ch4
5 I am about to send Elijah the prophet to you before the great and terrible day of Jehovah comes; 6 And he will turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse.

P.S.

[PriestlyScribe]

Malachi Ch4
6 And he will turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a curse.

I feel there are two main reasons that we allowed our hearts to be re-directed away from our wife and children, and toward the so called church:

(1) Most of us lacked Godly positive role models for this while growing up. Later on in life it was very difficult to find a good pattern among the leaders in the churches.
(2) Few of us heard any healthy definitive teaching on how we should care for our families according to God and the Bible. Or, we heard it only once in a piecemeal fashion, never to be repeated again.

Below is a quote which will likely be seen as outright HERESY by the "up-to-date-Vision" loyalists in the local churches. But it is the truth from the Bible, and If I took the time, It would be easy to back up each point by quoting directly from the ministry of Watchman Nee and (early) Witness Lee.

Question: What Should be the order of Priorities in our Family? (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/WordsOfWisdom/Misc/family-priorities.html)
Audio MP3: http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gif Family Priorities (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/WordsOfWisdom/Misc/family-priorities.mp3)

Answer: The Bible does not lay out a step-by-step order for family relationship priorities. However, we can still look to the Scriptures and find general principles for prioritizing our family relationships. God obviously comes first: Deuteronomy 6:5, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” All of one’s heart, soul, and strength is to be committed to loving God, making Him the first priority.

If you are married, your spouse comes next. A married man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). Christ’s first priority—after obeying and glorifying the Father—was the church. Here is an example a husband should follow: God first, then his wife. In the same way, wives are to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). The principle is that a woman’s husband is second only to God in her priorities.

If husbands and wives are second only to God in our priorities, and since a husband and wife are one flesh (Ephesians 5:31), it stands to reason that the result of the marriage relationship—children—should be the next priority. Parents are to raise godly children who will be the next generation of those who love the Lord with all their hearts (Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4), showing once again that God comes first. All other family relationships should reflect that.

Deuteronomy 5:16 tells us to honor our parents so that we may live long and so things will go well with us. No age limit is specified, which leads us to believe that as long as our parents are alive, we should honor them. Of course, once a child reaches adulthood, he is no longer obligated to obey them (“Children, obey your parents...”), but there is no age limit to honoring them. We can conclude from this that parents are next in the list of priorities after God, our spouses, and our children. After parents comes the rest of one's family (1 Timothy 5:8).

Following one’s extended family in the list of priorities are fellow believers. Romans 14 tells us not to judge or look down upon our brothers (v. 10) or do anything to cause a fellow Christian to “stumble” or fall spiritually. Much of the book of 1 Corinthians is Paul’s instructions on how the church should live together in harmony, loving one another. Other exhortations referring to our brothers and sisters in Christ are “serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13); “be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32); “encourage one another and build each other up” (1 Thessalonians 5:11); and “consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds (Hebrews 10:24). Finally comes the rest of the world (Matthew 28:19), to whom we should bring the gospel, making disciples of Christ.

In conclusion, the scriptural order of priorities is God, spouse, children, parents, extended family, brothers and sisters in Christ, and then the rest of the world. While sometimes decisions must be made to focus on one person over another, the goal is to not be neglecting any of our relationships. The biblical balance is allowing God to empower us to meet all of our relationship priorities, inside and outside our families.


© Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries. www.GotQuestions.org (http://www.gotquestions.org/)

P.S.

[countmeworthy]

I am saddened by soo many troubled marriages among Christians...LCrs and otherwise as well as secular marriages.

I have never gotten married...Don't know why but I have never had a strong 'urge' to be married. Jeremiah did not get married and recently at a conference the minister of the Word of God brought this out. My silly friend turned to me and said she was changing my name to Jeremiah. :D Too funny !
I am very content being single and am able to pray w/o ceasing pray, study the Word of God, meditate on it, build up the Body of Christ, share the gospel, and have FUN, FUN, FUN doing it. Of course, spiritual warfare ain't always fun. And while the JOY of the LORD is my Strength, I dare NOT remove the WHOLE Armour of GOD. I wear it 24/7 because I know all too well the wiles of the devil ! So I protect my thoughts at all times ( or try to anyway) by making sure the Helmet of Salvation is securely adjusted on my head. I make sure the Breastplate of Righteousness is protecting my heart from growing cold or hardened. I don't let go the Shield of Faith which protects me from the firey darts hurled at me with one hand and with the other I hold on to tightly to the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. My loins are girded with the TRUTH...and JESUS is the Way, the Truth and the LIFE. My feet are firmly grounded with the gospel of Peace and I am COVERED by the BLOOD of the LAMB.

You married friends....remember: CHRIST, the ANOINTED ONE, IN YOU is the HOPE of your GLORY...and your marriage, your children are your Glory. Don't let the devil make mincemeat out of you.

So the Lee ministry screwed up in teaching the married couples how to be strong in the Lord. Too bad soo many of us were blind sheep. Couples should have been sitting together in meetings. There should have been more meetings catered to families. A 'sing in' as we used to call them filled with Praise, Worship and JOY should have been incorporated every two weeks allowing children to participate with their parents and church friends, cousins, and even secular friends.

But that was then...this is now.

I pray the Lord will restore your health and heal your wounds as He promises in Jeremiah 30:17 I believe it says.

OUR Heavenly CREATOR, the Father of GLORY LOVES US !!! Gosh, so many people in the LC or former FORGOT that TRUTH. We were drawn to HIM because HE drew us to Himself. And once we surrendered our lives to the Lord, that low-down, no good THIEF threw a snare trying to steal, kill and destroy families and friendships in the name of religion.

But we know how the story ends. So be of good courage. We have a GREAT, AWESOME, WONDERFUL GREAT PHYSICIAN and what Satan meant for evil, GOD will turn for Good. He did it for Joseph. He did it for me.

Delight in Him as Psalm 37:4 tells us and He will grant you/us the desires of your heart.

And you married brothers: When your wife says: YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ME !!!! Tell them that when God created Adam, he did not watch God make Eve for he was asleep. :puttingtosleep: If he had been awake, he might have figured out what makes Eve tick. :D And because he didn't, you don't know how to figure out your wife. Give her lots of hugs and ask the LORD to help you make her laugh. Humor is such a healing property in our lives. SHOULD the LORD ever bring someone to me to marry, I have a tall order...and high on the list is my husband better be FUNNY. Not forced funny but naturally, gifted witty and funny. :hurray:

Your friend in Christ,
Carol

[countmeworthy]

Deuteronomy 5:16 tells us to honor our parents so that we may live long and so things will go well with us. No age limit is specified, which leads us to believe that as long as our parents are alive, we should honor them.

