The LCS Factor

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.

My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits. This dynamic coupled with the mainstream media bombardment gave license for their behavior.

My question is: what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?

[TLFisher]

My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits. This dynamic coupled with the mainstream media bombardment gave license for their behavior.

My question is: what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?

djohnson, you can't hold the hypocrisy of the leaders responsible for the actions of others. We all have free will. To set our mind on the spirit or on the flesh.
How would you know of the restrictions? How I view the past in retrospection is as this: you can't paint everything with a broad brush.
Some parents had the liberty to raise their children in a normal Christian home.
Some parents were more concerned what other brothers and sisters thought in how they raised their children.
Some children had a heart for the Lord at a young age.
Some children never seemed to.
Some brothers and sisters who minister to the young people did so with compassion while others might have ministered with the law.
As to the behaviors that you allude to djohnson, each person is different in personality, character, etc.
As for the leaders, I believe most young people and their parents were unaware of the hypocrisy among some leaders.
Do you think the local church system was such a reigning influence that it caused young people to snap? I disagree. I'd say it's a combination of whom young people kept as friends, not having supportive adults to go to with their troubles, unable to cope with peer pressure, etc.
Conversely take the opposite of each example and you'll have reasons why young people didn't snap and were kept preserved.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Terry I totally agree that there are multiple factors that influence a persons behavior and that no one factor can be pointed to as the one main influencing source. But I do not agree that the hypocrisy in the LCS among the leaders has no effect. If you are a young person doing your best to refrain from out of marriage sex and learned what was going on at LSM with Lee's son it might stumble you don't you think?

[TLFisher]

djohnson, here's what I believe, what misconduct there might have been was covered over. Historically treated as rumor. Suppose a young person did know or was affected by misconduct. It's not necessarily going to cause one to stumble. In Children's meetings through high school, you do learn the Bible. You do get to know God objectively and hopefully become regenerated and baptized at some point. So most young people who have a heart for the Lord would know such behavior is inappropriate and unfit for the Christian Church life. However what I think would stumble a young person is if their parents or a trusted brother or sister knew and gave a free pass.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Terry I beg to differ. Although they may know the behavior is unacceptable the fact that Lee's son gets a free pass and a cover up story to boot gives them license. If this were not true why does the bible so often exhort leaders not to stumble the flock?

[Ohio]

My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits. This dynamic coupled with the mainstream media bombardment gave license for their behavior.

My question is: what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?

The continued judgments on all of christianity damaged many. Pride creeps in so subtlely. Somehow the young people feel "OK," just because all other Christians are so bad. And for those who couldn't or wouldn't survive in the LC, all other avenues were closed. The teachings of LSM purposely prevented many young Christians from seeking fellowship with "outsiders." As bad as the world is, christianity was far worse, or so we thought. Often I heard "raw heathen" appraised higher than our "religious" brothers in christianity.

I remember one young people gathering with one of our young sisters dressed somewhat immodestly. She was silent until someone mentioned christianity, and then she ignited into a blast upon all christianity. How does those teachings help young people grow in Christ and love people?

[countmeworthy]

I remember one young people gathering with one of our young sisters dressed somewhat immodestly. She was silent until someone mentioned christianity, and then she ignited into a blast upon all christianity. How does those teachings help young people grow in Christ and love people?

That is sooo sad Ohio!!!

My .05 worth is this: Many of the troubles the young people are experiencing in the LC are no different than the children from Christian parents outside the LC.

One observation I have made is parents don't bless their children!!!!

Growing up, my mother & father blessed each of us kids every night before going to bed. It may have been a ritual, but nonetheless, a blessing. I have 2 brothers and though my brothers are not walking with the LORD..don't KNOW Him, we all have God's protection over us. We've all been through rough times but I see God's hand over each and everyone of us.

We also don't bless each other! We NEED to! If we can't find it in our hearts to 'love' one another especially those who have hurt us deeply, then the least we can do is ask the LORD to bless them. It goes against our natural grain but that is the experience of being crucified with Christ...dying to self.

To GOD be the GLORY! :hurray:

[aron]

The continued judgments on all of christianity damaged many. Pride creeps in so subtlely. Somehow the young people feel "OK," just because all other Christians are so bad. And for those who couldn't or wouldn't survive in the LC, all other avenues were closed. The teachings of LSM purposely prevented many young Christians from seeking fellowship with "outsiders." As bad as the world is, christianity was far worse, or so we thought.

Ohio, I think you caught the nub. The LC young person who drifts into the world is caught in a double bind. On the one hand the snares of the flesh have them, and on the other hand the subtle and largely unconscious teachings of elitism pounded into them from day one frustrate them in getting aid.

I remember leaving the LSM system and being in the world, trying to get help, trying to "fellowship"; it was hard because everytime someone quoted a verse I could quote six. I was simultaneously all smashed up and "holier than thou"...I was a real mess! God put some people in my path who didn't have as many verses as me, not so "systemic" in theology, but they had a LOT more reality, and I wasn't so stupid that I couldn't realize it. So I humbled myself, and began to listen. Eventually I realized my "airtight system" wasn't so airtight, and thus was a contributor in my mess and my inability to break free.

The "double bind" is a terrible, paralyzing situation. You can't go forward, can't go back. My suspicion is that many are trapped in this way.

[TLFisher]

I remember one young people gathering with one of our young sisters dressed somewhat immodestly. She was silent until someone mentioned christianity, and then she ignited into a blast upon all christianity. How does those teachings help young people grow in Christ and love people?

Hi Ohio. This was not my experience as a young person in the locla churches. I have no recollection of any of my peers being negative towards Christianity in this way.

Terry

[TLFisher]

The continued judgments on all of christianity damaged many. Pride creeps in so subtlely. Somehow the young people feel "OK," just because all other Christians are so bad. And for those who couldn't or wouldn't survive in the LC, all other avenues were closed. The teachings of LSM purposely prevented many young Christians from seeking fellowship with "outsiders."

Ohio, is it teachings or is it attitudes towards non-recovery Christianity? The attitude as a young brother was Christianity was superficial. The concept was if a Christian was serious about the Lord, they were in the local churches. With a non-recovery Christian, the concept was they only went to service as a matter of tradition and what teachings non-Recovery Christians recieved paled in comparison to the recovery.
There was a brother several years older than I. Once he went off to school at USC, I never saw him again. Years later after I had finished my college education and reentered the local churches in metro-Seattle, I wondered what happened to this brother. I'd never see him at the SoCal conferences. One year I was able to locate this brother. His testimony to me was in Christianity he found as many Christians serious for the Lord as he grew up knowing in the local churches.
So in this way labeling non-Recovery Christianity as "poor poor Christianity" in a way does create a barrier in fellowship.

Terry

[John]

I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.
...

My question is: what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?

You ask what role the Local Church System played in causing those who grew up in the LCs to fall into sin, especially sexual sin.

I think that one reason is this: Witness Lee was a tyrant. He only cared about himself. This caused him to create a church system that was devoid of love. He had almost no care for a proper Christian family, and almost never spoke on the topic. His messages emphasized being zealous for imbibing the processed God for growth into a corporate god. His actions behind the scenes also show that he was caught up with the love of money.

With this dark background in place, what would we expect to find in his offspring. His sons exemplify the lust for power, sex, and money. This is the way the leader of the movement walked, and his sons reflected that. Now, on to his spiritual sons. What do we see in many of the leaders. I don’t need to recount the examples. Both forums are replete with some of the sins of some of the leaders.

What happens to children who are not loved? What happens when children realize that their father and mother love Witness Lee and the Local Church more than them? Those children do not grow up properly. They become angry and fall into destructive behaviors. I’m guessing that many are doing those things hoping to find love. (For children looking for love, many do fall into sexual sins.)

In my previous post, I responded to the mention of the James Barber situation in The Church in Oklahoma City. Here was a man who looked to Witness Lee as a father figure. He ignored needs of his wife and sons while he pursued his love of himself by trying to impress Lee. When Lee abused him in trainings, he returned home to abuse his family. Now, the sons have difficult lives because of the lack of care by their father.

I also mentioned about another former Local Church leader who mistreated his children. Even though they are all out of the Local Churches now, the system is not out of the father. The children still struggle because of his ongoing mistreatment. For him, all is well because he is pursuing God. He still dwells in Lee’s realm of unreality, floating around in the clouds of high visions and so forth. Meanwhile, his own family is suffering on the earth.

There is a reason why Paul issued some of those practical commands in his epistles. It was so we could know if our spirituality was real. For example:

And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Eph 6:4)

For many Local Church fathers, the verse in Ephesians, if we bothered to pay any attention to it at all, didn’t have the word nurture in it. It only had admonition. And, for still others, who basically ignored their children, it didn’t even have the word admonition.

It may be like the “preacher’s kid” phenomenon, where the son of the preacher was the most rebellious one in the church. Well, in the LC, it was as if every child was a preacher’s kid. Most of the adults were 100 percent committed to the program, and it was a 24/7 program.

When I was in The Local Church, children were just as expendable as adults. I don’t recall fathers taking time out to spend with their children. We were too busy in the Lord’s army. We gave everything and everyone for the cause.

It was a sad and loveless place, a very abnormal place for children.

[countmeworthy]

John,

Your post rang of truth in it. So much sad and tragic truth. :( The LC had a lot of deception in it...'Love the brethren'...'Love the CHURCH'...'Love the 'ministry' of LEE. :rollingeyes2:

Lee's kids suffered from his own parental abuse...that includes Phillip. The sins Phillip committed may have been a way to show his disdain for the way his father raised him and his siblings. I'm not excusing his actions but this post made me wonder if Phillip and his siblings resented his father..who gave his life to this ministry..his own...placing his family on the back burner. Then to 'make up' for his lack of being a good husband and father, handed some of that 'reign' to Phillip..and making sure the kids & grandkids had plenty of $$ to live off.

Mr Lee had EIGHT children. Rarely did he mention his children or his wife/wives (to my knowledge). He was a widower who later married again. Frankly, he should have remained single!

LORD have mercy !!!

Carol

[Hope]

When we consider how the children of Christian parents get into trouble in their teen age and adult years, it is important to never forget that there is an enemy. Do not forget Adam and Eve. They had the very best care from the very creator God. They had a walk and talk with Him everyday. They were not neglected and the creator did not make any mistakes. Yet look what happened! Why? Well there is an enemy.

In my life both as a Christian and in my profession, I have interacted with many wonderful Christian parents who were literally heart broken regarding their child. They did a lot of introspection as to where they went wrong and what their mistakes were. They were in great pain and most of it was totally unnecessary. Almost always there were children who had turned out wonderfully. Yet, the parents could only consider that they were awful failures due to the one child who was having problems.

I have heard parents blame themselves for placing the child in public schools or in a religious school or because they did not do home school or for belonging to the wrong church or because they were too strict or too lenient etc.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

What is worth while is to never forget that the Lord can save the most fallen, most backslidden, most disappointing child. I love the passage in Romans chapter 4:17, “God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.” NASB When someone is dead, there is no more hope. My younger brother was killed at age 16 in a hunting accident by his best friend. My parents had many plans for him, their youngest child. But after his death, there was no more hope, no more plans. But we believe in God who gives life to the dead. I have seen many seemingly hopeless "dead" children turn back to God and to their parents. I would encourage us all to focus on this rather than trying to assess blame.

There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

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.)

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Hope I think the fact there is an enemy seeking whom he may devour is a given for most Christians. But this cannot be the catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting. It appears the issue with the LCS is not: we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end. But rather: our children were raised in an environment that was basically anti-family so it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults.

[Hope]

Hope I think the fact there is an enemy seeking whom he may devour is a given for most Christians. But this cannot be the catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting. It appears the issue with the LCS is not: we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end. But rather: our children were raised in an environment that was basically anti-family so it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults.

Greetings djohnson,

Sorry if my post gave the impression that I was offering a "catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting."

Also, I don't think any would claim "we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end."

But I can say that in my own home and in the church in Dallas in general we were not basically anti-family."

In Dallas and in the other lc in Texas, there were many activities for the children, young people etc. I took my children to their various practices and attended the majority of their games. Others also who were involved with my children would attend their games and I went to other children's activities.

Some of the children were outstanding students and citizens. Others were big busts. I saw a few who were excellent at avoiding their responsibility in their unhappy lives and quick to blame, blame, blame.

I have witnessed some adult members who could not hold a responsible job and it was always someone else's fault. I have witnessed some terrible failures at marriage and family and it was always someone else's fault.

Just because someone who has made a mess of things starts crying LCS is to blame, do not be so quickly persuaded that there was some sort of systemic problem and "it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults."

On the other hand, maybe it is a miracle that any of us survive and become healthy adults. Thank the Lord for his never failing love and mercy toward us all.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Hope I am not suggesting that the LCS is the one and only factor contributing to the unhealthy behavior of many who grew up in it. My question is more nuanced than that i.e. what role did it play? Of all the factors how big is the LCS factor?

I happen to think this is an important question because the LCS is not like many other churches i.e. it is primarily a sub culture complete with their own mode of dress, language, habits, mores, customs, etc. and pride themselves in being separatists as it were. They are more or less like an Amish community. If someone comes out of the Amish community certainly one would not need to be a rocket scientist to deduce that the community in which they were born and breed had a tremendous effect on their behaviors. What effect is the question.

Like the Amish my observation of the LCS is that of all the influencing factors in a child's life the biggest and most powerful was the group itself. Not the family, not the parents, not the schools they went to, not their neighborhood, etc but the LCS. It dominated their lives and was/is the prism through which they see all else.

[ps8602]

This thread bothers me as my intention of joining the board was to have meaningful discussions based on fact. The opening post states "I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues..."

Is this a fair thread? Is the level of social issues for those in/left the 'LCS' greater than 1) that in society where the church is 2) than that in any other Christian group?

I would hope that our evaluation of the 'LCS' is fair and based on fact not on the whim of someone who has had a bad experience and is looking for to blame.

Dennis

[OBW]

This thread bothers me as my intention of joining the board was to have meaningful discussions based on fact.Dennis,

There are many threads that are based on fact. And this one, despite the inability to nail down specific facts, is not a factual void. It is just that there is no "one size fits all" analysis and therefore not very helpful.

I'm sure that each of us had different thoughts when the thread began. That is because this is much more complicated than blaming the LC. Of course, there is probably blame that can be leveled at the LC, but it will be difficult to isolate since they actually had little teaching on the subject. It's hard to say that it is the LC's fault that one family followed the pattern of another that turns out to have been simply dysfunctional. If everyone had turned out somewhat the same, there might be something clearer to say.

[OBW]

Actually, despite saying to Dennis that there is nothing much in this thread, I do not think it is totally useless, even if it is so for some.

I mostly agree with Hope that the parenting I saw was not that different from others I could observe. The main difference would have been some tendency by many to try to isolate their kids from the "world." While the idea is noble, many of the things done with that in mind do not adequately prepare them for the day that they are turned out on their own and the world challenges the belief system that they have not yet internalized.

Rather than helping them deal with the reality of life gradually over several years, there is a tendency to build a hedge around them and avoid it all. The problem is that the hedge tends to disappear overnight and the onslaught of contrary information can be overwhelming. So rather than build the clarity of conviction and faith as a part of growing up, they are confronted with all of it at once.

This is not just a LC problem. It also happens among some conservative Christians who over-protect their kids from those "others" thorugh home schooling, separate activities, etc. I am not necessarily opposed to home schooling. But it too often helps to enforce the hedge/no hedge problem I spoke of earlier.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

In addition to being insular the LCS engaged in behaviors that most children later working through it would find quite strange e.g. burning baby and wedding pictures in front of their children, no TV, no sports, vacations all used for Lee crazed conferences, no Christmas, migrating and the overall obsession with Lee and his group prioritized above the well being of the children.

Thankfully children are not completely stupid and know when mommy and daddy love someone i.e. Lee more than them and when mommy and daddy's behavior is being dictated by Lee and his cronies. In short they know that Lee was their shadow mommy and daddy.

Perhaps it should be said more plainly: their parents were addicted to Mr. Lee and thus they are children of parents with a chronic addiction. Some children can overcome this in their adult lives but not without tremendous difficulty. For anyone who does not believe this please just do a little research on adult children of alcoholics. Interesting stuff!

[Thankful Jane]

LC teachings were off concerning marriage and family. How many Christian churches can you go to today that teach you the church comes before marriage and family? Where is this in the Bible?

We were taught that if you take care of the Lord and the church, God will take care of your marriage and children. This is clearly not biblical, but we bought it. I remember in my first years in the LC being told that Samuel Chang said the most important thing we could do for our children was to be consecrated. That translated into consecrated to the church.

Children need time. They need a lot of hands on involvement, praise, encouragement, etc. They need to know they are important. Both of my children have told me that they always knew they came in second when it came to the church. If there was an event for them (school or recreational) and a church event at the same time, the church event took precedence. Suffice it to say that because the church took all our time, their events got basically none.

One time my husband tried to be an assistant coach for a Little League baseball team of one of our sons, but the baseball schedule and the meeting schedule didn't mesh, so the coaching went out the window. Same with the time the Little League games were played. Same with every single thing our children were involved in. My youngest son fared better than my oldest because we left when he was about 14.

Maybe some parents did better. Good for them. Those who took the LC teachings and practices seriously hurt their families. Period.

In the years after we left, God made me face squarely what I did wrong in my family. I had to do some serious soul searching and repenting to my husband and to my children. Then, I had to change my behavior and show them they were important and that their things were important. I'm still working on that. I will need to walk that way the rest of my life. I will never be able to make up for my neglect. I can cry thinking about it.

Witness Lee said we should never have regrets. He clearly didn't. I do and am healthier for it and so is my family.

The sad thing was that everything in me wanted to do the right thing for my children, but the unhealthy teaching I was receiving told me that was my "self."

I am thankful every day that the Lord has had mercy on my children. The one thing I did right was not cram the program down their throats. If they didn't want to be involved, they were free not to be. I never made them "call on the Lord," etc. I knew that God had come to me and won my heart as a child, and I wanted the same for my children. I prayed that He would win them, and He did. Mercy.

I am still waiting for the day when I hear an ex-LC leader say, "It was not biblical to teach that the Lord would take care of our families if we took care of the church. That teaching was damaging and hurt a lot of people. I am sorry."

Husbands were looked down on if they did anything to help their wives. My husband on occasion would help me with a few domestic things, but was always afraid the brothers would find out and think poorly of him. I still remember that he babysat for me one time. Only one, though. The risk of disapproval was too great.

Great place.

If you want to understand why so many kids grew up with problems, ask the sisters. They had to deny their most basic instincts concerning the family. Most of the brothers were happily off with their heads in the meeting clouds. I know of one exception; he was a German who protected his family like a tank battallion commander. His wife even wore makeup to the meetings.

Thankful Jane

[finallyprettyokay]

Dennis said: This thread bothers me as my intention of joining the board was to have meaningful discussions based on fact


I wonder if the words of WL provide 'fact'. I wrote in another thread about his teaching of children being 'wrappers'. Let's see if I can give you the link:

http://http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=353&highlight=francis+ball#post353


I hope it (the link) works. It was in the thread about Raising Christian Children, in the Practice What He Preached part. It was post #11.

So: fact --- Witness Lee himself preached about children being "wrappers", wrapping up parent's hearts to distract them from "God's Move". It was repeated to me by one of the biggest of the big names in that hierarchy.

Other facts: As other posters have written, children watched their parents burn pictures of them. Wow.

Hope talks about the kids in Texas having lots of activities. I don't know for sure if that means things the church set up, or school activities and things like that. If it was 'outside' activities, that is really cool and hurray for the kids in Texas. I never saw anything like that at all. There was one family in San Diego who had their sons in school sports, and stood firmly in favor of that. Everyone else whispered behind their backs about it. It was the only time I ever heard of such a thing. Good for him, huh? And really, really good for his kids.

And Hope, I have no problem believing you did lots of stuff as a family, you maverick you! :eek::D It was quite rare, and I admire those families that did was best for their kids, regardless. Our son was 3 when we departed, so he was spared --- quite a bit, anyway. Those first 3 years certainly count!

But Hope -- there was indeed a systemic problem related to parenting. Wrappers? Terrible thing to say. If our kids didn't 'wrap up our hearts' we would never be able to do the things that being a parent requires just to keep those little punkins alive.

These were acts of ommission, not commission. I wonder if those truly abusive parents would have been abusers in whatever setting they were in. That's a whole different story than what I am writing about. Or what I think most or all of the posters are writing about.

A funny little story -- I have shared that I live in the Salt Lake City area. Lots of LDS folks. A good friend of mine was telling me how they don't drink coffee, and a few other such things. I just laughed and told him 'Oh, don't even TRY to out-legal me! I will win that discussion, hands down'. He's a great guy and knows my story, so he understood and laughed also.

I wonder how many kids lived within walking distance of Disneyland, but never got to go there. I wonder how many kids within a short drive of the ocean never saw it (oh, some of the burnings were on the beach, I forgot). Or the mountains. Or the --- oh, fill in the blanks. You get the idea.

Hope wrote: Frankly, I absolutely love to speak of the family

Oh, yeah. Me too. Family is a beautiful thing God gave us. Thanks, God.

So, as Dennis asked -- are there more social problems in ex-LC or LC kids than others? I don't know. Hurt people are everywhere, sadly. All I can really speak to is how I was 'taught' and what I saw all around me.


FPO

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

In answer to Dennis' question: their are more social problems among those children who grow up with addicts as parents than otherwise.

[SpeakersCorner]

I would say the biggest problem of the LC in child-raising was simply this:

Too many meetings.



SC

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Part of the addiction.

[Hope]

Hello Dear brothers and sisters,

I must take a different position. Much of what I am reading sounds strange and foreign to me. Here are a few of the statements that stand out.

The following are from Thankful Jane. I will high light in blue her statements and my comments will be in black.

LC teachings were off concerning marriage and family. How many Christian churches can you go to today that teach you the church comes before marriage and family? Where is this in the Bible?

Of course that is no where in the Bible. I did hear from some like Samuel Chang such statements but this teaching was among those that came from peculiar personalities which had a lot of influence. I mentioned this phenomenon in my history. I should have developed it much more. I was afraid I would come across as too negative and decided to let this part of the history go. This thread illustrated that that was probably a mistake. There were a lot of odd teachings that gained some traction here and there. The anti-marriage stuff was ridiculous. I shot it down whenever I could. The baloney about how miserable the wives could make the husbands and visa versus was one of my favorite targets. I would never let it go by. I would counter about my own experience with Sheryl and report about many other very happily married couples.

We were taught that if you take care of the Lord and the church, God will take care of your marriage and children. This is clearly not biblical, but we bought it. I remember in my first years in the LC being told that Samuel Chang said the most important thing we could do for our children was to be consecrated. That translated into consecrated to the church.
If there was an event for them (school or recreational) and a church event at the same time, the church event took precedence.

I think here we have a clear example of the extreme practice of some of the local churches based on the extreme character of the local elders. Ray Graver in Houston and James Barber in OK City would certainly take this position. The church agenda was everything to them. On the other hand, in Dallas, Sheryl and I would make sure at least one of us attended any of our children's activities. Usually it was both. I always believed it is a heart matter. We should certainly put the Lord Jesus Christ first in our heart and loyalty. If being true to Him and serving the gospel or the saints, required me to miss a middle school football game, I trust my decision is made. But neglect of the children is not in question. We must care for them.

One time my husband tried to be an assistant coach for a Little League baseball team of one of our sons, but the baseball schedule and the meeting schedule didn't mesh, so the coaching went out the window. Same with the time the Little League games were played. Same with every single thing our children were involved in.

Twice I coached my sons little league/Pony league teams. It required that I miss some meetings and I was an elder and full time brother. There were two other boys from the church on the team. We had a great time. I was the assistant coach. I will never forget one of the parents telling me that my being a coach had saved the experience for his son and I was the only reason they finished the season. That really meant a lot to me as I did believe I was in the Lord's will to help that group and it was an opportunity to be a witness for Christ. Two of the boys, friends of my sons, came to know Christ as savior. They both came from unbelieving homes and never attended any type of church. Of course, I enjoyed it. Since I was a former baseball player, I did show off at times and demonstrate some skills that those kids had never seen. My sons, who were both on one of the teams, relished it when I would toss a ball in the air and drive it 375 feet in the air or demonstrate how to throw a ball harder and farther than the boys had ever seen.

Witness Lee said we should never have regrets
I am thankful every day that the Lord has had mercy on my children. The one thing I did right was not cram the program down their throats. If they didn't want to be involved, they were free not to be. I never made them "call on the Lord," etc.

I am still waiting for the day when I hear an ex-LC leader say, "It was not biblical to teach that the Lord would take care of our families if we took care of the church. That teaching was damaging and hurt a lot of people. I am sorry."

I whole hardily agree!!!:eek: I hope I never taught that. Someone let me know if I personally ever said something like that or seemed to agree if someone did say something like that. If I ever did, I am sorry sorry sorry, my bad, my bad my bad.

Husbands were looked down on if they did anything to help their wives

Really???:confused: Maybe one of those strange notions that some brought in? I remember several times Sheryl and I discussed certain odd practices among couples from Taiwan. We attributed it to their Chinese culture. By the way the Chinese culture and view of marriage is not based on anything in the scriptures. Of course the culture of a southern peasant is of no more value than the Chinese culture but please keep in mind that the southern culture has been very much influenced and shaped by the teachings of Christ. In the Bible, marriage and the family is big, big , big. On many occasions when we were counseling couples we contradicted WL or something they had heard and shared our own experience and what the scriptures taught. We spoke with many couples before their marriage and with many after their marriage to give them counseling. I never remember ever ever saying something like put the church first. Somebody let me know if I did. If so. please erase it forever.

From Finallyprettyokay

I wrote in another thread about his teaching of children being 'wrappers'.