Hey P.S....Countess Worthy here. ;)

On Halloween, I buy candy for the tricker-treaters but along with the candy I put in their bags, I place colored index cards in their bags with scriptures on them.

I always use Ephesians 6:3 which is similar to Deuteronomy 5:16.

Honor your Mother and Father that it may be well with you.

It is followed by Ephesians 6:8: Knowing that whatever good thing you do, you will receive back from the Lord.
The second index card with scriptures I throw in their bags is:

Psalm 14:1 The FOOL has said in his heart "There is no God". But the Favor of God and His Love through the Lord Jesus Christ will open doors no person can close. Revelation 3:8

And

John 14:6: NO person, man, woman, child can go to the Father God but through Jesus for Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and there is No other Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12.
Ya know....you gotta make the best out of every opportunity. I pray for the Lord to anoint the scriptures and for Him to speak to the reader of the cards. You never know who will get saved, or return to the Lord. :)

[OBW]

In the middle of Priestly Scribes last post was a transcription of a question "from the audience." In the middle of the question came this comment:

And I know that, you know, even our children, the Lord has their own course for them. And they may not all make it into the church life.

Ron Kangas goes on to respond that "first is Christ and the church." In fact, he actually says "we are here seeking the Kingdom first. And first is Christ and the church." So in the LC theology according to RK, the Kingdom is "simply Christ and the church."

NOT

The Kingdom is the righteousness of God expressed and displayed. But Lee/RK would have us ignore righteousness and just focus on uber-spirituality by just talking about and being involved in "Christ and the church." I'm not sure that Christ is very involved in that endeavor. At least not the way that Lee/RK/BP/the BBs would like to make it be.

God's righteousness is expressed when we have good family relationships, good work relationships, righteous dealings with our customers, right living as we drive along the highway. His Kingdom comes when there are people living according the the restored position as representatives of God on the earth. Not just in religious meetings having a joyous time popping out of our seats to repeat our "portion" from HWMR or reading from the collected works of Nee and Lee.

Pushing your kids aside so you can get to more meetings is the opposite of righteous living.

But there is one more thing in that brother's statement that is very telling. He is now convinced that "they may not all make it into the church life" and this concerns him. What is he "church life"? Where is this described in the scripture? And what is this "make it" thing about? (John So came to Dallas back in the 70s and asked that very question. "What are you trying to make?" "Make what?") As few times as the word church, assembly or however you want to translate it is used in the NT, I am not aware of any that talk about a "church life." I can find Christ's life. I can find living your life in a manner that is worthy of the gospel. But no "church life."

I feel very sorry for the people who are bound by a need to "make it" when the "it" is something as meaningless as the "church life."

[tasteslikegold]

The Kingdom is the righteousness of God expressed and displayed. But Lee/RK would have us ignore righteousness and just focus on uber-spirituality by just talking about and being involved in "Christ and the church." I'm not sure that Christ is very involved in that endeavor. At least not the way that Lee/RK/BP/the BBs would like to make it be.

God's righteousness is expressed when we have good family relationships, good work relationships, righteous dealings with our customers, right living as we drive along the highway. His Kingdom comes when there are people living according the the restored position as representatives of God on the earth. Not just in religious meetings having a joyous time popping out of our seats to repeat our "portion" from HWMR or reading from the collected works of Nee and Lee.

I cannot agree with your definition of righteousness nor your characterization of LC meetings. A proper definition of righteousness is "absolute uprightness before God." In terms of the period of the law from Moses until Christ it was related to the keeping of the law. In terms of the church-age, from Christ onward, it is a matter of faith, of believing into Christ (Rom. 4:3; 1:17; 3:22, etc.). Any so-called "righteous behavior" in and of ourselves - even as Christians - is completely insufficient to properly display the kingdom of God. We have to be related to Christ and the church has to be related to Christ. Without regular involvement with Christ - our personal interactions with Him - and without our regular interactions with the Body of Christ, the church, we cannot display the righteousness of God. Not in any way, shape or form. I don't care how "good" you are to your family, friends, co-workers or customers.

As far as your comment regarding the LC meetings is concerned, displaying God's righteousness is not even that. Nor, for that matter is it standing in a Christian "worship meeting" while a band plays a rock version of "Oh My Soul" with your arms up in the air like some kind of spiritual satellite dish. :eek2:

Pushing your kids aside so you can get to more meetings is the opposite of righteous living.

Which is exactly why we bring our children to the meeting.

But there is one more thing in that brother's statement that is very telling. He is now convinced that "they may not all make it into the church life" and this concerns him. What is he "church life"? Where is this described in the scripture? And what is this "make it" thing about? (John So came to Dallas back in the 70s and asked that very question. "What are you trying to make?" "Make what?") As few times as the word church, assembly or however you want to translate it is used in the NT, I am not aware of any that talk about a "church life." I can find Christ's life. I can find living your life in a manner that is worthy of the gospel. But no "church life."

I feel very sorry for the people who are bound by a need to "make it" when the "it" is something as meaningless as the "church life."

Really? I think that you understand very well what "church life" means. It's simply a term which means "My life related to the church." Do you accept Christendom's terms like "church service" or "Sunday school"? You should know what these terms means pretty well without criticizing them, right? What about when someone talks about "my ministry" or when someone says "going to church." Do you criticize them by saying, "The Bible never uses the terms 'my ministry' and it never says 'going to church'"? Do you label these terms meaningless as well?

Doubtful.

[PriestlyScribe]

Why should we "get over" the terminology if it happens to work for us?

The reason you should get over the "terminology" addiction is because IT IS NOT WORKING, and Witness Lee already knew that this would be the outcome, way back in 1983.

Below is the prophesy that he spoke to all of the Elders back then. And there is no denying that it has come to pass exactly as WL predicted!