I never heard this until I read your earlier post. I believe it was actually reported to you by an elder. Maybe Lee taught it and maybe something just came up in conversation and this man picked up on some cute expression and wanted to impress someone. I saw that happen on many occassions.

As other posters have written, children watched their parents burn pictures of them.

I never burned anything. My understanding of the passage in Acts was the new believers burned things related to magic, demons etc. I did not have anything like that. I had been a Christian for several years as had my wife and when the burning "flow" hit Texas we had nothing to burn and felt no complusion to prove anything to anyone. I did see some in Houston burn some items they believed had occupied their heart. I never saw pictures of children being burned but I did hear of that happening in California. I find it hard to believe that someone would burn pictures of their children in front of their children. That is scandolous and replusive.

I would ask everyone to use some discretion about painting the bad family image on everyone. It is a little libilous. I agree with Dennis that it can be counter productive.

By the way, we took family vacations. We took our kids to Penny Whistle Park and to water parks all the time. We made the pilgramage to Six Flags over Texas at least twice a year. That was usually the low point of my year as my wife made me ride the rides with my daughter. I have a very sensitive inner ear but Sheryl enjoyed watching me turn green and stagger off of the rides.:D Of course we had to go to the Texas State Fair, a great time was had by all and we passed out gospel tracts. Birthday parties is a big thing for my wife and still is for the grandchildren.

What about Christmas? Hang on. My mother opposed Christmas. She was an improverished share cropper and migrant worker. She told us how she dreaded the first day of school after the xmas-New Years vacation as she would be forced to lie about what Santa Clause brought her. She would have actually have gotten nothing. Her family of seven childrens celebrated xmas morning by each being given a half an orange and a cup of fruit cocktail. She was very offended by the Santa Clause myth and believed it undermined faith in Christ. She got in troubles a few times because we kids would tell our friends there was no Santa Clause and that our mother had told us so. So I was not a Christmas celebrator long before I ever heard of WL. But we did not want our kids to be left out of the loot receiving. We gave them cash money and took them to Toys R Us and let them shop and shop and shop. My boys would take about four hours but they got the absolute most out of their money and selected exactly what they wanted and got their presents early. All their friends were envious and wished their families did things the Rutledge way.

There you have it. Family is big big big and the LCS agenda is optional.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

It is no secret that Lee taught that his church and ministry should be a parents top priority. And it is fairly obvious to the well informed that parents were addicted to Lee and the endless parade of Lee centric events.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery!

[Hope]

Hello everyone,

I meant to relate one more personal story.

Shortly after the Irving Hall was completed there was a big conference there with WL and churches from all over. During the conference my second son was involved in a big soccer tournament in Dallas. He played on a nationally ranked select team and was a key player. I attended all of the regular meetings but had cut the elders meetings in order to be at his games.

On the last day of the conference, my son's team was playing for the championship at 3:30 in Richardson. No problem, I could go to the morning meeting and make it easily to my sons game.

When I entered the hall, an usher handed me a note. It was from Benson Phillips. After the meeting, WL had invited some of the overseas brothers, Ray Graver, Benson and myself to a special get together. Lunch would be served. Benson mentioned that Brother Lee especially mentioned that he hoped I could be there.:o

I had lunch with them. But then WL started in on the same old same old about their history in China etc. Things I had heard so many times. I waited it out but at 3:00 I got up whispered to Benson I must go as I had family responsibilities. He asked what. I replied that Deric was playing soccer in Richardson and I was going to watch and bring him home. Brother Lee observed my leaving and asked what was happening. I told him I had prior family responsibilities but it was good to see him and then left.

By the way Deric had a great game and his team won the game and championship.:hurray:

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

I don’t recall fathers taking time out to spend with their children. We were too busy in the Lord’s army. We gave everything and everyone for the cause.

It was a sad and loveless place, a very abnormal place for children.

During my early years when our family lived in Anaheim, I had a normal childhood. My dad took me and my siblings to playground parks, we watched football games together, and my first summer in Anaheim my dad and another brother took me and my next youngest brother to our first Angels game. Who were they playing? None other than the Cleveland Indians. :p

Terry

[finallyprettyokay]

Hope wrote: From Finallyprettyokay

I wrote in another thread about his teaching of children being 'wrappers'.

I never heard this until I read your earlier post. I believe it was actually reported to you by an elder. Maybe Lee taught it and maybe something just came up in conversation and this man picked up on some cute expression and wanted to impress someone. I saw that happen on many occassions.

You know, all I can do on this is promise that Witness Lee himself said it. In Anaheim, sometime close to the time my son was born which was in September, 1975. Apparently it didn't make the rounds. That's good.

I went to one burning. Our son had not yet been born, and we lived in Anaheim. That would put it sometime in 1974, I think. I didn't have anything to burn, but went. I couldn't even tell you what anyone burned -- it was a really big fire. It was on the beach, on the sand. I loved being on the beach again.


Family vacations --- just didn't see it happen. Twice a year conferences took the time.

Christmas. I always told my kids that Santa was a really fun pretend guy --- like Big Bird, or Superman. When my oldest son was in junior high he wrote a paper about it. His ending statement was "My mom never made me believe in Santa, and I'm glad she didn't". How cute is that? Well, that's beside the point, I just wanted to take the chance to brag about my son. :D

I would ask everyone to use some discretion about painting the bad family image on everyone. It is a little libilous. I agree with Dennis that it can be counter productive.

You know, I really apologize if I made it sound like I thought everyone had 'bad families'. I don't think that. I do think the schedule we all kept took so much of our time each week. And that there were many 'rules' that kept us from so many important things.

Hope, I was there for 8 years and never knew of a birthday party. Maybe there were secret parties. I don't know. We knew each other's comings and goings pretty well, especially in San Diego (there weren't enough of us to get lost in the crowd). It would have been hard to keep that secret. :rolleyes:

I wonder about the difference in experience -- for example, what John writes and what Terry writes, has a lot to do with not only what city a person lived in, but also the time period. Things changed, I think.

Okay, the most important thing here is that WL did say kids were wrappers, and that I don't think every family was 'bad'. Just to sum it all up. :o


FPO

[Ohio]

LC teachings were off concerning marriage and family. How many Christian churches can you go to today that teach you the church comes before marriage and family? Where is this in the Bible? We were taught that if you take care of the Lord and the church, God will take care of your marriage and children. This is clearly not biblical, but we bought it.


Thanks Thankful Jane,

I entered marriage with this same LC training -- exactly as you described here. It didn't work. It was a lie. A self-serving deception. It was always short term gain and long term loss. Some of the brothers who enforced these decrees -- two in particular -- both had failed marriages. After the LC divorce rate exceeded the world, some of these teachings were modified in the GLA -- but the damages were done.

Let me repeat a crucial point -- if you place "Christ and the church" ahead of your marriage, you end up with neither. The living Christ gets replaced with endless church service. "But, brother, we have no one else to do this." And your family gets replaced by the brothers. "Why don't you just marry the brothers anyways!"

I must add another point to clarify this phenomenon for all the naysayers: Those of us which came from dysfunctional families suffered the most, and were the most vulnerable. Those of us with solid upbringings in wholesome families, suffered the least. Those of us with faithful and loyal zealots for leaders, suffered the most. Those of us with wise and loving shepherds for leaders, suffered the least.

[finallyprettyokay]

Ohio:

Couldn't have said it better. I remember a sister that said to me that she thought she was marrying John Doe (her husband's name) but found out she married the church. Marriage did not last.

Here is the most important thing, I think:


I must add another point to clarify this phenomenon for all the naysayers: Those of us which came from dysfunctional families suffered the most, and were the most vulnerable. Those of us with solid upbringings in wholesome families, suffered the least. Those of us with faithful and loyal zealots for leaders, suffered the most. Those of us with wise and loving shepherds for leaders, suffered the least

Exactly.


FPO

[Ohio]

I had lunch with them. But then WL started in on the same old same old about their history in China etc. Things I had heard so many times. I waited it out but at 3:00 I got up whispered to Benson I must go as I had family responsibilities. He asked what. I replied that Deric was playing soccer in Richardson and I was going to watch and bring him home. Brother Lee observed my leaving and asked what was happening. I told him I had prior family responsibilities but it was good to see him and then left. By the way Deric had a great game and his team won the game and championship.



Bah Humbug! I have never met a brother in all the LC's who would dare to do this!


I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.


I ended up doing both.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

When you leave a church or "ministry" which is not an addiction it's quite easy. You just move on to another place. Keep the same friends. Add some new ones. No big deal. If addiction is involved the leaving process is a slow and painful withdrawal which takes years to overcome if it can be overcome at all. It appears for most who left the LCS it was a painful and slow process and rehab was/is difficult. Some even admit that they did not know how they would go on after they left: not go on without the Lord but go on without Lee and his group.

Leeaholism is heart wrenching to watch but it makes me happy to see many on this site facing it. Better to admit the problem and start recovery than to stay lost in the hazy stupor of addiction.

[SpeakersCorner]

I recall a pivotal moment in my church experience. I had "left" the "Recovery" for about five years (late 70s), gotten married, and somehow my wife became interested in it. She invited a couple (well, more honestly, they invited themselves) to visit us in my Prodigal Sty State for a weekend. I reluctantly agreed to the visit ... and then I realized with horror that it was the same weekend as the Indiana high school basketball state finals, as important event in Indiana at the time as, oh, I don't know, maybe Mardi Gras is to the Nawleans crowd.

Anyway, I made my wife call the couple up and warn them that I was going to be watching basketball on the Saturday evening of their visit. She did it and told me, laughing, that they said, "No problem! They'd watch with us."

I was stunned. They came, I turned the game on but we only watched cursorily, and I began to think, Gee, maybe there is a niche somewhere in the LC I could fit in. I loved the teaching but, man, I loved my "old man" too, especially if he was getting the ball inside the paint just ready to drop-step and put two on the scoreboard.

Anyway, I think Hope's stories are true but I also think there were others who didn't have his freedom. My freedom came from my hiding from powers that be. His perhaps because he was a power that be.

For what it's worth.


SC

[countmeworthy]

I went to one burning..... ...it was a really big fire. It was on the beach, on the sand. I loved being on the beach again.

Family vacations --- just didn't see it happen. .... I was there for 8 years and never knew of a birthday party. Maybe there were secret parties. I don't know. We knew each other's comings and goings pretty well, especially in San Diego (there weren't enough of us to get lost in the crowd). It would have been hard to keep that secret.
FPO

I too went to ONE burning...in San Diego...I remember my eyes bugging out when I saw a brother burn his SKIS!!!! :eek: I didn't have anything to burn but that year I had to come 'home' to my dad & mom's funeral. I remember having a 'hope chest' filled with 16 magazines :D I got rid of them.

Family Vacations: Oh... I know the elders in my locality in San Diego took vacations...LONG ones too...about a MONTH long. I later found out they let the kids watch cartoons and took them to movies a couple of times.


Birthdays: HEY! A sister threw ME a Surprise B-day party. It was the BEST party I ever had! I was truly Surprised!!

The sister took me out to dinner first. Then she took me to the house she was living at. A sister who did not live there answered the door. I was surprised to see HER there. She told me she had just learned to play a song on the piano and wanted me to hear it.

I walked over to the piano with her..NEVER noticing the number of SAINTS in the background. She began to play 'Happy Birthday'...while everyone joined in! WAS I EVER SURPRISED!!! There were about 15-20 people there! :hurray: It really was the very best Birthday party I've ever had in my entire life.

Told you, I was in a pretty healthy 'locality!' San Diego was a good church over all.

FPO...TOO bad you had already moved to Anaheim!!!...or LA :confused:

[finallyprettyokay]

When you leave a church or "ministry" which is not an addiction it's quite easy. You just move on to another place. Keep the same friends. Add some new ones. No big deal. If addiction is involved the leaving process is a slow and painful withdrawal which takes years to overcome if it can be overcome at all. It appears for most who left the LCS it was a painful and slow process and rehab was/is difficult. Some even admit that they did not know how they would go on after they left: not go on without the Lord but go on without Lee and his group.

Leeaholism is heart wrenching to watch but it makes me happy to see many on this site facing it. Better to admit the problem and start recovery than to stay lost in the hazy stupor of addiction.

D-I-V-O-R-C-E That's what it feels like. A divorce.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

The addictive behavior is obvious in the LCS and it is encouraged. Keep "drinking" Lee and more Lee and more Lee. When you try to break the addiction what happens? Well...it's no mystery...just watch what's going on in the GLA. How are the addicts reacting to those trying to get on the wagon?

[Hope]

Bah Humbug! I have never met a brother in all the LC's who would dare to do this!


I don't know whether I should laugh or cry.


I ended up doing both.


But Ohio, I really wanted to see that game. I was very proud of my son.;)

By then, sometime around 1984-85 I was not under the fear of WL or BP. I knew about their unrighteous dealings around the Daystar mess. I knew about immorality swept under the rug, (but not yet about Philip, the last straw for me). I still had some respect for them due to their past service and their gift but was done trying to please them and score points.

By then, if you recall, there was practically no anointing on WL's speaking. He was doing his summary of the New Testament and completing his life study work. Dry, dead, no light.

By then, it was already clear that there would be no blessing on the Irving Training Center or Church and that it was just a big expensive boon-daggle.

By then, I had seen so many snafus from WL that if there was really anything to the teaching of deputy authority, it sure was not WL. Let him take the lead in a spiritual enterprise or a business enterprise and failure was sure to result. And no, James Barber and Ray Graver, the failures of WL were not a test from the Lord.

By then, watching my 14 year old son play soccer was more important than hearing the legend of WN and WL for the 50+ time from the mouth of one of the legends.

Ohio, in 1974 I would not have done that. In 1978, I would not have done that. In 1980, I would not have done that. But by 1984, I was in the process of cutting ties. There was beginning to develop a group of brothers who were concerned for what had happened to us. Not a fermentation of rebellion but an awakening to the fact that something had gone terribly wrong.

The rest of the story of that little incident is that I was making a statement. Yes, the superficial and a real reason was my son's game but I was making it clear to Benson and to WL that they were not the center of my universe.

Please do note that 18 months later I moved from Texas. Another 18 months and I was voluntarily out. There was no need to quarantine me. I had already left the building.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Peter Debelak]

I've witnessed what Thankful Jane described. But it wasn't my or most of my peers experience.

In Cleveland, where I grew up, all of my comrades were involved in all sorts of extra-curriculars. Sports, music, art, school governance, etc...

I recall thinking in high school that therer were so many things off limits. I had a hard time in high school - due to self-imposed concepts of what was acceptable. I didn't spend much time with my high school friends and I was growing distant from my church friends who attended other schools. I think my parents noticed this. One night, when my family was sitting down to dinner, I received a call from a classmate. He had invited me to a "party" that he was throwing (and his parents would be there). Without consulting my parents, I declined the invitation. Me? At a "party"???? Christ wouldn't do such a thing, right? When I got off the phone, my family asked who it was. I told them about the invitation and, with a little pride, I told them I declined. I couldn't believe it when my dad said "why don't you go?"

Anyway. Involvement in extra-curriculars was a mainstay among my peers growing up. It wasn't just allowed, it was encouraged.

Can't tell you how many Indians games a whole mess of us would go to ($2.00 general admission - can you blame us???).

That said, there was a strictness to our upbringing that my non-believer friends later would find intense. There were LC friends of mine, and myself included, who got into myriad trouble through our late teen/early twenties years. Some who seemed beyond repair. Thing is, with only a few - very few - exceptions that come to mind, most re-found their faith and, at that, a dynamic one. Whether or not they re-entered the LC is another matter...

In Anaheim, there was a mixed bag as well. There were a number of brothers I got to know - many children of BBs - who "went off the deep end." But I also know how their fathers ached for them. And they had brothers and sisters (blood) who weren't as rebelious. Can I place that at the feet of the LC experience? I'd be hard pressed.

Personally, at age 19, I felt like the LC was just a human culture with its own norms and mores - to the point where I couldn't see God in it and rejected Him. After a long process, I know I was too harsh.

I'm sorry, but if God predestinates someone, the fact that he is born into a particular group - even an errant group - is not going to affect his calling. God WILL find a way. That is not an condemnation or a license to errant teaching in the LC.

Within the same family, which raised each of their kids on the same principals, I've seen one kid turn out to be a validictorian, spiritually intense and committed to Christ - while another turns to drugs etc... Same church life. Same parents. Different result.

We should point out teachings and practices which can tend to be unhealthy. But ultimately, we have to pray and pray and pray. What else can we do? We have to believe He is sovereign, right? Even the harshest circumstances that kids go through - or put themselves through - He can have a way.

Enough rambling on this.

Grace to you all,

Peter

[countmeworthy]

D-I-V-O-R-C-E That's what it feels like. A divorce.


:allears: What is that you said? Couldn't hear you FPO. Would you repeat it again please? :allears: :D Just ribbing ya!

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Obviously the Lee addiction level varies within the group. Some parents had the common sense to limit their intake to at least be functional Leeaholics. But let's take the current scenario playing out in the GLA. Imagine being a child watching your parents embroiled in a lawsuit over a meeting hall or your extended family being split in two, or friendships collapsing, or people yelling at each other during church services, etc. Over what? The Lee addiction. It's all about Lee. Do you really believe the kids are too stupid to figure this out?

And I suspect there are married couples in the LCS - not just in the GLA - with one spouse an addict and the other trying to come off Lee and stay on the wagon. There's a recipe for friction! And another eye opener for the children if any are involved.

[YP0534]

There was beginning to develop a group of brothers who were concerned for what had happened to us. Not a fermentation of rebellion but an awakening to the fact that something had gone terribly wrong.

Truly, the biggest shame is that the faithful ones who kept walking forward with the Lord as the wheels of The Ministry began to spin in place have been cruelly tagged with these words of "rebellion" and "leprosy" and "quarantine" and the like.

I appreciate your story, Hope, and can only imagine the heaviness of the atmosphere at your leaving untimely for a reason that barely registered on the Church-o-meter....

[Matt Anderson]

I think here we have a clear example of the extreme practice of some of the local churches based on the extreme character of the local elders. Ray Graver in Houston and James Barber in OK City would certainly take this position. The church agenda was everything to them. On the other hand, in Dallas, Sheryl and I would make sure at least one of us attended any of our children's activities.

Okay, you brought me out of my silence...

I don't know about your family, Hope, but based on what I know Dallas was not so different from OKC or Houston in regards to the kids.

I'm speaking from a different point of view. I was one of those kids who was OKC. Interestingly, I was shielded from a lot of what happened by a few factors, but I know of numerous kids in every locality in Texas and Oklahoma (including Dallas) that suffered at the hands of their parents' involvements in the LC.

I don't think one example (your family) mitigates the application of a broad brush.

As with any group or collective the proper judgment regarding whether a broad brush is appropriate or not is a judgment call based on a larger set of examples not just a few. It is quite difficult to make an appropriate judgment and apply it across the board. However, I do believe that there was enough abuse in families not to take it lightly or try to move past it through the use of a few examples that appear to mitigate the overall situation.

Most of all, I feel it is important to speak up for the sake of those who suffered. Their suffering was real. It cannot be mitigated by one or two good elders in the face of so many others who bowed down to the idols of the LC and sacrificed their families at the altars of false worship.

There was a lot of sin committed against families and there was a lot of failure on the part of parents to uphold their Biblical responsibilities to raise their children according the way the Lord would approve. It wasn't just isolated instances. It was pervasive. You had to be a very unique, independent, willful, strong-minded person to overcome it because the general rule was (and still is) abuse that is out of line with the Word of God.

Matt

P.S. Based on what I have heard from others it is possible that the Texas Region (inclusive of Dallas) was more extreme than other regions of the US.

[finallyprettyokay]

Matt:

YIPPPEEEEEE!!!!!!! Your silence is broken. Hurray!!!

:party::hurray::grouphug:


And what you said? :iagree:

It was a sad, sad place and a lot of people, not only children, were not protected and treasured the way we all deserve. The way God commands. Love one another as I have loved you.

Here's to you sticking around.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

The LCS is a "family" addicted to Lee and this addiction is promoted and encouraged. How much addiction and how it is played out by various sub family members will vary. Some will limit their habit enough to stumble through parenting with at least some sense of normalcy. Instead of two bottles of Lee a night they might have a 1/2 a bottle. But these variations do not mitigate the fact that the group as a whole is Leeaholic and the leaders of the LCS "family" i.e. the "parents" are raging Leeaholics and want you to be one too!

In this dynamic the supra parents are the LCS leaders and the subparents are good ole mom and dad at the immediate natural family level who for the most part have allowed their wills to be absorbed into the collective will as dictated by their raging Leeaholic parents/leaders.

I once visited a home of an LCS family. Every bookshelf was filled with Lee books. They had a standing order shipped direct to their house of Lee videos to watch every week. They had Lee sayings posted all over their house. Lee booklets in their bathrooms to read. All their free time was occupied with attending Lee group activities. And Lee could absolutely not be disagreed with under any circumstances. I drove away thinking to myself: "these are signs of addictive behavior." Later I discovered that this was a mild version compared to what was going on when their children were growing up. I also learned that their non LCS extended family basically thought they were nuts. Doing a little digging I also found out that they were not on isolated incident. This kind of behavior was widespread.

[Nell]

Hope,

I'm just going to say it, I guess like I usually do, and point out that there is a difference between elders doing what you did for your family, and the rest of us doing the same thing.

From time to time, Benson did some of the same things with his family that you describe having done with yours. I remember being shocked at hearing that one elder in Houston took his wife's parents on an outing to the Huntsville Prison Rodeo. I doubt that Texas was special in this regard, it's just what I know.

This is the best example I can come up with for the existence of a "class system" in the LC. Not only are elders and their families a "privileged class" but people with money, or the potential to make money, are right in there too. The result is people like me looking longingly on the freedom of the "privileged class" and trying to figure out what class I was in, other than the lowest class of all..."single sister."

Hope, I am happy for your freedom to raise your family according to your own choices. I wouldn't change that for the world. Please believe me when I say that I was not free to follow your lead, because I didn't have money and I wasn't related to the leadership in any way. The pressure was overwhelming for the little people to perform according to the unwritten rules. My goal was to stay off the elders' radar, so I did my best to behave like a good little girl. I didn't always make it.

Nell

[Paul Cox]

It can't be overstated just how much peer pressure plays in the control of the Local Church. If you say that television watching is prohibited in the "Church Life" (in the past) LC defenders will gladly ask you to point out in any of the writings of "The Ministry" where such prohibitions are outlined. Of course they are not.

Peer pressure worked its magic in the Local Church and still does in the Living Stream Church. The small circle around Lee wanted to please him, and he knew how to make them feel they should. An example is when Lee asked what was going on when hope decided to leave the room.

Then, of course, the bigger circle of "The Brothers" wanted to be well pleasing to those closely connected to Lee. And almost everybody in the local meetings are always concerned with how they are viewed by “The Brothers.” Heaven forbid that word should get back to “The Brothers” that you are a little contrary to the uniform marching unit.

If you say there is control in the Local Church, again you will be eagerly pointed to where Lee said he does not exercise such control. But control was indeed exercised, and is exercised more today than ever.

When we were young, my wife and I missed a meeting one night to go grocery shopping. Because of my work and because we, well, were out of food, we ended up having to go on a Tuesday night when we were expected to be in the prayer meeting.

The next time one of the leading brothers saw me, he said, "I missed you in the meeting, brother." I told him we went grocery shopping, and he said, "Oh."

Well, during the very next meeting, I was sitting on the front row, when this brother brought up the possibility of "someone" going grocery shopping on a meeting night. I wanted to get under my chair. But...I never missed another meeting to go to the grocery store, and I'm sure almost nobody else at that meeting did either.

But I've discovered that the peer pressure only works if you let it. In one of my recent encounters with a LC brother, he tried to use some of that stuff on me. I just ignored him, and he had to change his tune.

But that’s easy for me now, since I am out of that intensive atmosphere. For those who are still there, we must sympathize with them. It’s not something easy to overcome for the average person. It’s the same power that drives most of the youth in every generation to do the things they do, no matter how wacky their parents may think they are acting.

Roger

[countmeworthy]

It can't be overstated just how much peer pressure plays in the control of the Local Church. ... Peer pressure worked its magic in the Local Church and still does in the Living Stream Church.

If you say there is control in the Local Church, again you will be eagerly pointed to where Lee said he does not exercise such control. But control was indeed exercised, and is exercised more today than ever.

When we were young, my wife and I missed a meeting one night to go grocery shopping. ...we ended up having to go on a Tuesday night when we were expected to be in the prayer meeting.

The next time one of the leading brothers saw me, he said, "I missed you in the meeting, brother." I told him we went grocery shopping, and he said, "Oh."

Well, during the very next meeting, I was sitting on the front row, when this brother brought up the possibility of "someone" going grocery shopping on a meeting night. I wanted to get under my chair. ...But I've discovered that the peer pressure only works if you let it. In one of my recent encounters with a LC brother, he tried to use some of that stuff on me. I just ignored him, and he had to change his tune.



Wow Roger ...ok..First things first.

That peer pressure 'magic' the LC uses is called WITCHCRAFT !! Many in the Christian community..(not all) KNOW about Witchcraft in the church.

Read the account of Jezebel & Ahab..she had a controlling personality/spirit. She used witchcraft too. The spirit of Jezebel is very prevalant in the Christian church today and we saw it first hand in action in the LC. We didn't know it though.

Do a Google search on the Jezebel spirit..if you haven't already.

2ndly. You were CONDEMNED for telling the TRUTH ??? :eek: The TRUTH sets us free but that spirit of Jezebel did not set YOU Free back then ..because the Jezebel spirit is NOT the Spirit of TRUTH from Christ Jesus.

It manipulates people and disguises itself in religiousity. And the LC is one of the MOST Religious institutions out there! Just think about how everyone prays the same way in the LC...how they TALK the same way..how they have their OWN Terminology.


Anyway, back to topic... That controlling spirit intimidated you...made you feel 'guilty'. You did NOT SIN! The Spirit convicts us. God condemns SIN. To those who are IN Christ Jesus, there is NO CONDEMNATION! By telling the TRUTH of where you were, you did not sin. You did not lie! You were IN Christ Jesus, telling the TRUTH!

The ACCUSER entered in and tried to condemn you from the PITS of Hell itself for telling the TRUTH! :banghead:


I PRAY that person..'brother' who used you to make you feel guilty has REPENTED!!!! May the LORD shine His Light on his Sin!

Thankfully, you ARE set FREE. :hurray: For where the Spirit of the LORD is, there is Liberty! And the Spirit of the LORD is surely with you Roger!..for YOU are BLESSED and HIGHLY FAVORED by the Most HIGH GOD!!! :hurray:

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Apparently during the big "rebellion" in Anaheim in the late 1980's Lee held his bi annual conference as scheduled. Many who had signed up before the blow up were chronically absent. When asked why he was missing the "training meeting" one guy said: "Because I was busy cutting my lawn!" That sorta summed up the lack of credibility Lee and LSM had by that time with many in Anaheim.

[Arizona]

The more I read the posts on this Forum the more I realize just how unique the LC experience. And personally unique for each individual participant. And an experience that is hard to understand apart from its historical context as well.

I dont think anyone who wasnt there could ever understand it, and could never be qualified to critique it properly.

I raised children in the LC. To this day I appreciate very much some of those young brothers (who are now no longer young:D) who spent time with my children when my kids were teen-agers. I refuse to denigrate their service. The picture of the LC life was not what some here seem to want to paint.

I know for sure that if I had it to do over I would certainly do some things differently. I would have accepted much more responsibility as a father, and I would have depended far less on the corporate church life. That is my fault,,,, not theirs. Living without television or christmas or anything else is not child abuse. In children's meetings we took kids fishing and to the snow, etc High School kids participated in extra curricular things. Many of us parents were just damaged people out of the Sixties scene who had no clue how to raise children so we did the best we knew how,,, and the LC helped in many ways in that endeavor.

It wasnt all bad. Now was it?

Arizona

[finallyprettyokay]

It wasnt all bad. Now was it?


It was alot bad. Few things are all one way or the other. So, no, probably not all bad. But alot bad. People got hurt there. Including kids.


fpo

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Arizona any child raised by alcoholic parents could quite easily understand the LCS and be qualified to discuss it. When addiction is present the underlying similarities are evident regardless of the substance involved.

[Paul Cox]

Arizona,

I'm glad that you didn't get hurt in the Local Church, and I certainly didn't want to say that it was all bad. But the bad that was bad was really bad.

To be quite honest, you can grab any group from the pages of history, no matter how radical they were, and find quite a bit good in them. There will always be those who only want to paint a pretty picture of where they came from.

"The picture of the LC life was not what some here seem to want to paint"

Maybe not for you. But it isn't fair for you to want to denigrate the testimony of those who didn't have your same experience. Our experiences were real, and continue to be real to this day.

Many can tell you that their children were eventually lost because of the way they were “taken care of” in the Local Church. Many of the participants on the other forum were themselves children in the Local Church life, and suffered immensely in the wilderness before they finally picked themselves up and turned the Lord like they had never before. Other are still wandering around.

If they were only our experiences, that could easily be called hearsay. But the fact is, the way the Living Stream Church has treated those who disagree with them is a matter of recorded history. No one could sit through the mock trial that was held at Whistler and say this is a group that just abides in "oneness" bliss.

No one could read about how brothers were treated in the late eighties, mainly over a cover up of sexual impropriety, and say, "Boy, must be a whole lotta good goin on over there."

We are not here painting anything. We are telling it the way we experienced it, and saw it. I know this is a lot to stomach for some who would rather make nice with LSM. But I don't think that is what forums like this are about.

So far as taking responsibility is concerned, may I suggest that you can now say that you should have taken more because you are saying it in hindsight. At the time, brother, I have little doubt that the peer pressure was what kept you from taking more responsibility.

And that, my brother, was my point.

Having said all that I would have to agree with you about most of the brothers. You spoke of the ones who took care of your children. I know hundreds of brothers like that. They are precious indeed.

But the fact remains that LSM is corrupt, errant, and wants to cover up a dark history, while going forth with quite another image. These dear brother who are precious are either having their heads in the sand, just don’t know what’s going on, or don’t want to know. They continue to stand with clinched fists and shout a big AMEN to EVERYTHING that the Blended Brothers say. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from telling the truth.

Roger

[TLFisher]

This is the best example I can come up with for the existence of a "class system" in the LC. Not only are elders and their families a "privileged class" but people with money, or the potential to make money, are right in there too. The result is people like me looking longingly on the freedom of the "privileged class" and trying to figure out what class I was in, other than the lowest class of all..."single sister."

Nell

Hello Nell! :)
How can I say, but I disagree with you. I do think there are preferences that come across as priveleges. One way to discard the concept of priveleges in the local churches is not care about what other people think. Once there's concern about what the elders, the sisters, or the brothers think, is there an appearance of the priveleged and the unpriveleged.
There defintely are preferences.
If you have the right personality or part of the right circle, you'll recieve preference over other brothers and sisters. It's more about how one is recieved or percieved, than about what one can or cannot do.
When I lived in a brother's house, there was another brother who shared my appreciation of baseball. We'd go to baseball games. I never gave it a thought if it bothered elders, deacons, serving ones, etc.

Terry

[Hope]

Arizona,

I'm glad that you didn't get hurt in the Local Church, and I certainly didn't want to say that it was all bad. But the bad that was bad was really bad.

"The picture of the LC life was not what some here seem to want to paint"

Maybe not for you. But it isn't fair for you to want to denigrate the testimony of those who didn't have your same experience. Our experiences were real, and continue to be real to this day.

Many can tell you that their children were eventually lost because of the way they were “taken care of” in the Local Church. Many of the participants on the other forum were themselves children in the Local Church life, and suffered immensely in the wilderness before they finally picked themselves up and turned the Lord like they had never before. Other are still wandering around.

No one could read about how brothers were treated in the late eighties, mainly over a cover up of sexual impropriety, and say, "Boy, must be a whole lotta good goin on over there."

We are not here painting anything. We are telling it the way we experienced it, and saw it. I know this is a lot to stomach for some who would rather make nice with LSM. But I don't think that is what forums like this are about.

So far as taking responsibility is concerned, may I suggest that you can now say that you should have taken more because you are saying it in hindsight. At the time, brother, I have little doubt that the peer pressure was what kept you from taking more responsibility.

And that, my brother, was my point.

Having said all that I would have to agree with you about most of the brothers. You spoke of the ones who took care of your children. I know hundreds of brothers like that. They are precious indeed.

But the fact remains that LSM is corrupt, errant, and wants to cover up a dark history, while going forth with quite another image. These dear brother who are precious are either having their heads in the sand, just don’t know what’s going on, or don’t want to know. They continue to stand with clinched fists and shout a big AMEN to EVERYTHING that the Blended Brothers say. Nevertheless, that should not prevent us from telling the truth.

Roger

Dear brother and sisters,

Could we step back and take a deep breath. djohnson, who is no friend, started the thread with a very spectacular charge regarding the children of dear saints who happened to have been in the local churches. “I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.” He adds, “My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits.

Then many of the forum members followed with sweeping statements which summed up the local churches and the believers who participated in them. When others such as Terry, Arizona, Peter Debelak, and OBW, Mike and myself attempted to add some moderation they were dismissed out of hand. Yet they gave their experiences and were not agents of the LCM sent here to cover up the real situation. Arizona was immediately dismissed by one of the dear forum members as a current LSM member.

Roger, I feel the above posters are being denigrated and being subjected to a kind of peer pressure.

Forum members, do not let djohnson stir up trouble and destroy the forum and fellowship as he has in other settings. He wants you all to admit you are addicts. He wants you all to admit you are terrible parents with terrible children and hopes that all that was ever any good, testimony or persons would be discredited and buried. He wants you all to disappear. If we join his kind of wild sweeping condemnation, we will self destruct.

Arizona made a very simple and true statement when he declared, “Many of us parents were just damaged people out of the Sixties scene who had no clue how to raise children so we did the best we knew how,,, and the LC helped in many ways in that endeavor.”

The Local Churches collected a lot of peculiar people who were damaged in some way or other. They applied things often in an extreme way. Some of the leaders did not practice proper leadership because they were themselves damaged and odd. The story that Roger related is a classic on authority abuse. Never should a leader use a meeting to shoot a silver bullet at a dear saint. I am all for exposing such practices.

The main leadership had very serious flaws in teaching and in practice. Nell declared that there was a class system. She stated that I could get away with behavior that a single sister could not. In the Body of Christ there should never be such a thing. I desire to be rescued from all my bad practices and am more than willing to have my specific faults pointed out and condemned. I believe that the specific bad fruit of some of the leaders and churches should be pointed out. I want to know the truth, both the clear biblical truth and the truth of the history. But I also am aware of the enemy’s practice of cursing. Satan, the accuser of the brethern, will accuse in broad sweeping charges. The Holy Spirit shines light in a very specific way and not only convicts of sin but offers forgiveness and a fresh start.

I am convinced that the original intent of this thread was to curse us all. Please take this fellowship to the Lord.

djohnson please repent from your way of seeking to discredit, belittle, condemn and destroy. I know these are strong words and I do not write them lightly.


In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

No family with addicted parents is all bad. There are moments of joy and fun. But the children know there is something else their parents love and care about more than them. This something takes priority over all other things/people including the children. In the LCS this "something" was Lee. To go back and forth about who went to baseball and who had a TV and who didn't is to miss the bigger issue. An alcoholic parent might take their kid to a baseball game but the kid knows his dad would rather be gulping down some whiskey at the local bar. And in the scheme of things he knows his dad spends more off-work time down at the bar than anywhere else.

It is not until the parent admits there is a problem that the long road of recovery begins and in the process of recovery he realizes what is really important in life is not the bottle as his main focus with the kid/s and family as a subsidiary sideline issue.

I wonder how many parents who left the LCS actually faced and admitted their addiction to Lee. My guess is: not too many. They are still in denial.

[Paul Cox]

Dear Hope,

I remember you with fondness. I know who you are (although you certainly wouldn’t know me from Adam), and respect you as an authority on the matter of the Local Church and Witness Lee. I will take to heart the things you have said.

However, please do not so easily dismiss people such as djohnson. He has not revealed a whole lot about who he is, related to the Local Church. 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.

Brother, the Local Church way is to dismiss, or exclude those who make us feel uncomfortable. Do we not have enough recorded history to confirm this? But sometimes it is the ones who make us feel uncomfortable who are actually speaking for God. This is not a specific statement about djohnson, but a general statement, considering the likes of King David, Gideon, John the Baptist and even the Lord Jesus.

We all saw the Local Church (then) and we all see the Living Stream Church (now) from different perspectives. Certainly there are many facets to this organization. Let's honor each one's view. I don't believe anyone here is lying, as the likes of Bilbodog, etc., would have us believe. We are just speaking what we saw from our vantage point. Put the whole picture together and you got a big problem.

Roger

[TLFisher]

Brother, the Local Church way is to dismiss, or exclude those who make us feel uncomfortable. Do we not have enough recorded history to confirm this? But sometimes it is the ones who make us feel uncomfortable who are actually speaking for God. This is not a specific statement about djohnson, but a general statement, considering the likes of King David, Gideon, John the Baptist and even the Lord Jesus.



Roger

Roger, generally those dismissed or excluded from fellowship can be viewed as wild stallions by the leadership. It's easier to exclude the ones you can't reign in. When leading brothers don't feel secure a certain brother or sister is on par with the ministry, they are pessimisitc that the certain brother or certain sister may say something negative. Even if it isn't the case, there's a need to safeguard the locality from those saints that might express concerns or criticisms.
Roger, it is the ones who make others uncomfortable because they're not lining up with man. They may be a prophet types like a Jeremiah or a Daniel. In the Old Testament, it was the prophets that incurred the wrath of rulers.

Terry

[Ohio]

But Ohio, I really wanted to see that game. I was very proud of my son.;)



Brother, I sure appreciate all your posts.

Isn't this the same son who ended up a one-year-old opium addict? (For the full story, read Hope's book.) He was a miracle playing soccer. I wouldn't have missed that game either! :D


Thanks for your comment, "By then, if you recall, there was practically no anointing on WL's speaking. He was doing his summary of the New Testament and completing his life study work. Dry, dead, no light." For years (maybe 20) I felt that the problem was only with me and my heart. All those around me continually sung his praises, so I did too, but the most I got was doctrines. The anointing was also replaced by wild promotionals at the trainings.

[Hope]

Dear Hope,

I remember you with fondness. I know who you are (although you certainly wouldn’t know me from Adam), and respect you as an authority on the matter of the Local Church and Witness Lee. I will take to heart the things you have said.

However, please do not so easily dismiss people such as djohnson. He has not revealed a whole lot about who he is, related to the Local Church. 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.

Brother, the Local Church way is to dismiss, or exclude those who make us feel uncomfortable. Do we not have enough recorded history to confirm this? But sometimes it is the ones who make us feel uncomfortable who are actually speaking for God. This is not a specific statement about djohnson, but a general statement, considering the likes of King David, Gideon, John the Baptist and even the Lord Jesus.

We all saw the Local Church (then) and we all see the Living Stream Church (now) from different perspectives. Certainly there are many facets to this organization. Let's honor each one's view. I don't believe anyone here is lying, as the likes of Bilbodog, etc., would have us believe. We are just speaking what we saw from our vantage point. Put the whole picture together and you got a big problem.

Roger

Dear Brother, thank you for the kind words. I do not know you from the past but I have come to know you on the two forums. I am sure we would have a great time in the Lord Jesus should He choose for our paths to cross.
I completely agree with your words of wisdom that we need to be open to an Elijah, someone who makes us uncomfortable. On the other hand, we should exercise some discernment. One thing I have difficulty with is dissimulation. Your are correct that djohnson was a former member with a specific history and not just a friend of someone who once was in the LC. I have read his posts carefully both here and on the other forum. While I do consider his assessments I do see something else.

I have to run to make an appointment this am. I felt to check the forum on the way out the door and now my wife is on my case that I will be late.

May the Lord bless you richly today. I will answer more in the future. I will probably communicate by PM.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Ohio]

Hello Dear brothers and sisters,

I must take a different position. Much of what I am reading sounds strange and foreign to me.


Brother Hope, much of what you share sounds "strange and foreign" to me. :)

It seems that you and DJohnson are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I agree that djohnson's characterizations are far too extreme to be representative. But ... I have to admit that neither were you representative of the whole. :D

That is why I was so upset three years ago when I learned the truth about brothers like you, John Ingalls, and many others. What a different Recovery it would have been if we had really "practiced blending" back in the 70's and 80's as we so often hear about now. "Blending" is just a farce that is really "purging."

I do believe that the experiences of the LC's are quite diversified. Some things that I post are also "strange and foreign" to others. Things were different place to place, region to region, and at various times.

I would only hope that DJ would post more as an "eye-witness" rather than as an "observer" with extreme characterizations that are not representative of the whole.

[YP0534]

Thanks for your comment, "By then, if you recall, there was practically no anointing on WL's speaking. He was doing his summary of the New Testament and completing his life study work. Dry, dead, no light." For years (maybe 20) I felt that the problem was only with me and my heart. All those around me continually sung his praises, so I did too, but the most I got was doctrines. The anointing was also replaced by wild promotionals at the trainings.

Yeah, Ohio, but I wanted to respond to Hope myself and say, "Really? Practically no annointing you say? But maybe just a little bit? What does that mean, exactly. No light at all? Huh. Was that really what you experienced? Brother Hope, I would have to differ with you somewhat."

But then I felt, well, I'm not really here to defend Lee. I love brother Hope's portion so let Lee's real advocates do that. Let his writings stand and fall on their own merits.

But I still wanted to say, I was blown away by the stuff in the Conclusion messages coming to it as a baby Christian and 20+ years later I'm STILL waiting for LSM to publish those messages on the New Jerusalem where I saw some lovely things indeed.

Leviticus? OK. I'm in agreement about Leviticus.

A lot of the practical ramblings on 1-in-4 and 1-in-20 and such? Come on! You might as well try to pray-read the Wall Street Journal.

I just felt Hope's description was overly harsh especially for that particular point in history, 1984-1985, that he cited. I'd guess he's just shifted the dates a year or three in his memory, though, because I'm on board with both of you by the first training on Life-Study of Leviticus for sure. I tried so hard to get my enjoyment out of the training messages at that point but it just wasn't there anymore.

I was sucking on dry bones just three years after getting so used to the rich flavor of Christ.

Maybe what y'all are saying is that in this period the annointing and the light wasn't what it was in even, say, 1980? I still tend to disagree based upon my experiences with the printed messages later on, but I concede that I wasn't there to know how things were before 1985....

[YP0534]

I completely agree with your words of wisdom that we need to be open to an Elijah, someone who makes us uncomfortable. On the other hand, we should exercise some discernment.


Even when disagreeing with you on other matters, brother Hope, you can still get my amen in the Lord.

We can all definitely use the help with the discernment. The enemy is a subtle one. That means things are not always obvious. Even when we are intending to do good, the enemy can come and twist things up so subtly that no one even realizes how far it went off until years later. This is a major lesson in the Local Church experience.

My little grace to discern is what made me so uncomfortable at the other place. I should like to exercise here to keep our little corner of the Internet at least a little holy if at all possible.

[countmeworthy]

Maybe what y'all are saying is that in this period the annointing and the light wasn't what it was in even, say, 1980? I still tend to disagree based upon my experiences with the printed messages later on, but I concede that I wasn't there to know how things were before 1985....


YP0534

I think I know where you are coming from. I don't remember your time frame in the LC. Mine was 1975-79 ish.

I came 'off the streets'...had a Catholic background but no Bible upbringing.

The messages were 'fresh'..certainly NEW, enlightening. I was a baby Christian, reading the Word, getting insight on the Power of the Name of Jesus..the Power of the Blood of Jesus..the process of Sanctification...and so many other truths of the Bible.

I was fellowshipping with saints for the first time in my life.

By the time I left, the messages were not only dry, dead and repetitious but Lee was being venerated. It was LEE and the church..no longer CHRIST and the church.

But what I want to point out is many people had already left the LC before I came in! There were people who really knew Lee personally & parted ways with him. They knew what he was all about but most of us did not.

Others who knew the LORD intimately and HIS WORD probably saw red flags way before I ever did and thus left too.

So I see it like this: For me, the messages were anointed to me for the season I was in the LC. For me to grow and mature in Christ Jesus, my LORD and KING and in my personal, intimate relationship with HIM, I needed to be there, under Lee's ministry.

A time came when as I look back, 'the anointing' not only lifted but left altogether. For those who left before me after having been there many years, the 'anointing' had left. They knew it and they had to leave.

For others who came after me, they may have needed to be there too.

Were all the messages 'anointed'? NO! But many were....for me.

Genesis, the gospel of John, and Hebrews in particular were messages I cherish.

Still, I give THANKS and PRAISE to MY GOD I'm outta there! :hurray:

[OBW]

I must say that there is something correct in every statement made. The LC was a factor in many of the problems with the kids. But on the other hand, there was not simply some epidemic of problems that was only caused by association with the LC.

One observation that Don made I would like to emphasize. The LC collected a lot of peculiar people. I would take it farther than that. The LC was, at some level, a magnet for the dysfunctional of society.

I know that sounds funny when it is put up against the willful desire to go after the “best material” but it was true. The “good material” has real lives, real friends, even real Christian fellowship. The marginal are looking for that family they never really had. The sense of belonging is tremendous. Add to that the sense of belonging to the one place on earth that is “God’s heart.” They flock, metaphorically.

When I consider the Church in Dallas, I can recall some problems with kids. I also recall a lot of normal families. In this respect it was neither idyllic nor hell-on-earth.

But when I look at the collection that was the Church in Dallas, I also see a strange variety of people. There were plenty of very normal couples and singles. Mixed in among them were some very interesting people. Some had significant problems with life. The LC didn’t cause it, but the LC didn’t help it either.

I remember a brother who once overslept and rather than get dressed quickly and get to work, he did his regular one-hour reading and praying routine and when he finally got to work was summarily fired. It wasn’t the only time he had problems with keeping a job. You might be able to point to a lack of practical balance to typical LC rhetoric about your quiet time. But the truth is that this brother, while there was a brilliant mind somewhere inside, had previously damaged that mind with drugs. That he was functioning at the level that he did was at least partly the result of his conversion and support of the LC.

So you can’t just blame the LC. But it didn’t help either. More and more, churches help beyond spiritual guidance or didactic sermons. And this is where the LC failed. We have all heard the stories about how Lee would say one day that they shouldn’t own expensive cars, then the following week comment that they were spending too much time fixing old cars. You can blame the followers for being so dogmatic in their following, but Lee was not ignorant of the effect he had. While it may have never been expressed, I question whether he somehow enjoyed seeing everyone jump when he spoke, even if it was to jump off a cliff.

Did this hurt families? Probably so. Did bad examples in the local leadership cause problems for others? Probably so. Is it fair to say that it was the LC’s fault? Not so sure.

And we have had threads that discussed the disdain for counseling, whether by the LC leadership or by professionals. The number of marriages that might have been saved if the answer to every problem was not to pray-read more and attend more meetings but instead some serious discussions about the issues that were stewing in those couples. (Don. I’m sure that there were situations in which that was not exactly true, but you must admit that, at least in broad brush, it was true. Even if it was a misperception of the members, it is hard to understand that anyone wants to hear about it when the official line is “know no man in the flesh” and that means don’t talk about anything but Christ and the church.)

Did the LC experience more problems than the rest of Christianity? I don’t know. But despite trying to create some image of superiority, they tended to be just like Christianity in many ways. Fill their heads with knowledge and they will turn out OK. Well, it sometimes does not work. And it is possible that to the extent that the LC parents tried to over-protect their kids, the result was the often-seen rebellion at the first opportunity.

I heard an interesting story recently. This brother was talking about the possibility of taking his daughter out of the public schools because they had gotten so poor in certain ways. Part of the consideration centered on a friend of the daughter’s that was otherwise an outcast. Her input was “who will love [the friend].” The decision was made.

I’m sure that the LC has had an impact on many families. For some it was positive, and for some it was negative. In some cases, the ultimate outcome may have been devastating. But the LC was never the whole problem.

[Matt Anderson]

I disagree with djohnson's approach to those from an LC background, but I don't discount the substance of what he brings forward.

I think there is a very important question that lies at the base of many of the things related to the LC.

Did many enter into idolatry? Did the sacrifices made to these idols compromise families and allow the Enemy of God to be a destructive force on the lives of the children in those families? Was it widespread?

- The answer to all of these is YES.

The next most important question is whether or not this idolatry has been acknowledged and repented of at a proper level?

- The answer in many cases is NO.

I have a strong reaction to those who would defend any aspect of a christian system that does not hold families and the boundaries that God has set in place for families fully intact.

For example, how many times did elders in local congregations discipline other people's children? It happened all of the time. It happened without informing, involving and working with the people who are commanded to love and nurture these children (the parents).

There are many other examples of the types of lesser but very serious violations of God's ways in families.

This is very fundamental and I believe it is an area that is overlooked for the sake of some 'higher vision' of "The Church".

We are not talking about gross physical abuse, but neglect and the utter failure of many, many parents who prostrated themselves before the LC system as an idol in disobedience to God's ways.

Neglect is very serious in the face of the fact that God gives such strong instruction regarding the responsibilities and duties within families for all parties (fathers, mothers and children).

Neglect is abuse.

I'd like to hear about the families that did uphold proper Biblical standards when it came to raising children.

Name ONE? Then let's discuss them as an example and compare them to the normal situation in the LC.

Matt

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Ohio I never intended my observation of Leeaholism to represent the whole. The addiction levels will obviously vary among members. I think I have made this exceedingly clear. For example the current top of the hierarchy leadership in Anaheim are clearly raging Leeaholics. They are in a daily drunken stupor on Lee. Whereas a puppet local leader in lets say Timbuktu may just be addicted enough to become an LSM pitchman, allow most Lee events to take precedent over his family and have 80% of the books in his house be Lee. So compared to the Leeaholics running the show in Anaheim he's like a 1/2 bottle a day guy compared to 5 bottles a day.

You'll notice - and this forum is a good example of it - how difficult it is for people to come off of Lee. To break the habit and get on the wagon. If there's another Lee addict in their house it makes it especially difficult for one to break away, get clean and stay sober.

Now I know some former Lee addicted parents don't want to admit their addiction and the problems it caused. But admitting the problem is the first step towards recovery. Those who protest the most about admitting it are usually the ones deepest in denial.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Roger and Hope please refrain from making absolutist statements about what you think my history is beyond what I have told you. You do not know and therefore are engaging in needless speculation.

However let me say I have studied and observed at length and first hand addictive behaviors and know it when I see it. The Leeaholism of the LCS is classic textbook.

[Matt Anderson]

djohnson,

You should spend some time to get Biblically clear on one point:

There is no such thing as "Leeaholism". There is something the Bible calls idolatry which is what you are touching on.

We don't need new words, when God's Words will suffice. It will be vey difficult for some to hear that they were or are involved in idolatry, but it is true. All the evidence is present.