''THE TWO PERILS (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/index.htm)''
Witness Lee's Emphatic and Prescient Warning to the Elders (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/index.htm)
"If we are not in the focus and if we do not experience what we preach to others, we face two perils. One, sooner or later there will be divisions. Two, if we don't practice the focal points, the saints have no way to practice them. The things we teach will eventually become doctrines in the Lord's recovery. There will be no reality. The recovery will be just empty. Then in the sphere of the so-called recovery there will be divisions and emptiness... The only thing that can keep the Lord's recovery full of reality is to practice what we now preach and teach and to help the saints in every locality to practice the same thing." "If we expect an increase either by evangelism or by the spreading of the doctrines we teach, we shall surely face these two perils... To care for the spread of our work is dangerous. It will produce different works to build up different ministries. Then division will result. We can foresee this. Furthermore, if we don't pay full attention to practice these things in our daily life and to bring all the saints in our local church into these practices in their daily life, the churches will be empty. http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/VideoCam.gifI am fearful and trembling of these two perils (http://www.blendedbody.com/WitnessLee/): the peril of different works being produced to cause division and the peril of emptiness. We will have the ground of one church, one city, and we will have the scriptural teachings, yet there will be no real experience of Christ in our daily life... And if we don't practice the focal things experientially, spontaneously we will fall into the snare of emptiness. We may boast that our teachings are scriptural, that we don't have forms, rituals, or organization. It may be true that we don't have these things, but we don't have the reality either. What we have is just emptiness (http://www.neve-family.com/books/sparks/battle/01.html). This is quite serious, brothers. We have to be alerted to stay in the central lane, practicing all the focal things ourselves daily. We must also be burdened to help the saints in our locality practice these things, to grow in life that they might be genuinely and practically built up in the Trinity."
( Practical Talks to the Elders (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/CollagePTEall9.jpg) #4, Pages 62-63, by Witness Lee, on March 14, 1983, in Anaheim CA - Living Stream Ministry)

Recommended Remedial Materials - by Arthur Katz (http://artkatzministries.org/) :

''What If'' (Are We Deceived?) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gifMessage (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/What_if_by_Art_Katz_MsgOnly_E032.mp3) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/pdf-icon.gifRelated FTTA Outline (http://www.lsmwebcast.com/archives/F04FTT16.pdf) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/Notepad.gifHYMN 426 (http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0426.html)

P.S.

[tasteslikegold]

Again, you are correct. These same two points motivated me to expose Ron Kangas' false teaching regarding the foundational Priorities for Parents in the local churches. This angers the Lord Jesus Christ greatly and it must be brought out into the light and dealt with.

A teaching that is "false" can be quantified. Please cite by way of your apparent vast collection of recordings the instance where Ron Kangas contradicted or taught falsely regarding the "foundational priorities for parents in the local churches." Also, I would like to hear or receive textual transcription of messages in which Witness Le specifically addressed what the "foundational priorities for parents in the local churches" are. PLease outline them for me here.

Thank you.

[tasteslikegold]

The reason you should get over the "terminology" addiction is because IT IS NOT WORKING, and Witness Lee already knew that this would be the outcome, way back in 1983.

Below is the prophesy that he spoke to all of the Elders back then. And there is no denying that it has come to pass exactly as WL predicted!

''THE TWO PERILS (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/index.htm)''
Witness Lee's Emphatic and Prescient Warning to the Elders (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/index.htm)
"If we are not in the focus and if we do not experience what we preach to others, we face two perils. One, sooner or later there will be divisions. Two, if we don't practice the focal points, the saints have no way to practice them. The things we teach will eventually become doctrines in the Lord's recovery. There will be no reality. The recovery will be just empty. Then in the sphere of the so-called recovery there will be divisions and emptiness... The only thing that can keep the Lord's recovery full of reality is to practice what we now preach and teach and to help the saints in every locality to practice the same thing." "If we expect an increase either by evangelism or by the spreading of the doctrines we teach, we shall surely face these two perils... To care for the spread of our work is dangerous. It will produce different works to build up different ministries. Then division will result. We can foresee this. Furthermore, if we don't pay full attention to practice these things in our daily life and to bring all the saints in our local church into these practices in their daily life, the churches will be empty. http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/VideoCam.gifI am fearful and trembling of these two perils (http://www.blendedbody.com/WitnessLee/): the peril of different works being produced to cause division and the peril of emptiness. We will have the ground of one church, one city, and we will have the scriptural teachings, yet there will be no real experience of Christ in our daily life... And if we don't practice the focal things experientially, spontaneously we will fall into the snare of emptiness. We may boast that our teachings are scriptural, that we don't have forms, rituals, or organization. It may be true that we don't have these things, but we don't have the reality either. What we have is just emptiness (http://www.neve-family.com/books/sparks/battle/01.html). This is quite serious, brothers. We have to be alerted to stay in the central lane, practicing all the focal things ourselves daily. We must also be burdened to help the saints in our locality practice these things, to grow in life that they might be genuinely and practically built up in the Trinity."
( Practical Talks to the Elders (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/CollagePTEall9.jpg) #4, Pages 62-63, by Witness Lee, on March 14, 1983, in Anaheim CA - Living Stream Ministry)

Recommended Remedial Materials - by Arthur Katz (http://artkatzministries.org/) :

''What If'' (Are We Deceived?) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gifMessage (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/What_if_by_Art_Katz_MsgOnly_E032.mp3) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/pdf-icon.gifRelated FTTA Outline (http://www.lsmwebcast.com/archives/F04FTT16.pdf) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/Notepad.gifHYMN 426 (http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0426.html)

P.S.


This has nothing to do with terminology in the least. This has to do with having the same living as that which we preach.

Much different that what OBW mentioned.


Try again.

[PriestlyScribe]

This has nothing to do with terminology in the least. This has to do with having the same living as that which we preach.

Much different that what OBW mentioned.


Try again.

Ok, then try listening to the first 10min of this message - it examines false reliance upon spiritual terminology in great detail:

''What If'' (Are We Deceived?) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gifMessage (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/What_if_by_Art_Katz_MsgOnly_E032.mp3) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/pdf-icon.gifRelated FTTA Outline (http://www.lsmwebcast.com/archives/F04FTT16.pdf) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/Notepad.gifHYMN 426 (http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0426.html)

P.S.

[tasteslikegold]

Ok, then try listening to the first 10min of this message - it examines false reliance upon spiritual terminology in great detail:

''What If'' (Are We Deceived?) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gifMessage (http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_John21/What_if_by_Art_Katz_MsgOnly_E032.mp3) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/pdf-icon.gifRelated FTTA Outline (http://www.lsmwebcast.com/archives/F04FTT16.pdf) http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/Notepad.gifHYMN 426 (http://www.witness-lee-hymns.org/hymns/H0426.html)

P.S.

What in the world does Art Katz have to do with the Lord's Recovery? You are relating two entirely different messages here.

Sorry, I just don't "get" how your prior post, in which you cite a so-called "prophesy" by Witness Lee, is related to the audio of Art Katz, and the outline you linked, which is not at all related to Katz's message.