Matt

[John]

Let me begin with words from Witness Lee:

Many married sisters pretend and even declare that they love the Lord. Eventually it becomes manifest that what they really love is their children. They do not even love their husbands so much as their children. Such a sister who declares that she loves the Lord yet who really loves her children more is not a full-timer. If a sister is really a full-timer, whether her children live or are taken away by the Lord, it is the same. (Lee, Elders’ Training Book 8, 112–113)
Hmmm...I wonder what kind of an influence that kind of message would have on the hearers? A few have stated that it wasn’t that way in “their” church. Well, maybe “your” church didn’t have the problems to the same degree as the ones that I’ve seen; or, maybe you just didn’t see the problems.

One former LC elder has stated that we shouldn’t use a broad brush to condemn but just move on. Thankful Jane has countered that idea, and I agree with the counter. People should speak up. It helps them to get well, and it helps others.

I do have to ask myself though, “Why do some want to stop folks from writing about what they know? What are they trying to hide?” After my first post, I got a private message basically telling me not to expose people, which I hadn’t done. What are we afraid of? It seems to me like the Living Stream Ministry is like a vipers’ den. To think that you and “your” church somehow avoided the venom is not wise. Besides, hiding information is what the Local Church System is all about.

“My children were fine. I did things with my kids.” This is definitely a good thing and is better than what many experienced. I am thankful to know that a number of children were spared by their parents from the excesses of Lee. Anyway, it's been intimated that The Church in Dallas was somehow without problems in this area, and Matt came out to refute that notion. Please consider another thread with reference to The Church in Dallas, The Thread of Gold:

When Sally Martin (the sister whose arranged marriage I described previously) was in high school, she was reported to the elders for being seen kissing a young brother in a car after school. Subsequently, during a conference at the Church in Dallas, she was summoned to a private meeting. When she arrived, she found that her parents had also been summoned. According to her, neither she nor her parents knew what the meeting was about prior to being asked to attend. Sally was seated at the head of a long table. Her parents were included at the table with approximately sixteen Local Church elders from Texas and other states. They proceeded to talk to her about her inappropriate behavior while her parents said nothing.

She told me that the whole time became a big blur to her because she was in so much pain from the embarrassment and humiliation of such a confrontation. She lived with the pain of that memory and suffered under the sanctions they placed on her. She also suffered having to face those elders at other Local Church meetings and conferences. (363–364)
Jane goes on to state that this was a matter that should have been broached with her parents for her parents to handle. To subject a young girl to a council of 16 elders from two states sounds like a horrific injustice to me.

Another red herring that has been thrown out to put us off the scent is this: The problems with the children couldn’t have been with the Local Church or the parents because the children of the same parents in the same Local Church turned out differently—one a saint, the other a drug addict. This is “fishy” because every child is unique, formed so by God. It’s up to the parents to find out how to nurture and admonish each one. You can almost be guaranteed that what works for one will not work for the other. It is love that goes the extra mile to find out how to handle each child.

So, please, take care of your children, and the Lord will take care of the church.

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. (NASV, Matt 19:13–15)

[TLFisher]

For example, how many times did elders in local congregations discipline other people's children? It happened all of the time. It happened without informing, involving and working with the people who are commanded to love and nurture these children (the parents).

There are many other examples of the types of lesser but very serious violations of God's ways in families.

This is very fundamental and I believe it is an area that is overlooked for the sake of some 'higher vision' of "The Church".

We are not talking about gross physical abuse, but neglect and the utter failure of many, many parents who prostrated themselves before the LC system as an idol in disobedience to God's ways.

Neglect is very serious in the face of the fact that God gives such strong instruction regarding the responsibilities and duties within families for all parties (fathers, mothers and children).

Neglect is abuse.

I'd like to hear about the families that did uphold proper Biblical standards when it came to raising children.

Name ONE? Then let's discuss them as an example and compare them to the normal situation in the LC.

Matt

Matt, I don't agree painting everyone in the LCS with a broad brush. Just as there are those who care too much about what the other brothers and sisters think, that the parent or parents wouldn't dare raise an objection if one of the other brothers or sisters gave their child a serious rebuke. That I see as violating the parent's responsibility. It's intensified when it happens in the parent's presence and not a word is uttered. (Which is why as a parent, I cannot scold another parent's child. All I can do is bring it to the attention of the parent and leave the responsibility with them.)

Matt, just there are parents that wouldn't dare raise objections there are also parents who consider it an offense if another brother or sister rebuked their child; justified or unjustified.

Grace,

Terry

[finallyprettyokay]

Many married sisters pretend and even declare that they love the Lord. Eventually it becomes manifest that what they really love is their children. They do not even love their husbands so much as their children. Such a sister who declares that she loves the Lord yet who really loves her children more is not a full-timer. If a sister is really a full-timer, whether her children live or are taken away by the Lord, it is the same. (Lee, Elders’ Training Book 8, 112–113)


So, he didn't use the word 'Wrapper' here, like he did the time I have written about, but it sure is the same idea. How shameful.

I recently read The Thread of Gold and this story (of the young girl) came close to gagging me. For adult men to have a conversation with a young person about such personal things smacks of the worst kind of voyeurism imaginable. And for her parents to sit through that, allow that to happen to their daughter, without even a word (let alone the words that come to my mind now :eek:) is just beyond contemplation. Adults don't talk to young people about sex. Ever. Never. ( Of course, except for parents, or in a counseling setting with a trained counseler, not 'elders'. )

People were hurt in the LC. Especially kids. No one should underestimate how truly wrong that is. Every 'high' teaching or 'high' experience does not justify this. People were hurt there. And the shame and hurt were institutionalized, not incidental. No one should say, oh people are hurt in all sorts of places. Sure, that's true. This was behavior that was taught as 'God's way'. Talk about using God's name in vain.

fpo

[Thankful Jane]

Could we step back and take a deep breath. djohnson, who is no friend, I don’t see anything on this forum in djohnson’s posts that says he is “no friend.”

...started the thread with a very spectacular charge regarding the children of dear saints who happened to have been in the local churches. “I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.” He adds, “My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits. Djohnson is free to make statements here, spectacular or otherwise. We are free to support or refute them based on their content.

Then many of the forum members followed with sweeping statements which summed up the local churches and the believers who participated in them. When others such as Terry, Arizona, Peter Debelak, and OBW, Mike and myself attempted to add some moderation they were dismissed out of hand. Yet they gave their experiences and were not agents of the LCM sent here to cover up the real situation. Arizona was immediately dismissed by one of the dear forum members as a current LSM member. Sweeping statements are also allowed and can be discussed. For clarity’s sake, would you mind giving us one of these “sweeping” statements. You say that five people were dismissed out of hand. Where was that? I saw some arguments offered. I didn’t’ see anyone’s person being dismissed out of hand.

Roger, I feel the above posters are being denigrated and being subjected to a kind of peer pressure.
You are loading up the language here, Hope. Denigrated? (def: to attack somebody’s character or reputation; to disparage or criticize somebody or something, or make something seem unimportant). Please give an example of such denigration. I missed it, that is, until your post to djohnson..

Forum members, do not let djohnson stir up trouble and destroy the forum and fellowship as he has in other settings.
I watched djohnson’s posts greatly improve over a period of time on the other forum. What has he done on this forum?

He wants you all to admit you are addicts.
Looking at his words, I would say he is stating the obvious. I agree with him that there is such a thing as a Lee addiction. Many are in denial about this.

He wants you all to admit you are terrible parents with terrible children and hopes that all that was ever any good, testimony or persons would be discredited and buried. What!? Hope, how can you know that djohnson wants this? Has he told you this? We can judge each others actions and words for what they actually are, but saying we know others motives is crossing a line.

He wants you all to disappear. If we join his kind of wild sweeping condemnation, we will self destruct.
Disappear? Self destruct? .... Whoa, Hope, you’re getting a little scary here. Okay, by now you’ve had a good night’s sleep, and I’m sure when you re-read this, you’ll see how strange this sounds ....

Arizona made a very simple and true statement when he declared, “Many of us parents were just damaged people out of the Sixties scene who had no clue how to raise children so we did the best we knew how,,, and the LC helped in many ways in that endeavor.”
The Local Churches collected a lot of peculiar people who were damaged in some way or other. They applied things often in an extreme way. Some of the leaders did not practice proper leadership because they were themselves damaged and odd. The story that Roger related is a classic on authority abuse. Never should a leader use a meeting to shoot a silver bullet at a dear saint. I am all for exposing such practices.

The main leadership had very serious flaws in teaching and in practice. Nell declared that there was a class system. She stated that I could get away with behavior that a single sister could not. In the Body of Christ there should never be such a thing.
I totally agree that the LC was a collecting place of a lot of previously damaged people. They, however, didn’t just start applying things in an extreme way all by themselves. They were in love with Jesus and were ready to be led. I would say “many” not “some” of the leaders did not practice “proper” leadership. Proper leaders would not silently follow improper “main” leaders into error. They would be holding the Head and would speak up accordingly. There are few to none who did. I witnessed many “silver bullets” shot at people in meetings. I don’t remember even one leader ever speaking up to correct this. Instead, I remember them nodding their heads in agreement.

The last thing dysfunctional people trying to get their lives on course with God need is dysfunctional leaders giving them unhealthy teaching.

I desire to be rescued from all my bad practices and am more than willing to have my specific faults pointed out and condemned. I believe that the specific bad fruit of some of the leaders and churches should be pointed out. I want to know the truth, both the clear biblical truth and the truth of the history. I believe you truly desire this and commend you for it and also for the willingness you have exhibited on this forum to listen to others.

In line with your stated desire, please allow me then to say that this post of yours is reminiscent of a local church elder doing damage control; however, in your case I'm not sure what you're trying to protect. Don't you see that what you are doing comes across as denigrating djohnson?

It seems to me that you are speaking down to us as one who is “in the know” and has a “clearer picture” of things than everyone else. You warned us earlier about “blaming” and not being drawn into Satan’s “accusing, accusing, accusing.”

Hope, as long as we aren’t violating basic courtesy or personally attacking someone and as long as we’re not going afield from Lee/Nee matters, we are free to say whatever we think on this forum--even if it sounds like blaming or accusing.

This kind of warning shuts people down by triggering their fears of offending God in some way. It stops those with a sensitive conscience from speaking the truth that they need to speak. This forum is a place where hurt people can learn to dialogue honestly without fear and without having to worry about figuring out if they sound like they are “blaming” or “accusing.”
But I also am aware of the enemy’s practice of cursing. Satan, the accuser of the brethern, will accuse in broad sweeping charges. The Holy Spirit shines light in a very specific way and not only convicts of sin but offers forgiveness and a fresh start.

I am convinced that the original intent of this thread was to curse us all. Please take this fellowship to the Lord.
I’m still feel like I'm sitting in an LC meeting being warned about who and what I should listen to. I am being told that I should not receive something from a person who has been identified as someone whose motive is bad and who is hurting us.

Hope, forgive my bluntness. I love you as my brother in Christ and want only His very best for you. I know you mean only the best. I’m sure our leaders in the past meant the best; nevertheless, they didn’t do the best.

Most of us do not want to be given pronouncements about what we should think, or say, or believe or who we should listen to. We, not only can, but must, make such judgments for ourselves.

I am not upset with you. I am full of sympathy for what you have been through. I understand that you were not as guilty as other leaders and appreciate that. However, I feel I should point out what I see as a symptom of what I consider to be the LC leadership disease.

You can take or leave what I’ve written. That’s up to you. I do hope you will give it some consideration. I may be one of the only ones to push back like this and will probably get some flack for it, but that's okay.

I sat silently in the LC and watched while leaders, using the base of respect they had built up with others, made pronouncements to and about others that were not theirs to make. I am not going to just sit by quietly on this forum when I see more of the same.

Ever your sister and faithful witness in Christ Jesus,

Thankful Jane

[TLFisher]

Let me begin with words from Witness Lee:

Many married sisters pretend and even declare that they love the Lord. Eventually it becomes manifest that what they really love is their children. They do not even love their husbands so much as their children. Such a sister who declares that she loves the Lord yet who really loves her children more is not a full-timer. If a sister is really a full-timer, whether her children live or are taken away by the Lord, it is the same. (Lee, Elders’ Training Book 8, 112–113)



Why does this quote single out sisters? It applies to brothers just as equally.
What exactly is Witness Lee saying in this quote? That loving you children is in competition with the Lord? Or is he saying that loving your children is in competition with his ministry?
We should love our children. Our children is a gift from the Lord. If we didn't love children given to us, why entrust parents with such a responsibility? We have a good 20 years to raise our children and nurture them to the best of our ability as parents. After children grow into adulthood, our love continues but the children need to be responsible for their actions. As parents we cannot coddle our children forever.
Based on the last sentence from the quote, once we recieve the Lord, we are all "full-timers". Being a Christian is 24/7. There is no on/off switch. In relating to the sentence, of course we as parents want our children to live. It's abnormal for parents to outlive their children. When the Lord does take our children, I can't speak for parents who have had that happen; but our faith and our trust in the Lord should continue.

Terry

[Hope]

I disagree with djohnson's approach to those from an LC background, but I don't discount the substance of what he brings forward.

I think there is a very important question that lies at the base of many of the things related to the LC.

Did many enter into idolatry? Did the sacrifices made to these idols compromise families and allow the Enemy of God to be a destructive force on the lives of the children in those families? Was it widespread?

- The answer to all of these is YES.

The next most important question is whether or not this idolatry has been acknowledged and repented of at a proper level?

- The answer in many cases is NO.

I have a strong reaction to those who would defend any aspect of a christian system that does not hold families and the boundaries that God has set in place for families fully intact.

For example, how many times did elders in local congregations discipline other people's children? It happened all of the time. It happened without informing, involving and working with the people who are commanded to love and nurture these children (the parents).
There are many other examples of the types of lesser but very serious violations of God's ways in families.

This is very fundamental and I believe it is an area that is overlooked for the sake of some 'higher vision' of "The Church".

We are not talking about gross physical abuse, but neglect and the utter failure of many, many parents who prostrated themselves before the LC system as an idol in disobedience to God's ways.

Neglect is very serious in the face of the fact that God gives such strong instruction regarding the responsibilities and duties within families for all parties (fathers, mothers and children).

Neglect is abuse.

I'd like to hear about the families that did uphold proper Biblical standards when it came to raising children.

Name ONE? Then let's discuss them as an example and compare them to the normal situation in the LC.
Matt


Dear Matt,

Church leaders should never overstep their boundaries and discipline the childrens of others.

The idolatry of Baal and Estarte worship in the old testament was a terrible form of family abuse complete with infanticide and putting your wife out as a temple prostitute. Idolatry certainly does involve the sacrifice of the family. The family is critical in God's administration and should be preserved, nurtured and built up. At another time, I would enjoy a fellowship on idolatry, but not just on the idolatry in the lc but in our broad society. It is rampant.

Surely, surely we had a big flat spot on being a proper spouse and parent according to the Lord's revelation and plan and purpose. Another topic that could be very helpful to us all. We all need help here whether or not we ever heard of the lc.

Regarding the discipline of other's children. I am not familar with this practice. Perhaps some elder somewhere scolded a child. There was an older brother in Dallas who would call down a young person in an ad hoc manner but he came from the old southern culture where the community was watching out for all the children and if I was riding my bicycle in an unsafe manner the neighbor would be quick to give me a little scolding. I remember one time when at a Jr. High conference, I scolded some of the junior high boys for some little misdeed like jumping up and running for snacks before dismissal or some little thing like that. For some reason that irritated me and I said something about that behavior being like Bozo the clown. I remember it well because the father of one of the boys sat me down and put me in my place. I did apologize for I should have never slandered any of the children. I had been pounding this into the other brothers who were working with the young people. Never slander or curse the precious young people.

While I can remember the Bozo comment very clearly, the story told about the young sister being called down before 16 elders from two states is as foreign to me as a man from Mars.:eek: When and where did something like this happen? Thankful Jane never was in the church in Dallas. We did not have a long table around which 16 people could sit. I do recall such a table in Houston. I was not there!!! I never heard of it!!!

As far as naming families which came up to proper Biblical Standards in raising children, that is a tall order. On this one nearly all christians today are way short. But I can name many families who loved their children dearly as well as each other. Perhaps I could nominate the family of Mike H. as my example of an all star family. :hurray: (But then Mike and his brother were already in high school. Therefore we probably did not have time to mess them up.)

There was another family that my wife and children considered to be just about perfect. My boys in rare sober moments:D would tell me that the sons of .... were just about perfect in the way they respected their parents, did their chores, completed their homework etc. They would say things like they could never get away with the stuff they did at our house. I would agree that brother and sister .... were surely much better parents than Sheryl and I and we should all aspire to be like that family. Then lo and behold the children had some serious problems. How could this be? Later, praise the Lord, they were all restored and at last report were outstanding citizens and believers in Christ. It may have been due to the classic "over protected" children may go overboard for a while which Mike H. pointed out. How to protect but not over protect? I very real delima. I surely do not have the answer.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Paul Cox]

djohnson,

You should spend some time to get Biblically clear on one point:

There is no such thing as "Leeaholism". There is something the Bible calls idolatry which is what you are touching on.

We don't need new words, when God's Words will suffice. It will be vey difficult for some to hear that they were or are involved in idolatry, but it is true. All the evidence is present.

Matt


Matt,
Years ago I came to the conclusion that there are many in the Living Stream Church who are addicted to Witness Lee's ministry. I concluded this based on my own observations, and from listening to testimonies of others.

One brother who left the LSM Church, while his wife remained in, relates this: He spoke of her deciding to leave "The Ministry" after having been informed of a lot of things she didn't know about how corrupt that organization is.

All seemed okay for a while. But then one morning at 2:00 A.M., she wakes up in a panic. She is literally having a panic attack. It is not until she reaches over and grabs her Witness Lee Version of the Bible and declares that she will return to "The Ministry," that "peace" comes to her. This didn't just happen once, it happened many times with this sister.

A brother in this kind of situation might be at a loss for words, as to how he should describe what he had just seen. Addiction was the only word that explained it all. This is indeed the behavior of an addict who has to have a fix to be brought back to calmness.

It is not too much to call this affliction "Leeaholism," even though the word does not appear in the Bible. Sometimes the only way to define a strange phenomenon is to coin a new term for what you see.

I believe there is a foul spirit associated with the ministry of Witness Lee, to some extent. I know that statement will not set well with many who read this. But I have no other way to explain some of the strange behavior of some of it's most ardent defenders. I also believe there is a foul spirit associated with JW's, Mormons, alcoholics, and compulsive gamblers.

Just my opinion, but I'm entitled to it.

Roger

[TLFisher]

Matt,
Years ago I came to the conclusion that there are many in the Living Stream Church who are addicted to Witness Lee's ministry. I concluded this based on my own observations, and from listening to testimonies of others.

One brother who left the LSM Church, while his wife remained in, relates this: He spoke of her deciding to leave "The Ministry" after having been informed of a lot of things she didn't know about how corrupt that organization is.

All seemed okay for a while. But then one morning at 2:00 A.M., she wakes up in a panic. She is literally having a panic attack. It is not until she reaches over and grabs her Witness Lee Version of the Bible and declares that she will return to "The Ministry," that "peace" comes to her. This didn't just happen once, it happened many times with this sister.

Just my opinion, but I'm entitled to it.

Roger

Roger, how I explain it is change. People don't like change and even resist against change. Some brothers and sisters have no answers where they would go if they ceased meeting with ministry churches. It's all they've known for decades. The concept of meeting apart from a ministry and only to pursue the Lord is a change.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Matt I think people in this forum are smart enough to know what Leeaholism is. It is obviously a spin off word from alcoholism just like workaholism is.

You mention idolatry and that is an interesting point. The practice of idolatry can very easily become an addiction.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Please allow me to share another sign that the LCS was basically a "family" addicted to Lee. What happens with those who leave? From what I can ascertain many have problems fitting in with non-addictive groups. This is common among those in addictive situations. They feel awkward relating to others in non-addictive situations. E.g. in the LCS the Leeaholics relentlessly drink Lee on Sunday - Sat (24/7 if they could). Now if you go to a non-addictive group you will not see that and it can be very uncomfortable. The absence of having an addiction at the center and pervading all of life can be quite disconcerting for those just getting off of Lee.

[YP0534]

Did the LC experience more problems than the rest of Christianity? I don’t know. But despite trying to create some image of superiority, they tended to be just like Christianity in many ways.

yup, yup, yup

of course, I blame "universal church" for that....

[blessD]

Dear Matt,

Church leaders should never overstep their boundaries and discipline the childrens of others.

The idolatry of Baal and Estarte worship in the old testament was a terrible form of family abuse complete with infanticide and putting your wife out as a temple prostitute. Idolatry certainly does involve the sacrifice of the family. The family is critical in God's administration and should be preserved, nurtured and built up. At another time, I would enjoy a fellowship on idolatry, but not just on the idolatry in the lc but in our broad society. It is rampant.

Surely, surely we had a big flat spot on being a proper spouse and parent according to the Lord's revelation and plan and purpose. Another topic that could be very helpful to us all. We all need help here whether or not we ever heard of the lc.

Regarding the discipline of other's children. I am not familar with this practice. Perhaps some elder somewhere scolded a child. There was an older brother in Dallas who would call down a young person in an ad hoc manner but he came from the old southern culture where the community was watching out for all the children and if I was riding my bicycle in an unsafe manner the neighbor would be quick to give me a little scolding. I remember one time when at a Jr. High conference, I scolded some of the junior high boys for some little misdeed like jumping up and running for snacks before dismissal or some little thing like that. For some reason that irritated me and I said something about that behavior being like Bozo the clown. I remember it well because the father of one of the boys sat me down and put me in my place. I did apologize for I should have never slandered any of the children. I had been pounding this into the other brothers who were working with the young people. Never slander or curse the precious young people.

While I can remember the Bozo comment very clearly, the story told about the young sister being called down before 16 elders from two states is as foreign to me as a man from Mars.:eek: When and where did something like this happen? Thankful Jane never was in the church in Dallas. We did not have a long table around which 16 people could sit. I do recall such a table in Houston. I was not there!!! I never heard of it!!!

As far as naming families which came up to proper Biblical Standards in raising children, that is a tall order. On this one nearly all christians today are way short. But I can name many families who loved their children dearly as well as each other. Perhaps I could nominate the family of Mike H. as my example of an all star family. :hurray: (But then Mike and his brother were already in high school. Therefore we probably did not have time to mess them up.)

There was another family that my wife and children considered to be just about perfect. My boys in rare sober moments:D would tell me that the sons of .... were just about perfect in the way they respected their parents, did their chores, completed their homework etc. They would say things like they could never get away with the stuff they did at our house. I would agree that brother and sister .... were surely much better parents than Sheryl and I and we should all aspire to be like that family. Then lo and behold the children had some serious problems. How could this be? Later, praise the Lord, they were all restored and at last report were outstanding citizens and believers in Christ. It may have been due to the classic "over protected" children may go overboard for a while which Mike H. pointed out. How to protect but not over protect? I very real delima. I surely do not have the answer.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Dear Hope,
I am the woman in the story. To set the record straight, it happened just as published. The instance occurred at the house next to the meeting hall in Dallas. Almost all elders from Texas region and OKC were present along with my parents. I think you were there, too. I reviewed the story before the book was published and approved it as true. Elaboration on the disciplinary action should be unnecessary since almost any person with basic counseling knowledge would agree this type of discipline is inappropriate.

Someone mentioned to me about this thread so I wanted to make it clear what really happened. Yes, it was pretty unpleasant; however, I have moved on and rarely think about these memories. God has greatly blessed my family and life. I thank Him for all my experiences - it has made me the person I am today.

[Hope]

My comments mistakenly were put in the quote box!!!
I don’t see anything on this forum in djohnson’s posts that says he is “no friend.”

Djohnson is free to make statements here, spectacular or otherwise. We are free to support or refute them based on their content.

Sweeping statements are also allowed and can be discussed. For clarity’s sake, would you mind giving us one of these “sweeping” statements. You say that five people were dismissed out of hand. Where was that? I saw some arguments offered. I didn’t’ see anyone’s person being dismissed out of hand.

Really??? Go back and read the responses to those five. They were either ignored or completely shouted down. Reminded me a little of the LC collective groan. I did not see much in the posts where someone said "Thank you for that side of the experience." There was some.:hurray: But a healthy back and forth is difficult when you give your experience and are trumped with a story of woe and grief, (the real stuff.)
Sweeping statements?? Here are a few that I noticed. I really hate to do this because I am going to get into trouble. But I did not speak up in the old LCS many times because I wanted everyone to like me.
among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.
A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits.
our children were raised in an environment that was basically anti-family
The addictive behavior is obvious in the LCS and it is encouraged.
I do believe that there was enough abuse in families not to take it lightly or try to move past it through the use of a few examples that appear to mitigate the overall situation.
P.S. Based on what I have heard from others it is possible that the Texas Region (inclusive of Dallas) was more extreme than other regions of the US.
In short they know that Lee was their shadow mommy and daddy.
Perhaps it should be said more plainly: their parents were addicted to Mr. Lee and thus they are children of parents with a chronic addiction
In answer to Dennis' question: their are more social problems among those children who grow up with addicts as parents than otherwise.
Husbands were looked down on if they did anything to help their wives
If you want to understand why so many kids grew up with problems, ask the sisters. They had to deny their most basic instincts concerning the family.
As other posters have written, children watched their parents burn pictures of them. Wow.
It was a sad, sad place and a lot of people, not only children, were not protected and treasured the way we all deserve. The way God commands. Love one another as I have loved you.
It was alot bad
Many can tell you that their children were eventually lost because of the way they were “taken care of” in the Local Church
The picture of the LC life was not what some here seem to want to paint

Perhaps these conclusions are all correct. But I would prefer a reasoned presentation of incorrect teachings, (some have quoted WL to make this point.) and then a calm accounting of the bad practices with a conclusion.

By the way if WL had been kind and his children had been model Christians and all the elders had been godly and the families beautiful, I still would have left. I was loyal to an ideal, a goal to which the Lord had called me. In short, I wanted to know Christ personally and directly as my life and Lord. I wanted to experience a church life that was a testimony of the headship of Christ and the reality of the oneness of the functioning members. By 1988 it was painfully clear that "the Lord's Recovery" with its Apostle of the Age, Deputy Authority, etc was not what the Lord desired or what I wanted.

Addiction? No. I never had any withdrawals. I was relieved that I did not have to attend any more 10 day trainings or critical conferences or urgent elder-co-workers meetings or late night fellowships with the legend or any of his closest co-workers and especially those warmed over death videos. I put all the LSM literature in the attic or a closet and plunged into the "pure" word of God. Oh it is so sweet. The only time I have considered reading something of the old stuff is when Thankful Jane or Nell or Mike H. challenge me on something and I think, "oh boy, I guess I am going to have to check that out." In fact in my writing of the history, I will not be able to continue to avoid it. On the other hand, I did struggle for a time. That was not due to any withdrawals but due to a shattered ideal and great grief over my failures as a shepherd.


You are loading up the language here, Hope. Denigrated? (def: to attack somebody’s character or reputation; to disparage or criticize somebody or something, or make something seem unimportant). Please give an example of such denigration. I missed it, that is, until your post to djohnson..

I got the word "denigrate" from one of the posters who was exhorting Arizona for posting his experience which showed another side to the thread's focus. I also used "peer pressure" because one of the posters had used it to describe a key element of the control exercised in the LC. (By the way I do agree that peer pressure was in insidious element there.) Sometimes things cut both ways.;)
I watched djohnson’s posts greatly improve over a period of time on the other forum. What has he done on this forum?

Good ole djohnson's post have improved. I have tried to engage him in a thoughtful manner and give him his due. What he had done here is draw us into a debate concerning who had the most reliable and legitimate lc experience of how bad it was.

Looking at his words, I would say he is stating the obvious. I agree with him that there is such a thing as a Lee addiction. Many are in denial about this.

See Matt's comments.

What!? Hope, how can you know that djohnson wants this? Has he told you this? We can judge each other’s actions and words for what they actually are, but saying we know others motives is crossing a line.
Posters do this all the time. You included TJ. How often I have seen WL's motives addressed because of his actions and words.


Disappear? Self destruct? .... Whoa, Hope, you’re getting a little scary here. Okay, by now you’ve had a good night’s sleep, and I’m sure when you re-read this, you’ll see how strange this sounds ....

I do need a good night’s sleep. Ever since my illness I am not as strong as I use to be. But I have more on my plate than ever. Sleep, ah sweet sleep. Thank you for your concerns.:) What I said may sound strange but just file what I said for later reference. I always hope that my warnings will not come to pass. But had I warned back in 1974 concerning what I saw at that fateful Urgent Elders/Co-Workers meeting, you may have called me strange.

I totally agree that the LC was a collecting place of a lot of previously damaged people. They, however, didn’t just start applying things in an extreme way all by themselves. They were in love with Jesus and were ready to be led. I would say “many” not “some” of the leaders did not practice “proper” leadership. Proper leaders would not silently follow improper “main” leaders into error. They would be holding the Head and would speak up accordingly. There are few to none who did. I witnessed many “silver bullets” shot at people in meetings. I don’t remember even one leader ever speaking up to correct this. Instead, I remember them nodding their heads in agreement.

You got me there. Instead of "many" how about 95% of the leaders where failures is caring for the saints. You said it right. In addition, I saw plenty of silver bullets being fired and probably fired a few myself. James Barber promoted this and boasted that this was often how he got his way in the church where he was. Once Bill Freeman told me that this was a terrible practice and he would never do it. Once it was said, it could not have been clearer. I emptied by firing chamber and I trust I never reloaded.

The last thing dysfunctional people trying to get their lives on course with God need is dysfunctional leaders giving them unhealthy teaching.

I believe you truly desire this and commend you for it and also for the willingness you have exhibited on this forum to listen to others.

In line with your stated desire, please allow me then to say that this post of yours is reminiscent of a local church elder doing damage control; however, in your case I'm not sure what you're trying to protect. Don't you see that what you are doing comes across as denigrating djohnson?

It seems to me that you are speaking down to us as one who is “in the know” and has a “clearer picture” of things than everyone else. You warned us earlier about “blaming” and not being drawn into Satan’s “accusing, accusing, accusing.”

Hope, as long as we aren’t violating basic courtesy or personally attacking someone and as long as we’re not going afield from Lee/Nee matters, we are free to say whatever we think on this forum--even if it sounds like blaming or accusing.

This kind of warning shuts people down by triggering their fears of offending God in some way. It stops those with a sensitive conscience from speaking the truth that they need to speak. This forum is a place where hurt people can learn to dialogue honestly without fear and without having to worry about figuring out if they sound like they are “blaming” or “accusing.”

I’m still feel like I'm sitting in an LC meeting being warned about who and what I should listen to. I am being told that I should not receive something from a person who has been identified as someone whose motive is bad and who is hurting us.

Hope, forgive my bluntness. I love you as my brother in Christ and want only His very best for you. I know you mean only the best. I’m sure our leaders in the past meant the best; nevertheless, they didn’t do the best.

Most of us do not want to be given pronouncements about what we should think, or say, or believe or who we should listen to. We, not only can, but must, make such judgments for ourselves.

I am not upset with you. I am full of sympathy for what you have been through. I understand that you were not as guilty as other leaders and appreciate that. However, I feel out I should point out what I see as a symptom of what I consider to be the LC leadership disease.

You can take or leave what I’ve written. That’s up to you. I do hope you will give it some consideration. I may be one of the only ones to push back like this and will probably get some flack for it, but that's okay.

I sat silently in the LC and watched while leaders, using the base of respect they had built up with others, made pronouncements to and about others that were not theirs to make. I am not going to just sit by quietly on this forum when I see more of the same.


Ever your sister and faithful witness in Christ Jesus,

Thankful Jane

Is not life ironic!!! I have felt so bad because in the lc days I kept my mouth shut lest I be negative and shut people down. Let us laugh a little bit together. I feel like I am getting a talk from Benson about my questioning regarding the ministry.:D

I believe the saints on the forum can handle anything I throw out there and do not need protection. But I understand your concerns. We do not want to repeat the past. But when I see a problem coming down the road and aiming for people I care for I must speak up. For me everything is first about the people. The LSM, the BB, the apostle of the age do not mean a hill of beans to me but only how they have hurt the Lord's dear people. We are absolutely one on this even though we may express it differently.

By the way 18 months or so ago when I began to post on the other forum, I wondered how you might greet me should we ever meet again. I was afraid you might kick me in the shins for having been one of the Texas elders. I think by now I have moved up to a hand shake but I know I am still a long way off from a hug.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

At it's core addictive behavior gives itself away by various manifestations that are contrary to common sense and natural parental instincts. Another example of this behavior in the LCS is the idea of migrating to crime ridden inner cities to "take the ground". People with families will naturally want security, safety and protection for their children above all else. If they can financially afford it they will want to live in a safe neighborhood with good schools. However if they are addicted they will go whatever their addiction leads them regardless of the effect on their families. They will put their families in danger for the sake of their drug of choice.

[Hope]

BlessD,

I am so sorry for that sad episode. But I have absolutely no recollection of it. I am not doubting your word but I have no rememberance of it and it sounds very very odd to me. May I assume you were from Houston, where Jane was from? I never, never got involved in Houston affairs if there was any way possible. I do not think I was ever there after 1976. The less contact I had with Ray Graver the better.

If you were from OK City, after James Barber moved there, he made it clear to all the elders that I was not welcomed. I had previously labored there quite a bit but when he moved he declared he was drawing a line at the Red River and that he was going to stop Don Rutledge. What a joke!! Well anyway, if you were from OK City there is no way I would have been in any meeting regarding a saint from that church.

Sorry again for your suffering and I am happy that you are fine today. May the Lord continue to keep you and bless you.

In Christ Jesus,

Don Rutledge

[YP0534]

it sounds very very odd to me. May I assume you were from Houston, where Jane was from? I never, never got involved in Houston affairs if there was any way possible.

OK wait.

This sounds very very odd to me.

Hope?

Are you saying that there was a practice of handling Houston issues in Dallas?

I would understand if you would try to avoid it but what in the world were all these men from multiple jurisdictions doing gathered thick as thieves in the first place? Or rather, what did they even think they were doing?

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

YP obviously a girl kissing a boy is an extra parental and extra local matter! It's a major crisis man. C'mon. Here...have another drink of Lee to get your head cleared up.

[Hope]

OK wait.

This sounds very very odd to me.

Hope?

Are you saying that there was a practice of handling Houston issues in Dallas?

I would understand if you would try to avoid it but what in the world were all these men from multiple jurisdictions doing gathered thick as thieves in the first place? Or rather, what did they even think they were doing?


There were three things going. There was the church in Dallas and the small sister churches such as Arlington and Denton. Then there was the Texas region under bishop Benson Phillips. Then there was the Work, the Ministry under WL.

Because Benson came to live in Dallas and the Dallas church had the largest meeting hall, Texas region affairs would often be addressed there. After Irving, all Texas region affairs were addressed there.

Sometimes local issues would come up in a Texas region meeting. Quite often due to our close friendship, Don Looper and I would compare notes. But I never even participated in a Houston discussion even if it was brought up at a Texas region meeting.

I can only assume the confrontation referred to must have happened during a Texas area conference. Otherwise why would the parents and the young sister have been in Dallas. Conference times were very busy for me as the host church. I am about as certain as I can be that I was not at that meeting. Also it does not sound right. I cannot ever recall the elders of multiple churches being called in to handle a case as described. Two high schooler kissing in a car? Our practice in Dallas would have been something like alert the parents and if they desired some counsel fine. If they wanted to handle it fine.

By the way, I have not heard anything about the boy. Sounds a little like John 12.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge


By the way forum, I was not the PM writer who warned John:confused:

[Ohio]

I once visited a home of an LCS family. Every bookshelf was filled with Lee books. They had a standing order shipped direct to their house of Lee videos to watch every week. They had Lee sayings posted all over their house. Lee booklets in their bathrooms to read. All their free time was occupied with attending Lee group activities.


Deej. That was my home. I knew you looked familiar. :D

[YP0534]

YP obviously a girl kissing a boy is an extra parental and extra local matter! It's a major crisis man. C'mon. Here...have another drink of Lee to get your head cleared up.

I've said before that my small outpost experience was much different but this just doesn't even make sense, does it?

Is this really the case?

These guys got together in big regional groups like this and addressed things of this sort?

That's beyond the realm of bad practices.

That's just nuttier than a box of Cracker Jacks!

I must have misunderstood what Hope meant.

[Hope]

I've said before that my small outpost experience was much different but this just doesn't even make sense, does it?

Is this really the case?

These guys got together in big regional groups like this and addressed things of this sort?

That's beyond the realm of bad practices.

That's just nuttier than a box of Cracker Jacks!

I must have misunderstood what Hope meant.

As I said, this made no sense to me either. I would have been pretty hot if I had been called aside to be in such a gathering. I had almost no relationship with anyone from Houston. Elders from several churches to address kissing?:confused:

I am curious if anyone knows, what was the date. I think I can ask since I have been placed, perhaps but not for sure, there.

Don Rutledge

[YP0534]

the Texas region under bishop Benson Phillips

ah.

NOW it makes sense.

Wasn't aware that y'all had an episcopal system over there in the Lone Star state.


But sure. Of course local issues would come up from time to time in the meetings about "region affairs."

Just didn't really understand that there was such a thing as "region affairs."

But there would be if you had consolidated your localities into an archdiocese, wouldn't there?


Huh.


I had no idea.

[Ohio]

The next time one of the leading brothers saw me, he said, "I missed you in the meeting, brother." I told him we went grocery shopping, and he said, "Oh."

Well, during the very next meeting, I was sitting on the front row, when this brother brought up the possibility of "someone" going grocery shopping on a meeting night. I wanted to get under my chair. But...I never missed another meeting to go to the grocery store, and I'm sure almost nobody else at that meeting did either.



Roger, we all have stories like yours. I remember one brothers' meeting with TC. He asked where one young brother from Akron was. He had told his elder that he had a family reunion he didn't want to miss. TC was furious, blasted all family reunions, and made an example out of him publicly, for all to learn. How dare he miss that gathering.

Think about this. How convenient for leaders to make required meetings around their own schedules. The results are inevitable -- brothers are forced to become "secretive" and often tell "white lies" in order to escape judgment. The result often is just hypocrisy.

One time I was serving the children during the prayer meeting. The brother over me would never allow any of us to go to Cedar Point amusement park. But while I am caring for the children, his young daughter starts telling the other kids what a fun time they had at Cedar Point. My jaw dropped. What hypocrisy! Demand from others what you do in secret. Kids say the darndest things! It was amazing what "secrets" leaked out from the saints' kids.

You can fool some of the brothers all the time, and all the brothers some of the time, but you can't fool the kids!

[YP0534]

One time I was serving the children during the prayer meeting. The brother over me would never allow any of us to go to Cedar Point amusement park. But while I am caring for the children, his young daughter starts telling the other kids what a fun time they had at Cedar Point. My jaw dropped. What hypocrisy! Demand from others what you do in secret. Kids say the darndest things! It was amazing what "secrets" leaked out from the saints' kids.

You can fool some of the brothers all the time, and all the brothers some of the time, but you can't fool the kids!

Brother, sounds like you picked up all the germs from the children... :lol:

[Hope]

ah.

NOW it makes sense.

Wasn't aware that y'all had an episcopal system over there in the Lone Star state.


But sure. Of course local issues would come up from time to time in the meetings about "region affairs."

Just didn't really understand that there was such a thing as "region affairs."

But there would be if you had consolidated your localities into an archdiocese, wouldn't there?


Huh.


I had no idea.

It was a tongue in cheek joke:D I wondered if anyone would pick up on it. Nice going YPO.

Only James Barber referred to Benson as a bishop and he did so with much spite and jealousy. Region affairs would be conferences and related to the relationship with Anaheim. Benson wanted the Texas churches to have a united front when dealing with Anaheim. Really not a bad idea as it gave us much more leverage than other churches.

Local affairs were just that. They were handled by the local elders, deacons and brothers and sisters. I had no interest how Houston cleaned their hall or organized the children's meetings or if they were printing books for the LSM or is sister Smith was at outs with sister Jones. And for sure I had no interest if two high schoolers were caught kissing. I would have never agreed to attend such a confrontation nor approved its occurance. The whole thing is beyond my brain.

Don Rutledge

[YP0534]

It was a tongue in cheek joke:D I wondered if anyone would pick up on it. Nice going YPO.

Brother, on this side of the Sabine, we just agree that y'all are a whole other country. :D

[YP0534]

Benson wanted the Texas churches to have a united front when dealing with Anaheim. Really not a bad idea as it gave us much more leverage than other churches.

Leverage?

Dealing with Anaheim?

United front?

What manner of operation are you describing?


I just don't understand what any of this has to do with Jesus, for some reason. :confused:

[Hope]

Leverage?

Dealing with Anaheim?

United front?

What manner of operation are you describing?


I just don't understand what any of this has to do with Jesus, for some reason. :confused:


Nothing to do with Jesus. Everything to do with rank, position, honor etc. The bogus teaching of "Deputy Authority" could never have developed if there was not competition among churches and regions for rank and status in the so called "Work."

Sorry to pop your bubble YPO!:eek:

Don Rutledge

[SpeakersCorner]

It's not an addiction. Wrong word. Addiction implies a craving, a need for another hit. This is NOT what LSMers have. They do have plenty of "hits" of Lee up on the shelves but, unlike true addicts, they don't ever use them. I'm speaking in generalities here, but I do know what I'm talking about. Very, very few LSMers actually read Lee's stuff anymore except when they have to. That is, they will read the HWMR since it's required reading (and many cheat on that) and they will peruse a Green Book when they need to plan a teaching or sharing. But otherwise, you could put those books behind a glass covering and no one would notice.

So what is it that causes a woman to wake up in a panic attack and relieve it by vowing to go back to "The Ministry"? It's fear, plain and simple. LSMers would argue it's the fear of the Lord. I believe it is fear from a lifetime of indoctrination. But it is not an addition, this I know.


SC

[Hope]

It's not an addiction. Wrong word. Addiction implies a craving, a need for another hit. This is NOT what LSMers have. They do have plenty of "hits" of Lee up on the shelves but, unlike true addicts, they don't ever use them. I'm speaking in generalities here, but I do know what I'm talking about. Very, very few LSMers actually read Lee's stuff anymore except when they have to. That is, they will read the HWMR since it's required reading (and many cheat on that) and they will peruse a Green Book when they need to plan a teaching or sharing. But otherwise, you could put those books behind a glass covering and no one would notice.

So what is it that causes a woman to wake up in a panic attack and relieve it by vowing to go back to "The Ministry"? It's fear, plain and simple. LSMers would argue it's the fear of the Lord. I believe it is fear from a lifetime of indoctrination. But it is not an addition, this I know.

SC

Hello Speaker,

I do not think I have ever responded to one of your posts. I am pretty sure I have read them and found them to be pretty sober minded and right on. Now no, that does not mean I only respond to the unsober minded.:D


What you have said is the same as what I have found. Actually while I was still in Texas I discovered that the actual readership was pretty low. I remember in 1978, Dallas only had 14 go to the summer training out of 250. We decided not to push but just announce how you could register. No push, few takers. Same was happening to the video training. No push, few takers. Then Benson returned and the push was on again and the attendance picked up considerably.

When Irving opened up, WL planned to spend half the year there. He had been convinced that the metroplex churches would provide an audience of around 750 and within a short time the number including guests could swell to around a 1000. The first year he came for a Thanksgiving conference and stayed until the training time having a Friday night life study meeting. I doubt if the number ever reached 250. There was no taste for his speaking. WL was very dissappointed. Add an ice storm and the Texas experiment was over and several millions of dollars was thrown away.

Speaker, that does not sound like an addiction but rather a fading rose blume.


In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[blessD]

BlessD,

I am so sorry for that sad episode. But I have absolutely no recollection of it. I am not doubting your word but I have no rememberance of it and it sounds very very odd to me. May I assume you were from Houston, where Jane was from? I never, never got involved in Houston affairs if there was any way possible. I do not think I was ever there after 1976. The less contact I had with Ray Graver the better.

If you were from OK City, after James Barber moved there, he made it clear to all the elders that I was not welcomed. I had previously labored there quite a bit but when he moved he declared he was drawing a line at the Red River and that he was going to stop Don Rutledge. What a joke!! Well anyway, if you were from OK City there is no way I would have been in any meeting regarding a saint from that church.

Sorry again for your suffering and I am happy that you are fine today. May the Lord continue to keep you and bless you.

In Christ Jesus,

Don Rutledge

Dear Hope,
Well, thanks for the apology. Here is the scenario - I was from Houston where I lived in a house with other girls and a family. My parents lived in OKC. This instance occurred at a conference in Dallas at which time someone told me I needed to go next door after one of the meetings. Maybe it seemed like a good idea since we were all gathered in Dallas??? Neither my parents, nor I were aware what it was about - no one bothered telling us before hand. It was a harsh way to deal with anything, at best. It is funny to me that some members in this forum are talking about how they could never see that happening. Is that called denial?

A member also asked about my boyfriend at the time. His father did not attend meetings, was considered negative, and did not get involved in any activities related to the group in Houston. This put him out of jurisdiction for such discipline methods. Good for him - lol ;-).

I made a choice many years ago to move on. I don't like to use old sectarian terms, bring up these experiences, or talk about the people in that time of my life (except for my real friends that I still hold dear to my heart). I am very happy and think I have done much better by leaving it where it belongs... in the past. This is really old stuff. Instead, let's spend our moments and days praising God - our God is a wonderful God! I would much rather talk about Him :-).

[YP0534]

They do have plenty of "hits" of Lee up on the shelves but, unlike true addicts, they don't ever use them.

Why did they even bother to print Truth Lessons?

I couldn't even fight my way through the first one and only bought two more that have never been even thumbed through to this day and no one has ever mentioned them on these forums that I have seen and as I recall the ambitious 12 volume set only came into existence after they were no longer even considered useful for the program.

That dog just never did hunt.

:puttingtosleep:

[TLFisher]

They do have plenty of "hits" of Lee up on the shelves but, unlike true addicts, they don't ever use them. I'm speaking in generalities here, but I do know what I'm talking about. Very, very few LSMers actually read Lee's stuff anymore except when they have to.

SC

SpeakersCorner, while I was meeting in the local churches one thought I had was "why buy something you're not going to read?" I had heard of brothers even elders that would sign up for standing order for appearances sake. What I mean is they'd buy all these books that would collect dust instead of being read.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

SpeakerCorner if the LCS is not addicted to Lee what's all the fuss about the GLA trying to get on the wagon? Those addicted to Lee cannot imagine an existence without their bottle of Lee. They think they cannot survive without their regular Lee fix. It's not just about reading his materials. The "Lee substance" pervades the LCS. It's like going into an alcoholics house and smelling whiskey. You also smell it on their breath and on their clothes. Go into the LCS and it reeks of Lee. And the raging Leeaholics in Anaheim running the still in a drunken Lee stupor are the pushers. Not a pretty picture to be sure but: the first step to recovery is admitting the problem!

[Thankful Jane]

Hope,

BlessD told me that she has a clear memory of there being four elders from each of four churches present (16 elders): Dallas, OKC, Houston, and Austin.

You seem to still be questioning if this really happened when you say it is very odd or strange. Well, I can guarantee you from first hand experience that this kind of thing is not something the "victim" ever forgets. It is embedded in their pysche. Do you have even the faintest idea what it would have been like to be on the receiving end of this treatment. Horrendous doesn't even come close to describing what happened. Not only was she a very young female sitting in front of 16 men being "talked to" about kissing a boy, these were "God's deputy authorities."

This sister was a beautiful and vibrant young woman who dearly loved the Lord. Her suffering from this lasted for years. This was major abuse of a God created human being done in the name of God. The fact that her parents sat frozen throughout this speaks loudest of all to the mindset present in LC members.

I believe that one day whoever did this will repent with tears when God opens their eyes to what they really did.

We are not here doing a clinical study to come up with statistics. We are talking about precious souls for whom Christ died.

I hope I can inspire some who have not done so to give some thought to the impact on real lives that came as a result of the mindset that was taught and practiced from the top echelon downward. The deviant teachings and practices about marriage and family were pervasive. Ohio confirmed that he heard the "take care of the church first" teaching in his locality. The truth is that people were not taught to properly honor God-given family boundaries or to fulfill their God-given responsibilities to their children or spouses. This was true in Houston, Austin, and Oklahoma City. You have told us it was better in Dallas, yet the event we are speaking about happened there.

Here is what seems strange or odd to me about what happened to BlessD. If you weren't there, then why didn't at least one person out of the many present tell you something about it? Were they told not to speak about it beyond that room? (Wouldn't be the first time.)

It sounds like a classic abuse scenario to me, only this is in the family of God.

Thankful Jane

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Hope you keep trying to paint a picture that I think you might wish were true but is not. What are the Leeaholics in Anaheim arguing about as it pertains to the GLA? Their fellow addicts have a taste for Lee. A taste for Lee. Good description and very true. Now how many in the LCS jumped on the detox wagon with Tomes, etc. Relatively few huh? Not so easy to face the addiction problem and to actually do something about it. Once ya get a taste you want more and more and more and eventually it consumes your life and takes it over. Credos to Tomes for stepping up! The abuse he will take from the Leeaholic family he is outing is typical but if he stays clean and sober he will be a better man for it.

[TLFisher]

You seem to still be questioning if this really happened when you say it is very odd or strange. Well, I can guarantee you from first hand experience that this kind of thing is not something the "victim" ever forgets. It is embedded in their pysche. Do you have even the faintest idea what it would have been like to be on the receiving end of this treatment. Horrendous doesn't even come close to describing what happened. Not only was she a very young female sitting in front of 16 men being "talked to" about kissing a boy, these were "God's deputy authorities."

This sister was a beautiful and vibrant young woman who dearly loved the Lord. Her suffering from this lasted for years. This was major abuse of a God created human being done in the name of God. The fact that her parents sat frozen throughout this speaks loudest of all to the mindset present in LC members.

Here is what seems strange or odd to me about what happened to BlessD. If you weren't there, then why didn't at least one person out of the many present tell you something about it? Were they told not to speak about it beyond that room? (Wouldn't be the first time.)



Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane, as I read throught the posts I read Hope not doubting what happened, just he had no recollection. You are abosultely correct, when you're on the recieving end, you remember that moment more clearly than many other moments. Those that have yet to experience such an unpleasant dealing; it's equally shocking, dumbfounding, and eye-opening.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Let me ask a simple question: in a place where god-man socks are pitched and worn is it "very very odd" that this took place in Dallas i.e. 16 Lee addicts berated a very young lady and her rents for her kissing a boy? These are some of the same men who think Lee is the acting god and other such trivialities. Look how many millions of $ they wasted on building the Irving conference center.

So yes it is "very very odd" by normally accepted standards of behavior but it is not very very odd in the context of the LCS and for Hope to call it such in my view is feigned ignorance on his part.

[Paul Cox]

Roger, we all have stories like yours. I remember one brothers' meeting with TC. He asked where one young brother from Akron was. He had told his elder that he had a family reunion he didn't want to miss. TC was furious, blasted all family reunions, and made an example out of him publicly, for all to learn. How dare he miss that gathering.

Think about this. How convenient for leaders to make required meetings around their own schedules. The results are inevitable -- brothers are forced to become "secretive" and often tell "white lies" in order to escape judgment. The result often is just hypocrisy.

One time I was serving the children during the prayer meeting. The brother over me would never allow any of us to go to Cedar Point amusement park. But while I am caring for the children, his young daughter starts telling the other kids what a fun time they had at Cedar Point. My jaw dropped. What hypocrisy! Demand from others what you do in secret. Kids say the darndest things! It was amazing what "secrets" leaked out from the saints' kids.