Arthur Katz was not at any time connected with the Lord's Recovery. Furthermore, what is perhaps the most damaging of Katz was his rhetorical criticism of Christianity in general (In fact, often his messages were in tone much harsher than Witness Lee's), and more startling, his apparent avocation of "replacement theology." Ironic, since he was raised a Jew.

[PriestlyScribe]

What in the world does Art Katz have to do with the Lord's Recovery? You are relating two entirely different messages here.

Ok, you are right - I should have instead asked you to take a closer look at the Witness Lee Prophesy first, then, maybe go on and listen to what the Lord spoke through Katz.

So, please, instead, watch this short video [3min] of Witness Lee [Nov 1996] in which he focuses on the worsening problem of Terminology Addiction - even an intolerable addiction to his very own "High Peak Truths".

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gif http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/VideoCam.gifI am fearful and trembling of these two perils (http://www.blendedbody.com/WitnessLee/): the peril of different works being produced to cause division and the peril of emptiness.

BTW, In some ways [purity of leaders raised up] I think Art Katz did a much better job of implementing the ministry of Watchman Nee than Lee ever did.

P.S.

[OBW]

I will respond to tasteslikegold’s post #1334 in this series in multiple posts to shorten each one. Before I start, since I am doing the drafting off-line, I am somewhat crippled in format in that the imbedded portions of TLG’s post that had bolding or other special formatting are typically lost when copying back into the forum. I will try to find and reset each part to its original, but make no promises that I will be consistent or successful at all.

Well first, I didn't create a straw man from your argument. You did, however, write that "God's righteousness is expressed when we have good family relationships, good work relationships, righteous dealings with our customers, right living as we drive along the highway. You would agree that simply having "good relationships" and "right living" outside the influence of Christ is not sufficient in displaying the kingdom, right? To me saying, "good relationships" is the same as saying "crank it out on our own." The best we have is "goodness" in ourselves.With respect to “cranking it out on our own” I agree that this is not the Kingdom. While you may not have intended to make a strawman argument, it is your presumption that I meant something that I did not say that lead to your error. While we will get to terminology in another post, you would seem to have transferred “goodness” from something that exudes from God and can only be truly achieved through Him into something human and fallen. And even if “goodness” is only used as an impartial adjective to describe the actual actions, it makes no automatic presumption about how those actions came to be. That presumption was entirely on your part. Given the rest of my context, it is hard to claim that I meant to simply grind it out.

There is your strawman, whether you intended it or not.

Read what I write, not what the LC lexicon says I mean by it.

[tasteslikegold]

Ok, you are right - I should have instead asked you to take a closer look at the Witness Lee Prophesy first, then, maybe go on and listen to what the Lord spoke through Katz.

So, please, instead, watch this short video [3min] of Witness Lee [Nov 1996] in which he focuses on the worsening problem of Terminology Addiction - even an intolerable addiction to his very own "High Peak Truths".

http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/speaker-hq.gif http://www.blendedbody.com/_cl/_audio/_2ndgen/Inline_HTML_Icons/VideoCam.gifI am fearful and trembling of these two perils (http://www.blendedbody.com/WitnessLee/): the peril of different works being produced to cause division and the peril of emptiness.

BTW, In some ways [purity of leaders raised up] I think Art Katz did a much better job of implementing the ministry of Watchman Nee than Lee ever did.

P.S.
What?

Art Katz had nothing at all to do with Watchman Nee.

[OBW]

Your posts drip with cynicism. I'm glad you acknowledge that as something purposeful on your part. My point was that I don't view LC meetings as any less relevant or meaningful to its participants as other Christian meetings who conduct their services in different ways, and neither should you, regardless of your obvious resentments. And no, I don't believe that any person, myself included, feels that the LC's way of conducting "service" is any more superior than other congregations.All those words need to be put up against the thing I was responding to:
As far as your comment regarding the LC meetings is concerned, displaying God's righteousness is not even that. Nor, for that matter is it standing in a Christian "worship meeting" while a band plays a rock version of "Oh My Soul" with your arms up in the air like some kind of spiritual satellite dish.That does not suggest considering them equally relevant, but “less relevant.” It definitely suggests a sense that the LS’s way of conducting "service" is more superior than some other congregations. I don’t like the way everyone does it. (And I don’t mean that in a don’t like them over it, just not the ways.) But unless there is something inherently wrong with it, I cannot mock it.

It is the air of superiority in the LC ways, lingo, and doctrines that brings out my cynicism. It is not the people. You acknowledge that I was cynical, as had I before that. But my cynicism was aimed at your veiled mocking of the manner of some Christian worship services. That one sentence stands in contrast to your more recent statement that you don’t feel that “the LC's way of conducting ‘service’ is any more superior than other congregations.” I could say something about iron skillets and copper kettles, but I don’t really think that you are willfully evil in this or something like that. We all are prone to speak quickly in favor of our own way and then later wonder whether others noted that how we said it really wasn’t that nice. I know I do. You will probably catch me at it on occasion. Taking the responses offline like I am doing today helps a lot. I end out taking a little more time, especially since I have to do some actual work during the same period.

The biggest problem with the whole LC “way” is that they do think their way is better, even garnering a special blessing from God. And they are so ingrained with that attitude that even otherwise kind people make these horribly condescending statements about the poor condition of all the other Christians “out there” doing their “satellite dish” thing.

All this from the group that makes the most noise about oneness and being “general” about things that are not the core of the faith. Based on that, no matter what the written doctrinal stances are, there is ample evidence that even whether or not a rock band is used is considered a core of the faith to the LC. How about little plastic cups of grape juice and pre-formed wafers for communion? Or slightly larger, almost Styrofoam wafers that get dipped in a bowl of wine or grape juice? Or coming down to the front and having someone put the wafer on your tongue the offer you the cup? (We'll stay out of the whole transubstantiation thing as I don't think either of us consider it orthodox.) Or having the unbroken and unleavened bread made out of whole-wheat flour? I don’t dislike the LC’s way to “do” the Lord’s Table. Well, except for the talk about the specialness of their table and the more ritualistic insistence on the formula of songs and flow than many others observe. The point is to remember. It is not to get the formula right. And without those two distasteful things, an LC Table is really quite good.

[Paul Cox]

Notwithstanding your citation of Katz's recommendation of Nee's books, the above comment by Priestly Scribe appeared to say that Katz implemented the ministry of Watchman Nee better than Witness Lee. Yet Katz was not a constituent of Nee's ministry. Other than perhaps reading a few of his books and picking up on the major conceptual tenets of his theology, it's doubtful that he "implemented" Nee's ministry in any full way. Not any better than a man who served both under and alongside Nee for years. Perhaps, at best, Katz advocated the same concepts and implemented a few of them within the scope of his own ministry, but that's hardly implementing the whole of the ministry of Nee as seemed to have been implied.