You can fool some of the brothers all the time, and all the brothers some of the time, but you can't fool the kids!


What most defenders of the Living Stream Church don't understand is that Titus was just bringing to full manifestation what Witness Lee tried to introduce subtly.

In other words, as one brother put it, "Brother Lee always goes fishing with a straight hook." That is to say that Witness Lee would bend open up a hook, and then if anyone got caught, he could say, "Who me, I didn't set out to catch anyone. Did anyone see a conventional hook set out by me?"

We should all take a close look at Titus and what he did in the Midwest (shaming and all). He was only being so bold as to put into open practice those things which he had observed in his, "Acting God," "Oracle," "One Trumpet for the Age," Apostle for the Age" - Witness Lee.

Roger

[Paul Cox]

Let me ask a simple question: in a place where god-man socks are pitched and worn is it "very very odd" that this took place in Dallas i.e. 16 Lee addicts berated a very young lady and her rents for her kissing a boy? These are some of the same men who think Lee is the acting god and other such trivialities. Look how many millions of $ they wasted on building the Irving conference center.

So yes it is "very very odd" by normally accepted standards of behavior but it is not very very odd in the context of the LCS and for Hope to call it such in my view is feigned ignorance on his part.

Wow! That's amazing. Someone from the Living Stream Church willing to berate a young lady for kissing a boy; at the same time the "Blended Brothers" are willing to traverse heaven and hell to cover up Philip Lee's sexual impropriety in the Living Stream Office.

Go figure!

Roger

[Ohio]

So what is it that causes a woman to wake up in a panic attack and relieve it by vowing to go back to "The Ministry"? It's fear, plain and simple. LSMers would argue it's the fear of the Lord. I believe it is fear from a lifetime of indoctrination. But it is not an addition, this I know.
SC
Well said, SC. You have described it well.

I believe fear, pride and judgmentalism are more accurate descriptors (matching Laodicea) than Leeaholism and idolatry, though I am not disputing that the idolatry line had not been crossed.


Whew! This thread is like the whirlwind!



Very, very few LSMers actually read Lee's stuff anymore except when they have to.

How true. I spent my early days reading so much privately on my own. But in the last 20 years or so I could only read those books when we read as a group, or when I had an assignment.

[Hope]

Regarding a case study which is part of the proof of the anti-family practices and grounds for indictment of the Dallas church.

Here are a few quotes from various posts which seem to represent how my experience in Dallas is not legitimate or that I am in denial or simply covering up or lying. Take your pick. As more details have come out, I am absolutely certain I was not in that get together and had no knowledge of it. I can believe two young people were seen kissing in the parking lot at the meeting hall. But there are big holes in the rest of the story.

Quotes from posts:

it's been intimated that The Church in Dallas was somehow without problems in this area, and Matt came out to refute that notion. Please consider another thread with reference to The Church in Dallas, The Thread of Gold:
When Sally Martin (the sister whose arranged marriage I described previously) was in high school, she was reported to the elders for being seen kissing a young brother in a car after school. Subsequently, during a conference at the Church in Dallas, she was summoned to a private meeting. When she arrived, she found that her parents had also been summoned. According to her, neither she nor her parents knew what the meeting was about prior to being asked to attend. Sally was seated at the head of a long table. Her parents were included at the table with approximately sixteen Local Church elders from Texas and other states. They proceeded to talk to her about her inappropriate behavior while her parents said nothing.

She told me that the whole time became a big blur to her because she was in so much pain from the embarrassment and humiliation of such a confrontation. She lived with the pain of that memory and suffered under the sanctions they placed on her. She also suffered having to face those elders at other Local Church meetings and conferences. (363–364)

Jane goes on to state that this was a matter that should have been broached with her parents for her parents to handle. To subject a young girl to a council of 16 elders from two states sounds like a horrific injustice to me.

For example, how many times did elders in local congregations discipline other people's children? It happened all of the time. It happened without informing, involving and working with the people who are commanded to love and nurture these children (the parents).

P.S. Based on what I have heard from others it is possible that the Texas Region (inclusive of Dallas) was more extreme than other regions of the US.

Quote from the sister posted on the forum yesterday,

This instance occurred at a conference in Dallas at which time someone told me I needed to go next door after one of the meetings. Maybe it seemed like a good idea since we were all gathered in Dallas???

BlessD told me that she has a clear memory of there being four elders from each of four churches present (16 elders): Dallas, OKC, Houston, and Austin.
.

First big hole in the story: It happened in the house next to the meeting hall
If the elders were going to transact something they always met in the elder’s room upstairs in the meeting hall. We would have wanted privacy and the so called big house was grand central station. When the long table with 16 men plus parents plus young sister sitting around it were mentioned, well that could not have happened in the meeting hall as there was no long table. There was a dining room in the house off from the kitchen and living room. Of course it had a table, but there is no way 19 adults are crowding into that room. It simply could not have happened that way.

Second problem: Sixteen elders from four churches are summoned to a meeting after the conference meeting? I have tried to piece together a time when there were a total of 16 elders in those four churches. A Texas area conference in Dallas would have been before the completion of the Irving Hall. I have thought hard and for the time period of 1974-5 through 1982 I cannot come up with more than 14 possible elders as the total for those four churches. That is the top number if we counted all who served in those four churches inclusively and I doubt if there were ever that many at a specific point in time.

Third problem: The various elders really did not want to be brought into the local issues and problems of a specific church. The sort of meeting described and put forth as representing the elders or churches overstepping its boundaries did not ever happen as far as I can recall. Why would I lie? Am I in such deep denial that my memory has been erased? If elders in Houston or OK City or Austin overstepped on a local level, I could not say one way or other. Could Ray Graver? I would believe just about any odd charges against him. He liked creating a mess and then jumping into it. Best to stay clear was my philosophy.

Now let me offer a possible and believable frame for the story. Young people seen kissing somewhere, after school or in the parking lot of the church building before or during or after a meeting etc. Could happen anywhere. Witness reports to his or her local elder. In this case we now know it was Houston. That elder tells another Houston elder. They note that parents who live in OK City are also there. They decide it would be convenient to get with them and the daughter during the conference since they are all there. They ask one of the Dallas elders or deacon for a place to get a few together after a meeting. (If they asked an elder he most likely gave the task to a deacon who would know what might be open for the use of the Houston brothers.) Deacon arranges for the dining room in the house to be available. Person living in house who is overseeing it lets others staying there, permanent and out of town guest know that the dining room will be in use for a certain period of time. People in house go about their business. At best the atmosphere is semi-private.
Houston elder contacts OK City elder and informs him of the situation and would like him to attend the meeting and would he contact the parents. OK City elder decides to ask another elder to be there. The only ones who really know what is about to happen are the elders from Houston.

Now let us look at the room. Maybe two elders each from Houston and OK City, the parents, the young sister, a Dallas deacon serving as traffic cop. That is eight, not 19. Eight could get into the dinning room comfortably. Maybe the brother or sister overseeing the house popped in to offer refreshment. I can certainly understand that in the young sister’s mind the crowd looks like the Mongolian horde. Could be she counted four elders and in her mind it became four elders from all the churches. Whoever set this up was not just insensitive but dense. Could have been Ray. As we see the lack of wisdom has spawned a long line of problems.

Since this was no doubt done on the fly, who was to speak to the parents? Fell through the cracks. Since they were ignorant when they got to the meeting, they probably did hold their fire until they could speak to the daughter.

This is a plausible frame for the incident. The other is not.

According to TJ, the sister said the whole affair was a blur. In the sister’s report on the forum, she says “someone” informed her of the meeting. I have to conclude nothing is really clear about that incident and all the inferences and sweeping charges that have put forward should just be dropped. Believe me I am not afraid of digging down deep on this case since I am very certain it is not what it was reported to be. I would rather let the sister go and “move on” as she has said she has.

Don Rutledge

[Ohio]

We should all take a close look at Titus and what he did in the Midwest (shaming and all). He was only being so bold as to put into open practice those things which he had observed in his, "Acting God," "Oracle," "One Trumpet for the Age," Apostle for the Age" - Witness Lee.
Roger

Right Roger. TC witnessed WL and emulated all the good and the bad.

I would say something even further.

Three years ago while researching Brethren history, I realized that we had a systemic disease -- I called it "bullying" then --on all levels (local, regional, national, and global) but that same disease affected the Brethren too. Not only that, the same disease can be found in other parts of church history, and in the N.T. too -- with the works of the Judaizers.

This thread could be considered a fulfillment of Paul's word, "beware of dogs."

[Ohio]

Regarding a case study which is part of the proof of the anti-family practices and grounds for indictment of the Dallas church.

Here are a few quotes from various posts which seem to represent how my experience in Dallas is not legitimate or that I am in denial or simply covering up or lying. Take your pick. As more details have come out, I am absolutely certain I was not in that get together and had no knowledge of it.
Brother Hope,

I, for one, sure appreciate the way you have responded on this thread. Rarely have I seen leaders take the time to examine all potential avenues to reconcile conflicting accounts, without resorting to the nasty alternatives you have cited.

When we get occupied only with the extremes, we lose healthy perspective, and emotions get heated. I have passed thru a few rounds of that myself. Nothing gets this crowd (including me) more excited than someone saying a "few good things" about the LC's.

Grace to you. In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all. (I love that saying.)

[Matt Anderson]

According to TJ, the sister said the whole affair was a blur. In the sister’s report on the forum, she says “someone” informed her of the meeting. I have to conclude nothing is really clear about that incident and all the inferences and sweeping charges that have put forward should just be dropped. Believe me I am not afraid of digging down deep on this case since I am very certain it is not what it was reported to be. I would rather let the sister go and “move on” as she has said she has.

Don Rutledge

As far as I am concerned this won't be dropped. The simple fact that you have requested that it would be dropped has prompted me to believe it should be pursued. You're trying to say the water is muddy. Let's leave it muddy.

Just so you know, this kind of approach activates me to pursue. So here goes. In these situations I don't presume one way or the other. I pursue it to discover the truth. I know one thing for sure. Something happened as this person says and it crossed local boundaries. It violated family boundaries. It was wrong.

I have a question for you: What are you protecting at this time? Please elaborate. Is all of this about protecting against djohnson? If so, there is no need. Almost everyone understands his frame of reference and need no guidance from an ex-leader in knowing how to handle his inputs. Are you protecting something else? If so, what? Many of those here know how to sort through information and see the real situation. The "noise" of the "fray" is not a problem for most here. Almost every single person here is wanting to dig down on elements of truth and have things established for the sake of the Lord. You included.

It is obvious that there is some confusion on the facts. Let's get the facts straight.

To be quite honest, your reaction is very odd to me.

You may be right that some of the lesser facts are wrong, but to request that the whole matter be dropped seems very inappropriate in my mind.

Let me tell you why I see it as so inappropriate. The person this happened to has spoken up. The abused has spoken up. The Lord is clear. We should defend the case of the widow, the oppressed, etc. This matter should be pursued. And factual errors should be cleared up for the sake of the abused (and the abusers).

The only reason I can come up with in my mind is for your protection or the protection of the perception of Dallas. Between you and the abused party in this situation, you do not need the protection. You can suffer the truth. The abused party always needs more support.

I had written a little more conciliatory post last night, but after reading your post this morning, I just can't be conciliatory.

In closing, let me be quite clear. At this stage, the only reason to determine your presence at a meeting like this one is for your sake. I am assuming based on your words that you were not there and it doesn't make a difference to me. Let me close with a few facts that point to the underlying point of this thread.

1. Elders from outside your locality came to your locality and conducted extra-local church discipline that violated proper family boundaries without your knowledge. (Violation of Local Authority)

Note: Based on your own accounts, this was not the only time this happened. I can think of at least one or two other instances.

Question: Are you trying to say this didn't happen in Dallas? If so, why is it important to you that it didn't happen in Dallas?

2. If there were things like the aforementioned example happening in Dallas, then Dallas was no exclusion to what was going on throughout the greater Texas region. You may not have liked it or may have tried to exclude yourself from some of it. Good. When those extra-local influences were not around Dallas may have been a little better. Good.

3. As this conversation continues, it seems you are positioning yourself as the exception, not the rule, of what happened within the LC. In doing this, you exclude yourself from the point djohnson was/is making and so your reaction to his thread make no sense to me. The general rule was abusiveness towards families due to the way the system of the LC worked. This abuse came in the major form of neglect of parental duties and sometimes it was worse. The priorities of the LC system were off. We've all agreed to this fact.

4. It has become apparent that your eldership in Dallas was not respected (especially throughout the rest of the region) and it was ignored when someone with a higher level of authority from some other locality felt it appropriate to take some action. You were treated with kid gloves by others who had more "power" (James, Benson).

The last thing you said, was that you would prefer that this be dropped in part for the sake of this sister. If I assure you that this sister will be cared for in this situation, would you prefer to dig down on this and establish the truth?

Matt

P.S. We've all been beat up on forums like this one when we get "defensive" from time to time. We each have a right to "defend" ourselves and we should. It helps establish truth for the sake of everyone.

[finallyprettyokay]

Wow. What a deal. I have no doubt believing this happened, for alot of different reasons. Hope, I also have no trouble believing you weren't there. I think those two facts can easlily co-exist.

I would specualate that one or two men put this into motion, and the other men either didn't know what was going to happen (like the parents did not know), or didn't think it through very well. Either way, someone could have spoken to put an end to the inquisition when it became clear what was happening.

Hope --- believe other people's experience more graciously. Here is an example:

Matt wrote: For example, how many times did elders in local congregations discipline other people's children? It happened all of the time.

And you responded:

Regarding the discipline of other's children. I am not familar with this practice. Perhaps some elder somewhere scolded a child.


As I PMed you, I hate to see anyone take so many hits. I myself woudl be really upset if it were me. So you know (I hope) that I say this with gentleness and kindness. Just believe someone else's views and experiences more graciously. With this example, I felt like Matt was not received as a reliable witness to how children were treated, even though he was a child at the time. No doubt he was in position to witness how children were treated better than most adults.

On my way to church at my denomination. See everyone later. :eek: :cool:

fpo

[Matt Anderson]

With this example, I felt like Matt was not received as a reliable witness to how children were treated, even though he was a child at the time. No doubt he was in position to witness how children were treated better than most adults.

fpo

FPO,

I'm not terribly concerned whether my witness holds up as reliable in all cases. I've been proven wrong before and it will happen again. I hope I can simply be honest when this happens and admit to it.

As for how children were treated, the environment throughout the Texas region was oppressive. By the age of 13 my parents were out of the LC and I was free from it with the exception of what had been integrated into my head. I went to a few more Young People's conferences (I think 2-3) later on in high school.

Here are three anecdotal's that I may have shared previously.

1. We were all told we could wear shorts at one conference. We showed up only to have this decision reversed. It was the middle of summer in Texas and the heat was sweltering. I defied them. I walked out in my shorts to the next meeting after the decision was reversed. I knew I might be sent home, but it was worth it. They were executing psychological manipulation. Within a few hours everyone was in shorts and it didn't get re-reversed.

2. Without being told that there was a seating order for the kids... Girls on one side and boys on the others side, everyone always segregated. I didn't. I went and sat by the one person who I had been in babysitting with since I was 6 years old. Even she was a little concerned about my presence. I told her that it was fine and that they needed to learn how to grow up. We didn't live in a prison camp. One brother started to approach me. I shot him a look and he turned and walked the other way.

Note: I was separated from babysitting with all the other kids in OKC because my parents were "stinky" to the LC.

3. Each night before bed they would go around the room in prayer. Each person would pray something and then go to the next. I sat in silence when it reached me until the next person started praying. The silence lasted for 30-40 seconds. After two nights of this one of the "brothers" decided to talk to me about it. I told him, "You are free to pray. I'm not comfortable with it, so just leave me alone."

If these little stories give you any clues (as they should) I was a very angry little man.

These little stories are the ones I can give. I resisted the oppressive environment successfully in these cases, but even those who were "rebels" around me didn't have the strength to do it. Most just were dominated by the environment to the destruction of their souls.

I believe that drugs were one of the escapes for those of certain psychological make-ups. I believe extreme depression was another escape. I believe extreme performance-based living was another escape (this is yet another kind of hell on earth).

Matt

[TLFisher]

1. Elders from outside your locality came to your locality and conducted extra-local church discipline that violated proper family boundaries without your knowledge. (Violation of Local Authority)

Note: Based on your own accounts, this was not the only time this happened. I can think of at least one or two other instances.

Question: Are you trying to say this didn't happen in Dallas? If so, why is it important to you that it didn't happen in Dallas?

Matt



I would like to raise the possibility the number reported at the meeting is correct, but not all of them were elders. Some at the meeting could have been deacons and others present serving as witnesses. Is it possible that a number present at the meeting were not from Dallas which is why Hope didn't hear about it?

What I object to is usurping the parent's responsibility. Whether it was a concerned brother or sister, they should be speaking with the parents and not the minor. Whatever rebuking is done should be the parents responsibility.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Essentially what Hope has done on this thread is try to present himself and his "locality" as an exception. Even if he was the exception so what? He says he was basically marked out and persecuted for it by the Lee addicts - which more or less proves the point of the thread.

16 people. 8 people. This room. That room. All moot. Unless the woman is outright lying the event happened. And Roger has brought up an excellent point which I suggested in my original thread: the hypocrisy of the leadership. Berating a young lady for kissing a boy while covering up for Mr. Lee's son who was running LSM!

And let it also be pointed out per Ingalls book that when he wanted to discuss with Phillips and Graver the behavior of Lee's son they both adamantly refused to listen because why? Because it was a "local matter" restricted to Anaheim. Are these the same guys who think kissing a boy is an extra local matter? I said in the another forum that the leadership of the LCS are full of Baloney. Hey maybe that's a better description than addiction!

[TLFisher]

And let it also be pointed out per Ingalls book that when he wanted to discuss with Phillips and Graver the behavior of Lee's son they both adamantly refused to listen because why? Because it was a "local matter" restricted to Anaheim. Are these the same guys who think kissing a boy is an extra local matter? I said in the another forum that the leadership of the LCS are full of B.S. Hey maybe that's a better description than addiction!

djohnson, maybe this isn't the right thread for this response, but have you considered Benson Phillips and Ray Graver did not want to listen to John Ingall's fellowship involving Witness Lee's son, because it would not have served their purpose to do so?

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Have I considered it? :) That's a good one! No doubt they already knew about it and were ten steps ahead of Ingalls.

[kisstheson]

Dear ones,

The hypocrisy of the LCS that has been exposed here is really alarming. It seems that these brothers had no problem going after "wayward" sisters, like Thankful Jane and BlessD, but they refused to deal with brothers whose sins were much greater. WL's son was simply never dealt with, and brother "Ben", the adulterous elder, was quietly moved to another locality where he could prey upon another weak marriage situation. All this is in direct contradiction to 1 Timothy 5:19-21 :

"Against an elder do not receive an accusation, except based upon two or three witnesses. The ones who sin reprove before all that the rest also may have fear. I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels that you keep these things without prejudice, doing nothing by way of partiality."

The fact that sisters Thankful Jane and BlessD have been able to put all this behind them and have both gone on with the Lord is such positive ways is very encouraging! I have really been enjoying lately some speakings and writings of non-LSM brothers who have/had very rich ministries, but who did not carry around all this "extra junk" that has corrupted the LCS. Brothers like Stephen Kaung, TAS, Ian Thomas, Bakht Singh, etc. How wonderful it is to be able to fall in love with our beloved Christ all over again, without all the extra baggage like the peer pressure in the LCS, "The Minister of The Age", "Quarantines", LSM headquarters in Anaheim, etc. O to be able to return to the freedom and simplicity in Christ that is ours by virtue of our new birth in Him!

[Paul Cox]

It's not an addiction. Wrong word. Addiction implies a craving, a need for another hit. This is NOT what LSMers have. They do have plenty of "hits" of Lee up on the shelves but, unlike true addicts, they don't ever use them. I'm speaking in generalities here, but I do know what I'm talking about. Very, very few LSMers actually read Lee's stuff anymore except when they have to. That is, they will read the HWMR since it's required reading (and many cheat on that) and they will peruse a Green Book when they need to plan a teaching or sharing. But otherwise, you could put those books behind a glass covering and no one would notice.

So what is it that causes a woman to wake up in a panic attack and relieve it by vowing to go back to "The Ministry"? It's fear, plain and simple. LSMers would argue it's the fear of the Lord. I believe it is fear from a lifetime of indoctrination. But it is not an addition, this I know.


SC

SC

That may be true in your neck of the woods, or with the people you know. But I still know people who tear into Lee's ministry as if they can't live without it. Like I said before, there is no one individual's view of the Living Stream Church which is the complete view.

I know there are large numbers of LSM Church goers who no longer read the material, any more than the average Catholic hasn't opened the Catechism since they were preparing for Confirmation. With the people I am talking about, it is definitely an addiction.

If you have something coursing through your veins that makes you feel secure and comfortable, and then when you are suddenly without it, you become fearful, and paranoid, I would say that is an addiction.

Anyway, I’m done with this one. We are going around in circles now.

That reminded me of a Jr. high football game I saw once. The middle linebacker laid hold of the ball carrier’s shirt tail and they both spun around and around in circles before it finally dawned on someone to broadside the runner.

Roger

[blessD]

Regarding a case study which is part of the proof of the anti-family practices and grounds for indictment of the Dallas church.

Here are a few quotes from various posts which seem to represent how my experience in Dallas is not legitimate or that I am in denial or simply covering up or lying. Take your pick. As more details have come out, I am absolutely certain I was not in that get together and had no knowledge of it. I can believe two young people were seen kissing in the parking lot at the meeting hall. But there are big holes in the rest of the story.

Quotes from posts:

it's been intimated that The Church in Dallas was somehow without problems in this area, and Matt came out to refute that notion. Please consider another thread with reference to The Church in Dallas, The Thread of Gold:
When Sally Martin (the sister whose arranged marriage I described previously) was in high school, she was reported to the elders for being seen kissing a young brother in a car after school. Subsequently, during a conference at the Church in Dallas, she was summoned to a private meeting. When she arrived, she found that her parents had also been summoned. According to her, neither she nor her parents knew what the meeting was about prior to being asked to attend. Sally was seated at the head of a long table. Her parents were included at the table with approximately sixteen Local Church elders from Texas and other states. They proceeded to talk to her about her inappropriate behavior while her parents said nothing.

She told me that the whole time became a big blur to her because she was in so much pain from the embarrassment and humiliation of such a confrontation. She lived with the pain of that memory and suffered under the sanctions they placed on her. She also suffered having to face those elders at other Local Church meetings and conferences. (363–364)

Jane goes on to state that this was a matter that should have been broached with her parents for her parents to handle. To subject a young girl to a council of 16 elders from two states sounds like a horrific injustice to me.

For example, how many times did elders in local congregations discipline other people's children? It happened all of the time. It happened without informing, involving and working with the people who are commanded to love and nurture these children (the parents).

P.S. Based on what I have heard from others it is possible that the Texas Region (inclusive of Dallas) was more extreme than other regions of the US.

Quote from the sister posted on the forum yesterday,

This instance occurred at a conference in Dallas at which time someone told me I needed to go next door after one of the meetings. Maybe it seemed like a good idea since we were all gathered in Dallas???

BlessD told me that she has a clear memory of there being four elders from each of four churches present (16 elders): Dallas, OKC, Houston, and Austin.
.

First big hole in the story: It happened in the house next to the meeting hall
If the elders were going to transact something they always met in the elder’s room upstairs in the meeting hall. We would have wanted privacy and the so called big house was grand central station. When the long table with 16 men plus parents plus young sister sitting around it were mentioned, well that could not have happened in the meeting hall as there was no long table. There was a dining room in the house off from the kitchen and living room. Of course it had a table, but there is no way 19 adults are crowding into that room. It simply could not have happened that way.

Second problem: Sixteen elders from four churches are summoned to a meeting after the conference meeting? I have tried to piece together a time when there were a total of 16 elders in those four churches. A Texas area conference in Dallas would have been before the completion of the Irving Hall. I have thought hard and for the time period of 1974-5 through 1982 I cannot come up with more than 14 possible elders as the total for those four churches. That is the top number if we counted all who served in those four churches inclusively and I doubt if there were ever that many at a specific point in time.

Third problem: The various elders really did not want to be brought into the local issues and problems of a specific church. The sort of meeting described and put forth as representing the elders or churches overstepping its boundaries did not ever happen as far as I can recall. Why would I lie? Am I in such deep denial that my memory has been erased? If elders in Houston or OK City or Austin overstepped on a local level, I could not say one way or other. Could Ray Graver? I would believe just about any odd charges against him. He liked creating a mess and then jumping into it. Best to stay clear was my philosophy.

Now let me offer a possible and believable frame for the story. Young people seen kissing somewhere, after school or in the parking lot of the church building before or during or after a meeting etc. Could happen anywhere. Witness reports to his or her local elder. In this case we now know it was Houston. That elder tells another Houston elder. They note that parents who live in OK City are also there. They decide it would be convenient to get with them and the daughter during the conference since they are all there. They ask one of the Dallas elders or deacon for a place to get a few together after a meeting. (If they asked an elder he most likely gave the task to a deacon who would know what might be open for the use of the Houston brothers.) Deacon arranges for the dining room in the house to be available. Person living in house who is overseeing it lets others staying there, permanent and out of town guest know that the dining room will be in use for a certain period of time. People in house go about their business. At best the atmosphere is semi-private.
Houston elder contacts OK City elder and informs him of the situation and would like him to attend the meeting and would he contact the parents. OK City elder decides to ask another elder to be there. The only ones who really know what is about to happen are the elders from Houston.