Mike, let me know when your finished so I can respond. Thus-far it's quite a lot to address point-by-point.

Lee served under and along side Watchman Nee, so that gives him credibility? John Ingalls served under and along side Witness Lee for over two decades. Where is he today? The LSM has stricken his name from every thing he worked on. Even the hymn book you sing from today is a work of cooperation between Witness Lee and John Ingalls. Yet, he is persona non Grata in the Local Church.

Witness Lee was not the only one who worked under and along side Watchman Nee. Neither was he the only one sent out. So far as Lee being the only one sent out to carry on the work? Well, we just have Witness Lee's word on that.

One thing is for sure. The Local Church as we see it today is in total violation of many of the principles laid out by Watchman Nee himself.

Roger

[OBW]

Notwithstanding your citation of Katz's recommendation of Nee's books, the above comment by Priestly Scribe appeared to say that Katz implemented the ministry of Watchman Nee better than Witness Lee. Yet Katz was not a constituent of Nee's ministry.And your point is?? How is it that someone must actually be part of another's ministry to implement the core of that ministry? It is all in writing. And it is easy to find whether Lee or Katz are following Nee the best. I have no idea about Katz, whoever he is. But the starting premise that he must have been part of Nee's ministry to do anything of value with it is purely bogus.

And I will finish later today. Also, you can begin to respond to what I posted. I realize that each of them got longer than I expected, but I tried to keep the topics together. Waiting may not be the better way.

[OBW]

I began the section on terminology with the following:

You want to talk about terminology. Yes. That was a favorite of Lee's. Have higher terminology. Make sure that you don't say "go to church." Salt and pepper your religious talk with higher terminology. Make the terminology stand out.To which you respond:Bull. If anything Lee pointed out the need to keep from being religious in our terminology. We don't "go to church" we are the church. We don't "attend service" we are in His service, etc. Nee pointed out the same things. And even throughout church history we find a constant churning of definitions and re-definitions as culture and various movements in church history affected the language. So I don't buy that Lee believed LC terminology to be any better in terms of what we use and what others use. Certainly he believed that the terminology was more accurate and less religious in its origins, but what exactly is wrong with that? If certain terminology is overly religious - or perceived to be such - or if certain terminology is not as accurate as it could be, why not strive to find something that works and is more accurate; even using language that, by its nature, stimulates deeper fellowship?You seem to go back and forth about what is important or unimportant about terminology. It is clear from the beginning that using terminology that is “religious” or “overly religious” is a problem to you, Lee, and the LC in general. Yes, terminology may change as culture changes. But unless it is actually intended to say something that is incorrect, then what is the problem with any of it, from the oldest to the newest? Or from the most secular to the most religious?

It is true that people often think of “going to church.” It happens to all Christians, even those in the LC. But since you don’t use that term at all, you think that the thought inside is eliminated. But at the same time, people who are totally engaged in their worship and know that they are the church and that the meeting is just a meeting of the church still use the term. So what? Curse them? I am not saying that you are cursing them, but the LC takes pride in its better terminology. “We are the church. We don’t ‘go to church’.”

There is nothing wrong with being more accurate. But if there is a common term that is accepted by everyone in Christianity as saying “X” why create a different term for it and look down the nose at those who use the common term? You may not, but many do. And the way Lee and the primary coworkers spoke of these things enforced those notions. And your own words make it clear that you think the terminology is important.

Let’s look back at the statements that gave rise to my comments on terminology:
Really? I think that you understand very well what "church life" means. It's simply a term which means "My life related to the church." Do you accept Christendom's terms like "church service" or "Sunday school"? You should know what these terms means pretty well without criticizing them, right? What about when someone talks about "my ministry" or when someone says "going to church." Do you criticize them by saying, "The Bible never uses the terms 'my ministry' and it never says 'going to church'"? Do you label these terms meaningless as well?Here you equate the LC use of the term “church life” to the common use of the terms “my ministry” and “going to church.” But there is a big difference. For the LC, the “church life” is a core component of your spiritual existence. It is not well defined. But everything that is involved in the corporate aspects of the group is thrown in. It is not a “simply.” It is central.

And rewrite the “Doxology” so that you sing “Holy Spirit” rather than “Holy Ghost.” (You may not have experienced this, but it was a regular thing in the Dallas area.) Don’t pray to God in Heaven; pray to God in your spirit. Don’t set your mind on the Spirit; instead turn to your spirit.

If the reality of “turn to your spirit” was simply parallel with “set your mind on the spirit” that would be fine. But it would be better if when talking with the majority of Christians that you use the terminology they understand rather than using your own and wondering why they are giving you blank stares.

And “religion.” There is an altered term. No, Lee did not create an entirely new definition. Instead he took one definition of many and said that was the definition that applied in all cases. And so everything not LC became “religious” in a negative sense. And every time someone uses the term religion or religious in a positive way, it is taken as evidence of degradation because religion is only negative.

As for "Lord's Table, Lord's Supper," etc. you know that we use "Lord's Table," and that the term has been around for hundreds of years. Read Chapter 9 of Frank and George Barana's "Pagan Christianity" with regard to the term "Lord's Supper."Did I suggest a problem with the use of “Lord’s Table”? I surely did not suggest that it was original with the LC. I was suggesting that taking the position that one is superior to another or that the use of the inferior term indicates an inferior Christian is a problem. That the “Lord’s Table” is understood by most Christians, even if not the most commonly used term, makes this one less of an issue with regard to misunderstanding. It is only an issue if the fact of the different terminology creates a sense of superiority.

Yes, if the terminology works for you, that is fine. But when you run up against people who do not use the same terminology and you make no attempt to alter to more common terms, or deem them deficient because of that terminology that there is a problem. And that leads backwards (a little) to the point on the “trumpet.”

Actually the "trumpet thing" was more about speaking different dialects absent interpretation. It wasn't about using the same language in different ways. If someone says "Bible study" and I understand it by my terminology to mean "home meeting," then what's it to anyone else? Or if I say "home meeting" and someone else understands it to mean, "Bible study" by their terminology where's the harm? In fact there is currently a growing movement within non-denominational congregations to have "home meetings." Hmmm....sounds a bit familiar to me.I hope that by that last sentence you don’t think that it is the overflowing of LC ways into mainstream Christianity. Your group is too small and mostly unseen to be a source of such a significant thing. But I digress.

The “trumpet thing” was about confusion and the inability of people to follow and understand what was being said and/or happening. Whether it is about entirely different languages or merely specialized jargon that is not understood by the populace, the effect is the same. So in a modern context, you cannot remove the “unclear sounding of the trumpet” from the effects of specialized terminology that is not commonly understood. While it might be arguably OK to stick to you terminology while within a strictly LC context, once you move into conversation in the larger Christian context, to insist on using your terminology is to sound an uncertain trumpet. Those blank stares should tell you that you have not said to your “audience” what you thought you did.

Right now, I could dazzle you with a bunch of international tax terminology that even newer practitioners in the field do not completely understand. If there were some who dealt in State taxes, they might even think they understand the lingo because there are some common terms. But many of them have different meanings for two areas presumed to be within the same context. But if I were to use my tax jargon and when your eyes glaze over, or you start talking back to me in a manner that makes it clear that you did not understand me, I start mocking you for your lack of understanding, then there is a problem. And it is not with you. It would be with me for presuming that just because I know this term in a particular way that everyone else should also.

So if I say “Holy Communion” does something inside you say “religious”? Even if you mentally assent to the notion that there is nothing wrong with the term, is there still something deeper — some kind of sense that you can’t quite put into words — that sinks? And you (well maybe not you personally) consider that sinking feeling to be a sense in your spirit? Do you really think that God is that concerned about the terminology? Isn’t that a little like washing the outside of the cup?

[OBW]

On this little side exchange, I note that the whole idea that Nee had a ministry that Lee could implement but Katz could not almost begs for the existence of "my ministry" which you spoke somewhat against in the section on terminology. If it is truly God's ministry, then there is not the consideration that a person's ministry is implemented, but that a subset of the whole of God's ministry is implemented. The person is not important.

In any case, there is a lot on the table. My part initially sprang from observing quotes from an unknown brother (at least unknown to me) and Ron Kangas, along with some of the commentary surrounding it, then was added to by reference to your response to me. It covers a lot of topics. It probably would be better to focus on one and deal with it before moving to another. That will place the base posts further and further from the forefront over time, but that is not necessarily a problem.

Alternately, we could take this to a new thread and repost the exchange to date. That would at least put the core at the start of the thread.

And if you look further back in this thread (and I wish you wouldn't) you will note that I consider that we are currently tacking onto a black hole topic that turned into a fiasco for all sides of the discussion. I would prefer that the ugly thing that this thread became not be continually brought to the top.

I would prefer a new thread. We can start it with a copy of the post by PriestlyScribe that I referred to and that got this ball rolling. I think that I could copy them all in, and while it would be my name and avatar to the left, they could be headed with the correct poster's name (and I would turn off my signature so that it remains as much like the original as possible). Or we could create the thread with an intro, and see if UntoHim could copy the desired posts over to the new thread. (I think there is a way that moderators can do that. Or maybe he can even tell one of both of us how to do it ourselves.)

Or we can continue right here. Your call.

I am ready.

[Unregistered]

I know this thread is very old but I am, essentially, a product of the LCS factor. I am child raised in the Lord's Recovery movement, but I am 22 now with a fully developed mind of reason. I was born in 1988 and accepted Christianity at a young age going to children's meetings. My family is fully enveloped by everything about the Local Church/Recovery/Whatever the hell..

I remember going to young peoples conferences, out of state conferences, summer school of truth; it was fun, but I think essentially meaningless for spiritual growth. In fact all of these events and conferences enforced social rule over my life as a young person growing up by my parents. I was not allowed some freedoms until I reached a certain age, I couldnt hangout with certain people because of what they believed in, my mom burned my dragon badge that I earned in Tae Kwon Do because the of the demon bullcrap which Christians profess about in general. I realized growing up that this is all nonsense, the whole calling on the lord concept was great because I never felt a thing. No happiness, no peace; almost always social anxiety and distress.

My whole take on the whole movement is that it can ruin children, especially if they grow up with differing view points. I fully believe that these kids are being brainwashed and are unable to grow up in a safe and secular environment and are unable to choose what they want to believe, such was my path. And If they did want to believe in anything else, their parents would essentially disown them. This movement needs to change their ways and perceptions quickly because this is the next big christian fundamentalist movement in America. Btw, I am essentially an apathiest, I support gay rights, I support science and critical thinking, and I having a loving girlfriend of four years.

[aron]

I am essentially an apathiest, I support gay rights, I support science and critical thinking, and I having a loving girlfriend of four years.

I am not sure what an "apathiest" is. Apathetic means "I don't care", and atheist means "I don't believe". Not sure what apathiest means.

Other than that, I get where you are coming from. Critical thinking is a good skill to work on. I waited a looong time to get my brain in gear. For years it was "Do what the guy next to you is doing". But eventually I realized that I am responsible for my own behaviors. And my behaviors are affected by my thinking, by the stories I tell myself to make sense of the world. So I am responsible for my own thinking.

So rock on, my friend. Keep thinking critically, and surround yourself with critical thinkers who will question your premises and de-construct your own thought trails, and preserve you from circular reasoning. The history of humankind is replete with "groupthink", the collective, unquestioned circular reasoning which eventually ends up circling the toilet bowl. Better to take the lonely path. Who knows? You may end up meeting God out there. Peace.

[aron]

If you don't know what I mean by circular reasoning, I mean it like this:

Say you want to be the Apostle of the Age. The man of the hour. God's oracle on planet earth.

So first you promulgate the doctrine. Get all the evidence to support your thesis, and pooh-pooh anything which points contrary. Then, once you have established your premise, lo and behold it just happens to be you!! You are the Apostle of the age! Wow! Neat, huh?

So the apostle of the age has revealed a teaching, a doctrine which establishes the apostle of the age. And who can argue against the apostle of the age? He is clearly God's mouthpiece today.

[Ohio]

I remember going to young peoples conferences, out of state conferences, summer school of truth; it was fun, but I think essentially meaningless for spiritual growth. In fact all of these events and conferences enforced social rule over my life as a young person growing up by my parents. It seems you have decided that the Christian life, inside or outside the LC, is not for you. I just wonder then how you would know what is "meaningful for spiritual growth?"


I was not allowed some freedoms until I reached a certain age, I couldnt hangout with certain people because of what they believed in, my mom burned my dragon badge that I earned in Tae Kwon Do because the of the demon bullcrap which Christians profess about in general. All good parents will limit freedoms for their children until they reach a certain age or maturity. My parents sure did that with me. How is that bad? Wasn't it great that your folks paid for Tae Kwon Do? Mine could not afford such luxuries. Perhaps your mom knows and wants what's best for you, so she encouraged sports but discouraged the "demon bullcrap." How much did you really suffer my missing out on demons?