Now let us look at the room. Maybe two elders each from Houston and OK City, the parents, the young sister, a Dallas deacon serving as traffic cop. That is eight, not 19. Eight could get into the dinning room comfortably. Maybe the brother or sister overseeing the house popped in to offer refreshment. I can certainly understand that in the young sister’s mind the crowd looks like the Mongolian horde. Could be she counted four elders and in her mind it became four elders from all the churches. Whoever set this up was not just insensitive but dense. Could have been Ray. As we see the lack of wisdom has spawned a long line of problems.

Since this was no doubt done on the fly, who was to speak to the parents? Fell through the cracks. Since they were ignorant when they got to the meeting, they probably did hold their fire until they could speak to the daughter.

This is a plausible frame for the incident. The other is not.

According to TJ, the sister said the whole affair was a blur. In the sister’s report on the forum, she says “someone” informed her of the meeting. I have to conclude nothing is really clear about that incident and all the inferences and sweeping charges that have put forward should just be dropped. Believe me I am not afraid of digging down deep on this case since I am very certain it is not what it was reported to be. I would rather let the sister go and “move on” as she has said she has.

Don Rutledge


Regardless of the fine-grained details, there are good lessons to be learned. Let's not get lost in whether there are 12 or 16 sitting at a table. I would like you to take a look at the following information if you have the time. It is very relative to what happened in this instance:

Regarding an experiment called the Milgram Experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment - summarized in Milgram's 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:
... Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority...

This psychological/socialogical phenom has been related to such historic incidents as the Holocaust, Enron (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room), and Abu Ghraib (Ghosts of Abu Ghraib).

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Terry I want you to know that I was sorta messing with you on my last post. In all your posts on any subject in this forum and the other one I always appreciate your heart i.e. sense of kindness. It counter balances the rough edges of posters like me.

[John]

BlessD,

I do want to say how sorry I am that you had to endure the abuse that you experienced at that meeting in Dallas. It must have been terribly traumatic for you, especially as a young person of high school age. I have also experienced abuse from elders, but I can’t imagine how horrible that was for you, including the aftermath of humiliation that continued.

I am glad to hear that you are happy and have moved on from that time in your life. I have just lately been realizing the love and peace that can come from our Lord Jesus. He is able to shepherd each one of us.

I was thankful to find your story to quote on this forum in response to an elder and others who seemed to think that things were not as bad as they were. Actual experiences of others are the only way I know to bring these matters forward to get the attention that they deserve.

It still probably brings back pain to you even though you have moved on with your life. For this, I truly am sorry. I do wish that you had gotten more of an apology than you did. You deserve better.

In fact, you deserve our thanks for being willing to have this experience of yours put into a book and then being willing to come out here and post about its truthfulness. Honestly, I don’t think that I would have the courage to come out as you have done, especially in the face of those who want to question every detail of your experience.

Indeed, we are blessed to have you. I hope that your courage will inspire others to be willing to tell their stories as you have done. I know of several other women who were abused in the Local Church System years ago who are still too afraid to speak up.

May our Lord take care of all of your needs and bless you even more abundantly.

In our Lord’s dear love and concern,

John

[Thankful Jane]

When we wrote the book we tried to be very careful to verify and confirm things we wrote about others. There were only a few such accounts included. We had no idea that we needed to go so far as to confirm that the table in a story actually existed and that it was big enough to support BlessD’s memory of the event …

Honestly I felt ashamed, BlessD, when I saw that your account was called into question publicly by an ex LC leader and that there was even an attempt to undermine your story by saying first there was no such table in Dallas and suggesting maybe it was in Houston, then next that the table and room were not big enough. Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.

I know you are doing well and have been able to move on in life. I am so happy for this. I know you say you don't need apologies or expressions of sympathy, but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.

If I were you I would have felt that once again I wasn’t important; something else was. In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.

You are right. It really doesn’t matter if it was 16, 12, 8 elders … What matters is that it happened and that everyone present assented to it happening. I read the article you referenced on Wikipedia. It speaks volumes. I hope and pray I will never be found in a condition that I violate my conscience to obey an “authority” that tells me to do something that hurts others.

Do we need to be discussing these things now? Yes, we do--mainly for the sake of those who have not yet been able to move on. Also for the sake of those who took part in such abuse, either by carrying it out or silently watching it.

So, to close the door on some of the questions, I spoke with someone today who confirmed to me that at the time this happened to you there definitely was a table in the dining room of the Big House that would easily handle 16 people, possibly more. Not only was the table large, the room was also quite large; they didn’t call it the Big House for nothing. For those who don’t know, the Big House sat on the adjoining property to the meeting hall of the Church in Dallas and I believe it was owned by the Church in Dallas.

Thankful Jane

[Nell]

"The difference between an abuse and a non-abusive system is that while hurtful behaviors might happen in both, it is not permissible to talk about problems in an abusive system. Hence, there is no healing hurts and abuses in the abusive system. Hence there is no healing and restoration after the wound has occurred, and the victim is made to feel at fault for questioning or pointing out the problem."

p. 32, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

[TLFisher]

Well, I can guarantee you from first hand experience that this kind of thing is not something the "victim" ever forgets. It is embedded in their pysche. Do you have even the faintest idea what it would have been like to be on the receiving end of this treatment. Horrendous doesn't even come close to describing what happened. Not only was she a very young female sitting in front of 16 men being "talked to" about kissing a boy, these were "God's deputy authorities."



Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane, such an experience can happen to sister or brother. It doesn't matter how old the receptient is, the numbers observing whether it's 6, 12, or 18 is intimidating. Furthermore the subject of the meeting is blindsided when they meeting takes place. No forewarning.
If a meeting is necessary, why not one on one with a third party as a witness? As minors are concerned, their parents should be addressed; not the child.

Terry

[Ohio]

Honestly I felt ashamed, BlessD, when I saw that your account was called into question publicly by an ex LC leader and that there was even an attempt to undermine your story by saying first there was no such table in Dallas and suggesting maybe it was in Houston, then next that the table and room were not big enough. Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.


I'm sorry ... but I do not feel that this was fair to say about Hope and I must speak up here. This paragraph reads to me as an assault on Hope's integrity, which I find almost as offensive as negating BlessD's painful trauma. Hope has attempted to scour his memory for this event, even leaving open the possibility that his memory went into denial. How much more fair and honest can he be? He has continued to express a heartfelt compassion for the LC hurting, including BlessD, that I have never heard from any other LC leader.

Whether Hope was present, or not present, at this gathering, he has expressed responsibility for the church in Dallas where he eldered. If this has happened in Dallas, he wants to know. If he was there, he wants to know. Thus, he has examined many possibilities, whether rooms, people, numbers, attendants, scenarios, etc. not to discredit the sister BlessD, but to conclude a determination of facts which fits the church he knew so well. I saw nothing in his posts which indicated he was not searching for the truth. I viewed his search for details as a genuine endeavor to reconcile the events of her story. On my best day, I would also attempt to follow the same course.

I have tried to make this post as pleasant as I could, without throwing more fuel on the fire ...

[Overflow]

In April 2008, while watching the news, I heard an interview that I couldn't erase from my mind. This was when the children of an extreme sect of Mormons from a compound in Texas were pulled for a brief time. The 'Lost Boys' were interviewed to gain some insight into the thinking of this group. As they spoke, my eyes and ears were locked! Sounds crazy, but I could relate so distinctly with there words.

The interviewer asked, "Now years after being cast out of your home, separated from your mother, I bet if you were to return to the compound, back into your home ~ your mother would embrace you and would be so relieved to see her son!" One of the 'Lost Boys' responded with these words, "No, she would turn and not acknowledge me. In order to understand this, you have to consider the Mormon religion ~ they strongly believe that serving the 'church' is the only thing that holds value in life, that this is a Mormon's entire purpose. To acknowledge me would be to deny my mother's calling." I picked my jaw up off the floor...for the first time I felt understood! I spent my first 13 years raised by an elder in the LC. Neglect!?!? In my home, I think that would be a mild way of expressing the relationship I (and my siblings) had with my parents.

Perhaps as time passes I'll feel comfortable to share more, but I have to say that I did live in Dallas for a number of years and firsthand I must say that things were DEFINITELY OFF, despite how pleasant of a picture some families may have attempted to paint! (And I speak of my family here, not HOPE's).

As an adult, reflecting, I think I've always known that things were very off with my family growing up, but God has just recently opened my eyes to the tight grasp this sin holds even today (especially my parents). I am confident that the LC (which they have now left) still today keeps them from enjoying the relationships that God intended them to have with their children and grandchildren.

I have found that there is nothing more freeing then the freedom found in confessing my sins! After all, only Christ's blood is sufficient, we ALL need the grace He offers!!! (And in my opinion, that doesn't mean arguing the facts when someone was horribly offended, sinned against and hurt! If its wrong, call it wrong...don't talk about the peculiarities of the situation! Nothing is more precious than humility - and if you don't remember this situation HOPE, I think it'd be real wise to pray for God to open your eyes for anything you can take ownership of and seek Christ's forgiveness!)

[Ohio]

What matters is that it happened and that everyone present assented to it happening. I read the article you referenced on Wikipedia. It speaks volumes. I hope and pray I will never be found in a condition that I violate my conscience to obey an “authority” that tells me to do something that hurts others.

I agree that we surely need the Lord's mercy that we would never violate our conscience and hurt or abuse others, even while obeying an authority.

I don't believe this has been stated in either your painful tragedy (as written in ToG chapter one) or BlessD's story. Correct me if I am wrong. I have not read of any who were required to violate their conscience to obey an authority and hurt one of the Lord's children.

If I may do so, based on what I have read, put the two painful events together for comparison. There were three types of people in both events, firstly the evil perpetrator(s), secondly the victims, and thirdly the unsuspecting witnesses. As one has suggested, the witnesses may have been called in to legitimatize the actions and to be "trained in the Lord's way."

I place 99% of the responsibility on the perpetrators. They bear all the guilt. They are leaders who have failed us. Leaders are held to higher standards, and I do believe that these ones should be rightly called "evil workers."

The real question we face is what responsibility do the unsuspecting witnesses face? They were caught off guard. They did not know the facts. They get ushered into a room and witnessed things that left them in shock. They were not asked for their opinion.

I hope I have characterized these events fairly. Forgive me if my analysis is faulty. My underlying concern, which you may have imagined, are not just Texan events, but Ohio events too. Many more have been hurt by the abuse of authority. I must say that I have never witnessed such abuse towards sisters as we are discussing here, but the principle is the same. I have seen and heard many brothers get abused, yet rarely did I ever hear of a brother rising up in his defense. How did that system so disarm us? How much did our silence condemn us?

[Thankful Jane]

Thankful Jane, such an experience can happen to sister or brother. It doesn't matter how old the receptient is, the numbers observing whether it's 6, 12, or 18 is intimidating. Furthermore the subject of the meeting is blindsided when they meeting takes place. No forewarning.
If a meeting is necessary, why not one on one with a third party as a witness? As minors are concerned, their parents should be addressed; not the child.

TerryDear Terry,

The fact that this sister kissed someone is none of the business of elders. God gave parents the job of training and nurturing their children. Moral instruction and guidance is their job.

Elders have no business dictating to parents particulars related to how they discipline their children.

This is real basic fundamental Bible stuff.

Thankful

[Hope]

My oh my,

So many false positives!!! If the conclusion is already settled on then the facts and evidence really do not matter. No need to collect any evidence that does not line up with the pre-ordained conclusion.

I have with some degree of consternation and disappointment observed how any positive report or experience is dismissed and only the experience of abuse or failure is valid.

I thought the name of the forum was LocalChurchDiscussions.com. I did not realize it was Matt 3:10-11, "And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

By the way does it cut both ways? I have been accused of trying to shut people down. But then, is anyone trying to shut down any positive evidence or positive experience while in the local church at …

My position is quite interesting. Those still in the local churches call me a leper and warn people not to talk with me. Some Ex local churchers view me as a former leader and therefore a dissembler and abuser of the brethren. Some free group brethren I have contacted were fine with me until they learned I was damaged goods having been influenced by Witness Lee. I was to be warned against and watched lest I say or do something amiss. I am use to being challenged and put in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. I know what it is to have your motives always challenged as impure or insensitive.

Why did I get into the report to start with? As this thread developed, to me it was way too clear there was the need for some perspective. The opening post set up the worst possible view of people who had been in the local churches. When some tried to give a little perspective, their experience was put down and they were accused of making light of the negative reports. I added my 2 cents worth and the Dallas incident was brought up to discredit my experience and confirm how really bad it was. In a PM I had been told that elders’ rebuking children and going around the parents happened all the time by someone who had never been in the church in Dallas and was not an elder there. Again this meeting was the proof.

After the meeting was reported it became the proof case for other charges to be made and to shut up any positive reports. The details were very vivid and the details were used to give the report validity. The number of elders present was important to show the extreme and ridiculous practice of church abuse of children. The extra local aspect was used to demonstrate how pervasive the manner of abuse was. Thus the holes in the details are important. I noticed that my attempt to give legitimacy to the report while giving a plausible explanation of how the confrontation could have occurred got absolutely no traction but rather a wild scenario was put forth of a training exercise on how to abuse defenseless saints.

I have been asked what I am protecting. Remember the post by Brent Barber on the other forum. It was recently referred to on this forum. I then read it. I cannot express how furious I was. Do you know the rest of the story? Before I told it, I PMed Mike H. for his fellowship. He felt that exposing the man would not be helpful or edifying and ask that I keep it to myself. He used the story of the drunken Noah as an example that may apply. I have taken his fellowship and believe that he is correct. If you want the rest of the story, you must persuade Mike H. If there is a “rest of the story” regarding the young sister, I do not want to know it or expose it. Maybe there is not. I took her word that she wanted to move on and had rather talk about the Lord. I am all for it.

I agree that ultimately the details are not an issue. What is an issue is the move to shut me down and any others who are not in the total axe treatment of the local churches and the brothers and sisters who have been there or are still there.

Now I must ask. What are you trying to protect?

Matt, what did your three anecdotes demonstrate. Baylor university did not allow women to wear shorts on campus.

It seems that once the heat became obvious the ban on shorts was lifted. They were executing psychological manipulation. Within a few hours everyone was in shorts and it didn't get re-reversed. Come on Matt. Psychological manipulation???

Without being told that there was a seating order for the kids... Girls on one side and boys on the others side, everyone always segregated. I didn't. I went and sat by the one person who I had been in babysitting with since I was 6 years old. Even she was a little concerned about my presence. I told her that it was fine and that they needed to learn how to grow up. We didn't live in a prison camp. One brother started to approach me. I shot him a look and he turned and walked the other way. Come on Matt. Prison camp because girls and boy at junior high age self segregate.

Each night before bed they would go around the room in prayer. Each person would pray something and then go to the next. I sat in silence when it reached me until the next person started praying. The silence lasted for 30-40 seconds. After two nights of this one of the "brothers" decided to talk to me about it. I told him, "You are free to pray. I'm not comfortable with it, so just leave me alone.” Come on Matt, prayer in the cabins one by one is a long standing practice at Christian camps.

Then your incredible conclusion:

These little stories are the ones I can give. I resisted the oppressive environment successfully in these cases, but even those who were "rebels" around me didn't have the strength to do it. Most just were dominated by the environment to the destruction of their souls.

I believe that drugs were one of the escapes for those of certain psychological make-ups. I believe extreme depression was another escape. I believe extreme performance-based living was another escape (this is yet another kind of hell on earth).

Matt, I cannot tell you how many of the jr. high and Hi. School kids told me how much of a high light these conferences were.

Why Matt? What are you trying to protect?

TJ, Your post is so full of bitter accusation against me. I have to ask myself why. Can you see that you are doing the very thing you accuse the LCS of doing?

Here are a few of the other statements from posters. Please note the bitter tone and resentment this story has stirred and how it is used as the universal example. How can any positive testimony of the Lord’s work be given if it is anyway associated with the local churches of any time or place?

Knowing that these sorts of bizzare extra-local meetings were actually transpiring gives a whole lot of ground for believing a whole lot of things.
Sure, my account is putely speculative. But knowing how the rest of these details usually fill in, it's not a giant leap at all. Someone suggested it was voyeristic earlier and I declined to think so at first but truly, there was no reason for all these people to be present, however many there were or why.
Are these the same guys who think kissing a boy is an extra local matter? I said in the another forum that the leadership of the LCS are full of Baloney. Hey maybe that's a better description than addiction!
I was thankful to find your story to quote on this forum in response to an elder and others who seemed to think that things were not as bad as they were. Actual experiences of others are the only way I know to bring these matters forward to get the attention that they deserve.

Here is part of the last post from Thankful Jane. Why such hateful words?

Honestly I felt ashamed, BlessD, when I saw that your account was called into question publicly by an ex LC leader and that there was even an attempt to undermine your story by saying first there was no such table in Dallas and suggesting maybe it was in Houston, then next that the table and room were not big enough. Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.
but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.
In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.
You are right. It really doesn’t matter if it was 16, 12, 8 elders … What matters is that it happened and that everyone present assented to it happening.
So, to close the door on some of the questions, I spoke with someone today who confirmed to me that at the time this happened to you there definitely was a table in the dining room of the Big House that would easily handle 16 people, possibly more.

Tj, I use to live in the big house. No way 16 men plus the parents and the sister are crowding into that room with a full dining room table. My question about a table was since the first impression was that the meeting occurred in the meeting hall. I asked about details originally because I could not imagine such a thing. When I did, that became a cause on the forum and the events as reported must therefore stand. When I saw how the details were giving standing to attack any positive reports, I began to think about what had been said and how it could not have come down as reported which helped me understand why I was so uninformed.

The point of questioning the event is not did it happen. I never said it did not happen. I am sad for the pain suffered and do not agree that whatever the offense was should have been handled as it was. I have made that perfectly clear over and over.

You know TJ that it is not the events suffered by the sister that have been called into question but your account of it. You visceral reaction makes me wonder what really is important and what is it you are fighting for. Frankly you owe me an apology for your abusive language and belittling remarks.

You have strongly stated your desire to practice Matt. 18. Now is your chance. Yes, you have offended a brother who has never done you any harm.

In Christ Jesus there is still hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Dear Terry,

The fact that this sister kissed someone is none of the business of elders. God gave parents the job of training and nurturing their children. Moral instruction and guidance is their job.

Elders have no business dictating to parents particulars related to how they discipline their children.

This is real basic fundamental Bible stuff.

Thankful

Thankful Jane, I believe you have misunderstood my post. The essence of my post was elders should not be rebuking of disciplining minors. For that matter there were other adults who overstepped their bounds and in my case that individual was not an elder. It is the parents responsibility to rebuke and discipline. It is the parents prerogotive how they raise their children. Growing up in the local church I did have friends that did date. Whether elders had a problem with it, I don't know. I only observed my friends parents were fine with it.

Terry

[blessD]

My oh my,

So many false positives!!! If the conclusion is already settled on then the facts and evidence really do not matter. No need to collect any evidence that does not line up with the pre-ordained conclusion.

I have with some degree of consternation and disappointment observed how any positive report or experience is dismissed and only the experience of abuse or failure is valid.

I thought the name of the forum was LocalChurchDiscussions.com. I did not realize it was Matt 3:10-11, "And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

By the way does it cut both ways? I have been accused of trying to shut people down. But then, is anyone trying to shut down any positive evidence or positive experience while in the local church at …

My position is quite interesting. Those still in the local churches call me a leper and warn people not to talk with me. Some Ex local churchers view me as a former leader and therefore a dissembler and abuser of the brethren. Some free group brethren I have contacted were fine with me until they learned I was damaged goods having been influenced by Witness Lee. I was to be warned against and watched lest I say or do something amiss. I am use to being challenged and put in the position of being guilty until proven innocent. I know what it is to have your motives always challenged as impure or insensitive.

Why did I get into the report to start with? As this thread developed, to me it was way too clear there was the need for some perspective. The opening post set up the worst possible view of people who had been in the local churches. When some tried to give a little perspective, their experience was put down and they were accused of making light of the negative reports. I added my 2 cents worth and the Dallas incident was brought up to discredit my experience and confirm how really bad it was. In a PM I had been told that elders’ rebuking children and going around the parents happened all the time by someone who had never been in the church in Dallas and was not an elder there. Again this meeting was the proof.

After the meeting was reported it became the proof case for other charges to be made and to shut up any positive reports. The details were very vivid and the details were used to give the report validity. The number of elders present was important to show the extreme and ridiculous practice of church abuse of children. The extra local aspect was used to demonstrate how pervasive the manner of abuse was. Thus the holes in the details are important. I noticed that my attempt to give legitimacy to the report while giving a plausible explanation of how the confrontation could have occurred got absolutely no traction but rather a wild scenario was put forth of a training exercise on how to abuse defenseless saints.

I have been asked what I am protecting. Remember the post by Brent Barber on the other forum. It was recently referred to on this forum. I then read it. I cannot express how furious I was. Do you know the rest of the story? Before I told it, I PMed Mike H. for his fellowship. He felt that exposing the man would not be helpful or edifying and ask that I keep it to myself. He used the story of the drunken Noah as an example that may apply. I have taken his fellowship and believe that he is correct. If you want the rest of the story, you must persuade Mike H. If there is a “rest of the story” regarding the young sister, I do not want to know it or expose it. Maybe there is not. I took her word that she wanted to move on and had rather talk about the Lord. I am all for it.

I agree that ultimately the details are not an issue. What is an issue is the move to shut me down and any others who are not in the total axe treatment of the local churches and the brothers and sisters who have been there or are still there.

Now I must ask. What are you trying to protect?

Matt, what did your three anecdotes demonstrate. Baylor university did not allow women to wear shorts on campus.

It seems that once the heat became obvious the ban on shorts was lifted. They were executing psychological manipulation. Within a few hours everyone was in shorts and it didn't get re-reversed. Come on Matt. Psychological manipulation???

Without being told that there was a seating order for the kids... Girls on one side and boys on the others side, everyone always segregated. I didn't. I went and sat by the one person who I had been in babysitting with since I was 6 years old. Even she was a little concerned about my presence. I told her that it was fine and that they needed to learn how to grow up. We didn't live in a prison camp. One brother started to approach me. I shot him a look and he turned and walked the other way. Come on Matt. Prison camp because girls and boy at junior high age self segregate.

Each night before bed they would go around the room in prayer. Each person would pray something and then go to the next. I sat in silence when it reached me until the next person started praying. The silence lasted for 30-40 seconds. After two nights of this one of the "brothers" decided to talk to me about it. I told him, "You are free to pray. I'm not comfortable with it, so just leave me alone.” Come on Matt, prayer in the cabins one by one is a long standing practice at Christian camps.

Then your incredible conclusion:

These little stories are the ones I can give. I resisted the oppressive environment successfully in these cases, but even those who were "rebels" around me didn't have the strength to do it. Most just were dominated by the environment to the destruction of their souls.

I believe that drugs were one of the escapes for those of certain psychological make-ups. I believe extreme depression was another escape. I believe extreme performance-based living was another escape (this is yet another kind of hell on earth).

Matt, I cannot tell you how many of the jr. high and Hi. School kids told me how much of a high light these conferences were.

Why Matt? What are you trying to protect?

TJ, Your post is so full of bitter accusation against me. I have to ask myself why. Can you see that you are doing the very thing you accuse the LCS of doing?

Here are a few of the other statements from posters. Please note the bitter tone and resentment this story has stirred and how it is used as the universal example. How can any positive testimony of the Lord’s work be given if it is anyway associated with the local churches of any time or place?

Knowing that these sorts of bizzare extra-local meetings were actually transpiring gives a whole lot of ground for believing a whole lot of things.
Sure, my account is putely speculative. But knowing how the rest of these details usually fill in, it's not a giant leap at all. Someone suggested it was voyeristic earlier and I declined to think so at first but truly, there was no reason for all these people to be present, however many there were or why.
Are these the same guys who think kissing a boy is an extra local matter? I said in the another forum that the leadership of the LCS are full of Baloney. Hey maybe that's a better description than addiction!
I was thankful to find your story to quote on this forum in response to an elder and others who seemed to think that things were not as bad as they were. Actual experiences of others are the only way I know to bring these matters forward to get the attention that they deserve.

Here is part of the last post from Thankful Jane. Why such hateful words?

Honestly I felt ashamed, BlessD, when I saw that your account was called into question publicly by an ex LC leader and that there was even an attempt to undermine your story by saying first there was no such table in Dallas and suggesting maybe it was in Houston, then next that the table and room were not big enough. Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.
but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.
In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.
You are right. It really doesn’t matter if it was 16, 12, 8 elders … What matters is that it happened and that everyone present assented to it happening.
So, to close the door on some of the questions, I spoke with someone today who confirmed to me that at the time this happened to you there definitely was a table in the dining room of the Big House that would easily handle 16 people, possibly more.

Tj, I use to live in the big house. No way 16 men plus the parents and the sister are crowding into that room with a full dining room table. My question about a table was since the first impression was that the meeting occurred in the meeting hall. I asked about details originally because I could not imagine such a thing. When I did, that became a cause on the forum and the events as reported must therefore stand. When I saw how the details were giving standing to attack any positive reports, I began to think about what had been said and how it could not have come down as reported which helped me understand why I was so uninformed.

The point of questioning the event is not did it happen. I never said it did not happen. I am sad for the pain suffered and do not agree that whatever the offense was should have been handled as it was. I have made that perfectly clear over and over.

You know TJ that it is not the events suffered by the sister that have been called into question but your account of it. You visceral reaction makes me wonder what really is important and what is it you are fighting for. Frankly you owe me an apology for your abusive language and belittling remarks.

You have strongly stated your desire to practice Matt. 18. Now is your chance. Yes, you have offended a brother who has never done you any harm.