I realized growing up that this is all nonsense, the whole calling on the lord concept was great because I never felt a thing. No happiness, no peace; almost always social anxiety and distress.To me, calling on the name of the Lord is intensely personal. It may be taught in public, but public practice rarely produces anything positive. The Lord likened it to "vain babbling," and warned us against it. Not sure what "social anxiety and distress" you were forced to endure, but that is indeed unfortunate. All to many times young people were forced to perform in public, and this has spoiled many a young heart.

My whole take on the whole movement is that it can ruin children, especially if they grow up with differing view points. I fully believe that these kids are being brainwashed and are unable to grow up in a safe and secular environment and are unable to choose what they want to believe, such was my path. You are right, many young people have been hurt.

And If they did want to believe in anything else, their parents would essentially disown them. This movement needs to change their ways and perceptions quickly because this is the next big christian fundamentalist movement in America. This is perhaps the saddest thing a parent can do. Parents should have unconditional love for every one of their children.

Btw, what did you mean that this is the "next big christian fundamentalist movement in America?"

[Terry]

Not sure what "social anxiety and distress" you were forced to endure, but that is indeed unfortunate. All to many times young people were forced to perform in public, and this has spoiled many a young heart.

Yes, what exactly is "social anxiety and distress"? I can only speak from my experiences. Being raised in a Christian family and eventually becoming a Christian, lifesyles and events that take place in the world is in contradiction to the Christian life. You could try to fit in, but you won't. Then you have the life as seen in the "Recovery". You may be a Christian in the local churches, but not be absolute for the ministry. You may be a Christian in the local churches who has no desire for the Full Time training. You could try to be just a Christian in the local churches, but if you're not absolute for the ministry, there's an inward realization you just don't fit in. This is where social anxiety comes in. You're just a Christian who doesn't fit in. The distress comes in when your life dreams may be for a career and hopefully sooner than later; marriage and family. However these dreams to not coincide with the pressures and expectation in the local churches to go to college after high school and after college the full time training and after the full time training serving on a college campus somewhere. The distress is being expected to set aside your individual dreams for the collective's best interest.

[John]

I know this thread is very old but I am, essentially, a product of the LCS factor. I am child raised in the Lord's Recovery movement, but I am 22 now with a fully developed mind of reason. I was born in 1988 and accepted Christianity at a young age going to children's meetings. My family is fully enveloped by everything about the Local Church/Recovery/Whatever the hell..

I remember going to young peoples conferences, out of state conferences, summer school of truth; it was fun, but I think essentially meaningless for spiritual growth. In fact all of these events and conferences enforced social rule over my life as a young person growing up by my parents. I was not allowed some freedoms until I reached a certain age, I couldnt hangout with certain people because of what they believed in, my mom burned my dragon badge that I earned in Tae Kwon Do because the of the demon bullcrap which Christians profess about in general. I realized growing up that this is all nonsense, the whole calling on the lord concept was great because I never felt a thing. No happiness, no peace; almost always social anxiety and distress.

My whole take on the whole movement is that it can ruin children, especially if they grow up with differing view points. I fully believe that these kids are being brainwashed and are unable to grow up in a safe and secular environment and are unable to choose what they want to believe, such was my path. And If they did want to believe in anything else, their parents would essentially disown them. This movement needs to change their ways and perceptions quickly because this is the next big christian fundamentalist movement in America. Btw, I am essentially an apathiest, I support gay rights, I support science and critical thinking, and I having a loving girlfriend of four years.

Dear Guest,

I am glad that you posted, but I am so sorry to hear about your mistreatment in the Local Church. Although I did not grow up in the Local Church, I did begin there at just about your current age. At first, I was very excited about the Lord and really enjoyed all the things that went on in the Church. As time went on, as we were being encouraged to give our all for the Church, I began to realize that things were not so good. As I got older and had two sons, this meant that they didn’t get the nurturing that they deserved from Christian parents. It is very unfortunate that parents with good intentions end up sacrificing their children for a Christian movement, when that is not what should have happened.

Eventually, I realized the error of my ways and turned away from the Local Church and all of its activities. I apologized to both of my sons for neglecting them and attempted to make up for some of the lost time. Maybe one day, one or both of your parents will be able to realize that they didn’t do right by you. Surely you are a gift from God who was given to them and are worth more than they could ever imagine. It was not right for the Church to rob you of your parents, and I’m sorry that that happened to you.

It has taken me a long time to admit as an adult, who chose the way of the Local Church, that it robbed me of much of my faith. God had only my best interests at heart and was waiting for me to lean on Him as my true Father, but I ended up leaning on Witness Lee and his leaders for direction. I finally realized that the Church group that I had given my life to had gone down the road of deceitfulness, dishonesty, and corruption and that I had lost my trust in God. It has been a long road coming back to my faith in Him alone.

I encourage you to pray to the Lord Himself in a real way for your own needs rather than to try to implement any techniques you learned in the Local Church. He is real, and He will make Himself real to you. It is a shame that your parents failed you and that the Church failed you—that ought not to have happened—but know that the Lord will not fail you. Do not pay much attention to what you were taught in the Local Church; read the Bible for yourself and talk to Him, and you will find His way for you.

Over time, I do trust that He will help you pick up the pieces of your life and find your way with Him. Looking on the bright side, consider that you have already seen one of the most extreme forms of Christianity, and you have that under your belt as a good lesson of what not to do.

Your heavenly Father loves you even when those on the earth who are supposed to love you do not do so properly. There is faith, hope, and love. I will pray for you that you experience all three in abundance.

In His love with you,

John

P.S.: A book I’ve enjoyed that you might find helpful is Jesus Loves Me by H. L. Roush, Sr.

[Unregistered]

I know this thread is very old but I am, essentially, a product of the LCS factor. I am child raised in the Lord's Recovery movement, but I am 22 now with a fully developed mind of reason...No happiness, no peace; almost always social anxiety and distress...My whole take on the whole movement is that it can ruin children, especially if they grow up with differing view points. I fully believe that these kids are being brainwashed and are unable to grow up in a safe and secular environment and are unable to choose what they want to believe, such was my path. And If they did want to believe in anything else, their parents would essentially disown them...

I agree with you! The LC is a tiny fringe sub culture with it's own set of mores, rituals, lifestyle, etc. and is an unhealthy place for children to grow up because it is essentially a "bubble" with no connection to real life outside of it. Many children who grew up in the LC during the 60s and 70s were not allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play sports, dance, celebrate Christmas, Easter or birthdays. Their parents would use their vacation time to go to conferences and trainings held by Mr. Lee. And parents publicly burned photos of their children at "burnings" in parks which were based on the burning of witchcraft books in Acts while their children stood by and watched. Many families were uprooted and children pulled out of schools mid-semester to migrate or consolidate for the "Lord's" move (read: Lee's move). With such turbulent childhoods is it any wonder many grew up, left the LC and found it difficult to function in society outside the crazy world they grew up in?

[Ohio]

I agree with you! The LC is a tiny fringe sub culture with it's own set of mores, rituals, lifestyle, etc. and is an unhealthy place for children to grow up because it is essentially a "bubble" with no connection to real life outside of it. Many children who grew up in the LC during the 60s and 70s were not allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play sports, dance, celebrate Christmas, Easter or birthdays. Their parents would use their vacation time to go to conferences and trainings held by Mr. Lee. And parents publicly burned photos of their children at "burnings" in parks which were based on the burning of witchcraft books in Acts while their children stood by and watched. Many families were uprooted and children pulled out of schools mid-semester to migrate or consolidate for the "Lord's" move (read: Lee's move). With such turbulent childhoods is it any wonder many grew up, left the LC and found it difficult to function in society outside the crazy world they grew up in?

It just drives me crazy thinking about how we could never celebrate Christmas with our families due to distant pagan origins, but we were allowed as a church to celebrate Chinese New Year in order to "preach the gospel."

Imagine that, living in America, and the only holiday we could safely celebrate was Chinese New Year in February.

[Terry]

I agree with you! The LC is a tiny fringe sub culture with it's own set of mores, rituals, lifestyle, etc. and is an unhealthy place for children to grow up because it is essentially a "bubble" with no connection to real life outside of it. Many children who grew up in the LC during the 60s and 70s were not allowed to watch TV, listen to the radio, play sports, dance, celebrate Christmas, Easter or birthdays. Their parents would use their vacation time to go to conferences and trainings held by Mr. Lee. Many families were uprooted and children pulled out of schools mid-semester to migrate or consolidate for the "Lord's" move (read: Lee's move). With such turbulent childhoods is it any wonder many grew up, left the LC and found it difficult to function in society outside the crazy world they grew up in?

I cannot fully agree with you. I do agree to a certain extent. I'm one who was a LC kid during the 70's (pre-school-6th grade). It's a healthy environment up through 6th grade. It was those years from 7th grade-12th grade directions are taken to segregate boys and girls without explanation. Meaning it was impressed upon me it was improper if not sinful for boys and girls to be talking. This impression was carried over into school to if I spoke to a classmate of the opposite gender, I felt as if I was sinning. I believe the segregation is proper to an extent, but the boys and girls need to interact socially to a degree. By no means would I advocate dating is okay.
As to what children growing up in the lc's are allowed to do, in part is defined by how much influence does the system wield over the parents or do the parents raise their children as they see fit. I've been in homes of church kids where there was no tv and in other homes where there were tv's and even an atari game system. As a churchkid in Anaheim, celebrating birthdays, Thanksgiving, etc was common. Maybe for households that were influenced by a Jehovah's Witness background, there would be an aversion to celebrations. I say this in part because the LC is a melting pot of many backgrounds (baptist, mennonite, JW, Catholic, etc).
Seeing how the local churches are today, it seems there's far more emphasis indoctrinating youth in the ministry at an earlier age than I experienced. My feeling as a parent the focus should be purely 100% on the Bible.

[Unregistered]

As a churchkid in Anaheim, celebrating birthdays, Thanksgiving, etc was common. Maybe for households that were influenced by a Jehovah's Witness background, there would be an aversion to celebrations. I say this in part because the LC is a melting pot of many backgrounds (baptist, mennonite, JW, Catholic, etc).

Maybe but I think the negative influence on families was due to several things directly related to the LC:

1. Very little attention paid to the importance of family: "Take care of the church and God will take care of your children." "Don't miss any meetings." "Use all your spare time for the church including your vacation time."

2. Hyper-spirituality

3. Witness Lee not being a role model of proper and effective parenting

4. The Two Babylons book that was promoted by Witness Lee and others

5. The mentality that everything was "worldly" except church activities, publications, friends, etc.

[Terry]

1. Very little attention paid to the importance of family: "Take care of the church and God will take care of your children." "Don't miss any meetings." "Use all your spare time for the church including your vacation time."

2. Hyper-spirituality

3. Witness Lee not being a role model of proper and effective parenting

4. The Two Babylons book that was promoted by Witness Lee and others

5. The mentality that everything was "worldly" except church activities, publications, friends, etc.
Here's my responses to 1-4.

1. It changes from household to household. Some may have sold out completely to "take care of the church and God will take care of your children". Some may have let it go through one ear and out the other.
I would ask if you take care of the church, don't miss any meetings, and use your vacation time for conferences and trainings, what happens when your family goes through hard times? Will the church be there?

My response would be those in the church who you're built up with may be supportive, but when the rubber meets the road, no one can be more counted on than family.
Being raised in the local churches, my family went through hard times. When my parents were separated, it wasn't the church that helped out my family financially. Meaning there are churches in my town where one my own homes it rents out to hardship cases from it's congregation. Another church has a fund set aside for help out hardship cases from it's congregation.
Just so I'm not being one-sided, when the rental my family lived in burned down, it was our locality that did step up in a way no other local church has that I had met with (as a child or adult).

2. Hyper-spirituality: I think that's just a facade; an outward form. Anyone can be "spiritual" without needing to be expressive about it. It's not what you say, but how you live.

3 & 4: I knew nothing about.

5. The concept impressed upon me as a child and adult was anything connected to the recovery was not worldly and everything not -connected to the recovery was worldly. For example there's no distinction between Christians meeting outside the local churches than non-believers who live to their own vices.

[Unregistered]

The concept impressed upon me as a child and adult was anything connected to the recovery was not worldly and everything not -connected to the recovery was worldly. For example there's no distinction between Christians meeting outside the local churches than non-believers who live to their own vices.

Simplistic World View of the LC

1. We are Jerusalem - specially chosen remnant and apple of God's eye
2. All other Christians are Babylon - corrupted, fallen, degraded
3. Non-Christians are Egypt - fleshly, pagan, heathen

What a convenient way to expound the OT. So neat and tidy. And when you get 5 or 6 or 7 groups claiming the one and only status of "Jerusalem" then the fun really begins!