In Christ Jesus there is still hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

I did not reply here to open a debate or accuse anyone. It has been 32 years since the incident; obviously I won't recollect the details and I was way too embarrassed to take attendance. Hope, I apologize if I made it sound as though I was pointing a finger at you. I think my reason for posting a reply got lost in transit.

To clarify: this thing really did happen, my parents were not at fault, and no circumstantial evidence or details would ever make it justifiable. In the grand scheme of things, it is not important and did not traumatize me. This is only one time among many (in this organization) where authority figures overstepped boundaries. The cumulative effect of years of overstepped boundaries caused me more grief. No matter what, I still say let's leave the past in the past. ALL is forgiven. Really, and truly, totally forgiven! The blood of our Savior is pretty powerful stuff :-).

[Thankful Jane]

Mine in blue.

Isa 1:18, Come now and let us reason together

My oh my,

So many false positives!!! If the conclusion is already settled on then the facts and evidence really do not matter. No need to collect any evidence that does not line up with the pre-ordained conclusion.

I have with some degree of consternation and disappointment observed how any positive report or experience is dismissed and only the experience of abuse or failure is valid.

I thought the name of the forum was LocalChurchDiscussions.com. I did not realize it was Matt 3:10-11, "And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Here is what you don’t seem to understand. This thread, created by djohnson, is under the Spiritual Abuse subforum. Djohnson’s thread is a valid one for this subforum. You came here and out of the blue accused djohnson of wanting us all to disappear and of wanting to curse us all. You also came here trying to point out the LC positives and correct us for discussing spiritual abuse only. A few others joined in with you. When we reacted to this you accused us of denigrating those who were speaking positively. Most of what has gone on the past day or two is in reaction to what you did. Some of us want to talk about the abuse in the LCs for a number of reasons, the most important of which is the abused. That is why we came to this thread.

By the way does it cut both ways? I have been accused of trying to shut people down. But then, is anyone trying to shut down any positive evidence or positive experience while in the local church at …

No, I don't think it cuts both ways on this thread. We reacted to talk about positive things because it is inappropriate on this thread. For example, no matter how good a family is or how many positive things there are about it, when child molestation is discovered, it is not appropriate for family members to want to somehow balance that bad by pointing out the good things about the family. Every member of the family should give their full attention to such a problem upon its discovery, first to help the abused member and second to see that the abuser gets his due and gets help. Family members who start trying to talk to authorities and social workers about all the good things in the family are exhibiting signs of denial and also are showing that they care more for family image than the one who was abused.

The normal response to abuse of those we love being exposed is for all to be horrified and upset by this (even if there is only one case!) and to give it full attention. When the molested child gets help and the abuser gets punished, stopped, and hopefully helped, then things can proceed. Until that happens, the family train is stopped dead on the tracks. Many times there are other victims that need to be surfaced … If this matter surfaces many years later, the same process needs to take place, even if people including the abused have “moved on.” Why? The abuser is still on the loose and there are certainly more victims that may not have been able to “move on.”

I believe God feels this strongly about the damage done to His family. Djohnson referred to the dirty sins that were committed by those who left. It’s ugly, I agree, but, sadly, there are cases like this. I know things that have shocked me to the core which were done by ex-members who left the Lord. Also, there are many destroyed marriages and psychologically wounded children who were left unable to trust God. Elders were directly involved in very dark ways insome of these happenings. I know of three cases off the top of my head that would make an afternoon soap opera sound like a Sunday School story. Children in jail, parents alienated from their children for years, women left out on the street barely able to survive, literally,and more. I’d tell some of these stories, but the further harm that could come due to thetangle of divided family members (some in and some out) makes that impossible.

After the meeting was reported it became the proof case for other charges to be made and to shut up any positive reports. The details were very vivid and the details were used to give the report validity.

The report has validity not because of how it is written but because it is a true event.

The number of elders present was important to show the extreme and ridiculous practice of church abuse of children. The extra local aspect was used to demonstrate how pervasive the manner of abuse was.

You are attributing motives to the writing of the account which you cannot know. They are false. The story may actually do these things, but to say that was the motive in writing it is a false accusation.

Thus the holes in the details are important. I noticed that my attempt to give legitimacy to the report while giving a plausible explanation of how the confrontation could have occurred got absolutely no traction but rather a wild scenario was put forth of a training exercise on how to abuse defenseless saints.

If you want to get to the bottom of what is true, it seems the most logical thing to do is to get the facts, the names, etc., and the appropriate place to do this would be the PM system. Such details would help your memory and save you from speculation. The names and other details were not included in the book for good reason. You never PMed me. Maybe you PMed BlessD? I thought your speculative explanation was feasible, but not definitive. You weren’t there. BlessD was. It is only reasonable that her account gets the most traction, until other facts are established.

I have been asked what I am protecting. Remember the post by Brent Barber on the other forum. It was recently referred to on this forum. I then read it. I cannot express how furious I was. Do you know the rest of the story?

There are many stories related to Brent that I know, so I can’t answer your question because I don’t know what story you are talking about.

Before I told it, I PMed Mike H. for his fellowship. He felt that exposing the man would not be helpful or edifying and ask that I keep it to myself. He used the story of the drunken Noah as an example that may apply. I have taken his fellowship and believe that he is correct. If you want the rest of the story, you must persuade Mike H. If there is a “rest of the story” regarding the young sister, I do not want to know it or expose it. Maybe there is not. I took her word that she wanted to move on and had rather talk about the Lord. I am all for it.

There is not a “rest of the story” that would change the truth of what was presented. There is a little more information, but it has the potential to make the already black story blacker.

I agree that ultimately the details are not an issue. What is an issue is the move to shut me down and any others who are not in the total axe treatment of the local churches and the brothers and sisters who have been there or are still there.

Hope, you are the one who moved to shut down djohnson. I explained previously why I found your presentation of positive things to be inappropriate on this thread.

Now I must ask. What are you trying to protect?

If by this you are questioning my motive in what I have posted on this thread, then here is my answer: My motive in discussing the abusive behaviors in the LC is to help the abused. Many abused find these forums and get help. I spent 6 hours recently listening to two young women talk about their painful family experience growing up in the LCs. This was the first time they had ever talked freely about this to anyone. They were nervous and apologetic seemingly waiting for the ax to fall as they spoke. Never in a million years would I have tried to speak to them about “positive” experiences or balance their bad experience with stories of good ones. They were hurting. They needed help. The starting place for abused is being able to talk about the abuse and learning they were not alone. They have been helped by the information on these forums.

TJ, Your post is so full of bitter accusation against me. I have to ask myself why. Can you see that you are doing the very thing you accuse the LCS of doing?

Please quote my bitter accusations against you so I can see what you are talking about. No I don’t see how what I have done is the same. You’ll need to explain how.

Here are a few of the other statements from posters. Please note the bitter tone and resentment this story has stirred and how it is used as the universal example. How can any positive testimony of the Lord’s work be given if it is anyway associated with the local churches of any time or place?

Knowing that these sorts of bizzare extra-local meetings were actually transpiring gives a whole lot of ground for believing a whole lot of things.
Sure, my account is putely speculative. But knowing how the rest of these details usually fill in, it's not a giant leap at all. Someone suggested it was voyeristic earlier and I declined to think so at first but truly, there was no reason for all these people to be present, however many there were or why.
Are these the same guys who think kissing a boy is an extra local matter? I said in the another forum that the leadership of the LCS are full of Baloney. Hey maybe that's a better description than addiction!
I was thankful to find your story to quote on this forum in response to an elder and others who seemed to think that things were not as bad as they were. Actual experiences of others are the only way I know to bring these matters forward to get the attention that they deserve.

I do not find a bitter tone or resentment. These are comments made about the actual event that actually happened. People are free to comment. It is a logical conclusion that if something like this could happen, it is not a stretch to believe there were other things. The story happened, Hope. It speaks for itself. You cannot control what people hear from a true story. If you can prove it false with facts, then please do.

I have no problem with the idea of filling in the details and really understanding how this all came to pass. I personally do not believe you were there, because you said you weren’t. That is good enough for me. If I think about the fact that you were a leading elder in Dallas, it is hard to understand how this could have happened in your backyard without your knowledge, but I still believe your statement that you had no knowledge of it. I believe it is most likely you were not involved because you would have objected.

With BlessD, in one breath you told her you didn’t question her story and in the next you questioned her story. If I remember correctly you raised questions about the veracity of her story more than once. There is a difference in my mind between questioning the truth of what someone says and filling in the missing pieces that make it all make sense. This is what I found offensive. I felt very badly for BlessD. BlessD’s hurt didn’t end in Dallas. The abuse by leadership continued in OKC

Here is part of the last post from Thankful Jane. Why such hateful words?

Honestly I felt ashamed, BlessD, when I saw that your account was called into question publicly by an ex LC leader and that there was even an attempt to undermine your story by saying first there was no such table in Dallas and suggesting maybe it was in Houston, then next that the table and room were not big enough. Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.
but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.
In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.
You are right. It really doesn’t matter if it was 16, 12, 8 elders … What matters is that it happened and that everyone present assented to it happening.
So, to close the door on some of the questions, I spoke with someone today who confirmed to me that at the time this happened to you there definitely was a table in the dining room of the Big House that would easily handle 16 people, possibly more.

I can see how this offended you, however, I wasn’t talking to you directly and it was not meant to be hateful to you. It was meant to be kind to BlessD. I made a choice between taking care of how you might feel and how she might feel. I chose to take care of her. I would do it again. I do not hate you at all. I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread.

Tj, I use to live in the big house. No way 16 men plus the parents and the sister are crowding into that room with a full dining room table. My question about a table was since the first impression was that the meeting occurred in the meeting hall. I asked about details originally because I could not imagine such a thing. When I did, that became a cause on the forum and the events as reported must therefore stand. When I saw how the details were giving standing to attack any positive reports, I began to think about what had been said and how it could not have come down as reported which helped me understand why I was so uninformed.

The point of questioning the event is not did it happen. I never said it did not happen. I am sad for the pain suffered and do not agree that whatever the offense was should have been handled as it was. I have made that perfectly clear over and over.

Okay, I will take your word on this. It didn’t come through perfectly clear to me that you were not questioning the truth of the report. Trusting that if I were to re-read your posts I would find your claim to be true, please accept my apology for representing in what I wrote, that you were questioning the truth of what happened.

You know TJ that it is not the events suffered by the sister that have been called into question but your account of it. You visceral reaction makes me wonder what really is important and what is it you are fighting for. Frankly you owe me an apology for your abusive language and belittling remarks.

My account of it was actually written by her first in first person. We edited it to put it in the third person with a pseudonym and to improve grammar. She stated in her first post that she reviewed the final copy after editing and approved it as accurate.

Please quote my abusive language and belittling remarks so I can apologize specifically.

You have strongly stated your desire to practice Matt. 18. Now is your chance. Yes, you have offended a brother who has never done you any harm.

There is no question that you have never harmed me in any way. I also have no intention to harm you.

I am now aware you are offended and I am sorry that I offended you. I am willing to go the distance with you to clear up the offense. If you need me to be more specific, then I will need more specific explanation of what you want me to apologize for.

Thankful Jane

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Thankful has nailed it with the simple statement: it's none of the elders business! And if it were my daughter involved I would have told them that to their face and walked out with my wife and child. Leaving the 16 or 8 or 5 or 3 or 7 or ? self important busybodies sitting there around the table with their mouths hanging open.

[blessD]

When we wrote the book we tried to be very careful to verify and confirm things we wrote about others. There were only a few such accounts included. We had no idea that we needed to go so far as to confirm that the table in a story actually existed and that it was big enough to support BlessD’s memory of the event …

Honestly I felt ashamed, BlessD, when I saw that your account was called into question publicly by an ex LC leader and that there was even an attempt to undermine your story by saying first there was no such table in Dallas and suggesting maybe it was in Houston, then next that the table and room were not big enough. Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.

I know you are doing well and have been able to move on in life. I am so happy for this. I know you say you don't need apologies or expressions of sympathy, but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.

If I were you I would have felt that once again I wasn’t important; something else was. In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.

You are right. It really doesn’t matter if it was 16, 12, 8 elders … What matters is that it happened and that everyone present assented to it happening. I read the article you referenced on Wikipedia. It speaks volumes. I hope and pray I will never be found in a condition that I violate my conscience to obey an “authority” that tells me to do something that hurts others.

Do we need to be discussing these things now? Yes, we do--mainly for the sake of those who have not yet been able to move on. Also for the sake of those who took part in such abuse, either by carrying it out or silently watching it.

So, to close the door on some of the questions, I spoke with someone today who confirmed to me that at the time this happened to you there definitely was a table in the dining room of the Big House that would easily handle 16 people, possibly more. Not only was the table large, the room was also quite large; they didn’t call it the Big House for nothing. For those who don’t know, the Big House sat on the adjoining property to the meeting hall of the Church in Dallas and I believe it was owned by the Church in Dallas.

Thankful Jane

Thanks Thankful Jane. You are right, I did not want any apology; and, for sure no pity. I somewhat regretted signing on here to say what happened really happened. [Is it such a big deal? I don't get it. It's not a rocket science that many injustices occured and boundaries were crossed. This absurd thing doesn't even touch the surface.] I don't see how my telling the truth here helped anyone. Especially, with all the "noise" about details.

YES! I have moved on and am very happy. Thanks, in part, to your support and friendship.

[blessD]

BlessD,

I do want to say how sorry I am that you had to endure the abuse that you experienced at that meeting in Dallas. It must have been terribly traumatic for you, especially as a young person of high school age. I have also experienced abuse from elders, but I can’t imagine how horrible that was for you, including the aftermath of humiliation that continued.

I am glad to hear that you are happy and have moved on from that time in your life. I have just lately been realizing the love and peace that can come from our Lord Jesus. He is able to shepherd each one of us.

I was thankful to find your story to quote on this forum in response to an elder and others who seemed to think that things were not as bad as they were. Actual experiences of others are the only way I know to bring these matters forward to get the attention that they deserve.

It still probably brings back pain to you even though you have moved on with your life. For this, I truly am sorry. I do wish that you had gotten more of an apology than you did. You deserve better.

In fact, you deserve our thanks for being willing to have this experience of yours put into a book and then being willing to come out here and post about its truthfulness. Honestly, I don’t think that I would have the courage to come out as you have done, especially in the face of those who want to question every detail of your experience.

Indeed, we are blessed to have you. I hope that your courage will inspire others to be willing to tell their stories as you have done. I know of several other women who were abused in the Local Church System years ago who are still too afraid to speak up.

May our Lord take care of all of your needs and bless you even more abundantly.

In our Lord’s dear love and concern,

John

Thank you John. Your words are very refreshing after, gulp, reading my embarrassing incident be put through a systematic analysis and review. I thought I was at work for a minute - :lol:. Again, thanks for everything.

[blessD]

After logging back in today and reading a few replies to my post, OUCH! I felt a little sting as I read someone pointing out holes in what was already a humiliating incident. I am okay with a person trying to prove slanderous statements are not being made, but if this is the reason perhaps a private message should be the first step in validation.

This is the first time I have written on a public forum and would like to know if there is a standard code of conduct. Especially since this particular thread is about abuse, may we provide a safe zone so others won't shy away from writing about whatever they need to write about.

Also, I am a wife, mother of 5, grandmother of 2, and work in a high-security job position – please, could everyone refrain from making specific references to more private aspects of any incident (i.e., words like kissing). May I suggest to let the person telling the story decide what is okay to be written in a public forum. This probably goes for anyone else brave enough to post here. Thanks in advance.

It has been a long time since I have thought about or mentioned this part of my life. Am I way out in left field to think by now everyone has realized gross abuses of authority occurred? I assumed the skyrocketing divorce rate alone would speak volumes. [By the way, just in case members or guests don't know it, pseudo-arranged marriages by meddling authority figures rarely work. Don't try this one again.]

[blessD]

Thankful has nailed it with the simple statement: it's none of the elders business! And if it were my daughter involved I would have told them that to their face and walked out with my wife and child. Leaving the 16 or 8 or 5 or 3 or 7 or ? self important busybodies sitting there around the table with their mouths hanging open.

a bit of humor... where were you when I was 16?

[OBW]

There is a code of conduct and it is mostly that we do not divulge names of anyone who does not want their name revealed.

The problem with this whole fiasco for the past 36 or so hours is that it appears to have been brought up as an example of how it was in Dallas. Even if all the facts are entirely correct, it really has nothing to do with Dallas because it appears to have been orchestrated by elders from Houston and/or OKC and likely with the oversight/blessing of Benson, wherever he was living at the time.

It was fairly quickly established that there was no clarity on who specifically was present. It was stated as 16 elders, although there were few times that all elders from all the major localities in the region were together anywhere other than Anaheim. The big house was grand central station. It was generally home to a couple and a number of either single brothers or single sisters. It was not a choice location for an elders’ meeting. It was a big house, but it was not a huge house. It did not have huge rooms.

Unfortunately, bringing the event up as an example of Dallas is like when a TV news anchor made a very public remark like “I knew it” when it was revealed that there was a Dallas connection somewhere in the life of the guy who shot Reagan. Like the city of Dallas was responsible. The reported event, even if it was at the big house, is not a reflection on Dallas, but on the whole of the LC leadership. It did not clearly involve Don, yet he is willing to apologize for the event anyway. He did not deny it happened, but simply has no recollection of being party to such an event, even as an unwitting witness.

It is a tragedy that such things happened, and probably too regularly. Throwing it into the mix here with a motive of saying something that the event actually does not say is problematic. It exposes things that should not be exposed. It has brought into question the totality of the event. I do not doubt that it happened. But since BlessD has admitted that the event was partly a blur, it seems that bringing it up to make a point about the “change of venue” location of the confrontation was a bad idea. It has opened wounds that did not need reopening. That was not Don’s fault. But since it was mentioned with what I can only read as the unstated purpose of making comments about Dallas, a place virtually no one involved in this discussion can claim, and about Don, also quite uncertain as to validity, it is unfortunate that the result can only be to damage the story. It does not fit the purpose for which it was brought out.

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?

[blessD]

There is a code of conduct and it is mostly that we do not divulge names of anyone who does not want their name revealed.

The problem with this whole fiasco for the past 36 or so hours is that it appears to have been brought up as an example of how it was in Dallas. Even if all the facts are entirely correct, it really has nothing to do with Dallas because it appears to have been orchestrated by elders from Houston and/or OKC and likely with the oversight/blessing of Benson, wherever he was living at the time.

It was fairly quickly established that there was no clarity on who specifically was present. It was stated as 16 elders, although there were few times that all elders from all the major localities in the region were together anywhere other than Anaheim. The big house was grand central station. It was generally home to a couple and a number of either single brothers or single sisters. It was not a choice location for an elders’ meeting. It was a big house, but it was not a huge house. It did not have huge rooms.

Unfortunately, bringing the event up as an example of Dallas is like when a TV news anchor made a very public remark like “I knew it” when it was revealed that there was a Dallas connection somewhere in the life of the guy who shot Reagan. Like the city of Dallas was responsible. The reported event, even if it was at the big house, is not a reflection on Dallas, but on the whole of the LC leadership. It did not clearly involve Don, yet he is willing to apologize for the event anyway. He did not deny it happened, but simply has no recollection of being party to such an event, even as an unwitting witness.

It is a tragedy that such things happened, and probably too regularly. Throwing it into the mix here with a motive of saying something that the event actually does not say is problematic. It exposes things that should not be exposed. It has brought into question the totality of the event. I do not doubt that it happened. But since BlessD has admitted that the event was partly a blur, it seems that bringing it up to make a point about the “change of venue” location of the confrontation was a bad idea. It has opened wounds that did not need reopening. That was not Don’s fault. But since it was mentioned with what I can only read as the unstated purpose of making comments about Dallas, a place virtually no one involved in this discussion can claim, and about Don, also quite uncertain as to validity, it is unfortunate that the result can only be to damage the story. It does not fit the purpose for which it was brought out.

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?

Thanks for your viewpoint. I would not say it is a blur, but this is a minor detail. I cannot name every person nor the exact number in that room, but believe me some parts of it and the faces there are as vivid as if it happened yesterday. I make a choice not to go there so generally to just say it is hazy makes it easier. Do I make myself more clear?

[Thankful Jane]

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?
Dear OBW,

I think BlessD's account was mentioned because Hope was coming out on this thread saying that Dallas was different. He didn't want anyone using a broad brush in the matter of spiritual abuse in the LCs. He admitted to abuse in OKC and Houston because of James B. and Ray G., but he wanted us to know Dallas was different and was not anti-family.

It seems to be a pretty natural step for someone who remembers the account written about in my book to wonder if Don was in on that. This is just logical thought at work. That could be one reason it got brought out.

Then Don denied he was there. I believe him. So do you and others. The fact that he wasn't there in some ways is more revealing. It showed that abuse could go on in his own backyard without him knowing about it. This says that Don is not in a good position to make a determination about what kind of brush should be used in painting this picture.

OBW, the spiritual abuse topic is not about Don. This topic turned that direction when he started using his place and his positive experiences to try to make the bad not sound so bad. For whatever reason he also decided to come down hard on djohnson and accuse him of wanting to curse us all. That worsened matters.

In my mind, Don was/is clearly a brother with a good heart towards people and is one of the few that didn't allow himself to come under the control of the abusive Texas leadership. I have and will continue to commend him for that. That took a lot. In no way is his person or character in question. What came in question is some of his behavior on this thread.

Also, BlessD was not "drug" (dragged?) anywhere. Her story is in my book because she wanted it told. She is no longer an abused person. She is an adult survivor of spiritual abuse. She is able to talk about it now if she finds it necessary or if the Lord puts it in her heart to do so.

You may not remember, but the account being discussed here is not the worst part of what she wanted told in my book.

Thankful Jane

[YP0534]

I noticed that my attempt to give legitimacy to the report while giving a plausible explanation of how the confrontation could have occurred got absolutely no traction but rather a wild scenario was put forth of a training exercise on how to abuse defenseless saints.

Yes, it was a wild scenario that I put forth but what made it wild?

That nothing like that could ever have happened? Tell me, then Hope, how DID the practical functions of the eldership such as this get passed from one to another? I have trouble believing that this isn't at least in part an important reason for the extra-local character of the meeting. Making sure everything is done appropriately there and then as well as in the future?

Tell me you have never known men so insensitive and I will believe you that you knew none then. But I have known men whose minds worked just like this and was myself victim of one of them, which activities were performed in express support of the mission of LSM and the Local Church.

I stated that my story was purely speculative but I also began by expressing my concern that having meetings of this kind opened the door to many such speculations.

Dismiss my story by merely countering that it has no foundation in any factual reality you ever saw and I would respond that you simply never saw it.

But that does not make it "wild."

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

And how's this for craziness? Hope was abused by the abusers for not involving himself in abuse. Not in the round table meeting per se. But from what I gather this is part of his general testimony. He was abused by Lee. He was abused by other leaders in his area.

His attempts at bringing out the positives of Lee and his LCS I believe are well-intended but in my view abuse always outweighs any positives. It is like the wife who is constantly beat up by her husband who lists the fact that he's a good provider and smart and well-dressed and handy around the house to sorta round out the analysis. Let's be balanced huh? But the bloody scratches and black and blue bruises on her face, neck and arms and frequent visits to the emergency room kinda takes away from all that positive stuff doesn't it?

[OBW]

It seems to be a pretty natural step for someone who remembers the account written about in my book to wonder if Don was in on that. This is just logical thought at work. That could be one reason it got brought out.Thankful,

I spent 30 minutes responding to Matt’s last post to note that it has now been deleted. Unfortunately, there is some truth in that response and I will include it at the end of this.

I appreciate your reasoning. But what the totality of Dallas is cannot be examined by reference to an event orchestrated by outsiders who came to town for the purpose. If you or others actually know of events that are related to Dallas in more than a tangential way, that demonstrate problems and which can be verified by either a party to the issue or by the recollection of one or more persons here, it is welcome. We already know of Laura’s tale. It may not have been repeated in this forum, but is quite available on the BARM. I do not doubt that there are others. But someone mentioning 2 classes because leaders did one thing but the regular members toed a tighter line needs particulars. George Whittington was up-front about having a TV in the house. He did not pretend that everyone should ignore that and not have one themselves. He did point out that it was inviting temptation for wasting time.

I understand that BlessD volunteered the account for your book. That took courage. When I mention that the event has been air and opened wounds in a poor way (not exactly the words I have used, but the meaning), I mean that it put the event under a microscope in a manner that was not necessary and caused some who otherwise have no doubt about the event to question the details because they are being presented for a purpose that it does not fit. Even if it suggests that something is wrong with the system, it says nothing about the very things that everyone seemed to be going after Don about. It really says nothing of substance about Dallas. It does say a lot about certain ones like Benson and Ray.

Now for the response to Matt.
------

I am fully aware that there were things that happened all over the place in all manner of ways. But at best, this does nothing to refute anything Don had said before, or since. If a group of elders, at Benson's request, or at the request of one or more elders in Houston, got together during a conference in Dallas to shame BlessD in front of a few more unwitting "witness" elders, that does not say anything about Dallas. That those "witness" elders didn't have the gumption to stand up and question how such a thing could be happening speaks to a completely different issue — the control that outsiders had on the local leadership. That none of them felt comfortable to report on it to Don (assuming he was not actually present) is yet further evidence of the control.

You mention the event as an example that the system is corrupted. That was never in dispute. But it said nothing about Dallas, per se, yet that was the purpose of bringing it up. This is a leap in logic that is not supported by the facts. Don’t perpetuate it. This is not the “lynch everybody who was ever in Dallas because this event happened” forum. It is allegedly seeking to find and reveal the truth. This incident was not brought up in search of the truth. It was brought up to make a point that it could not make. I’m not looking at who made the original post. But the aim of the airing of the incident and the points that the incident could make do not seem to match. This should be addressed. It would seem to suggest that apologies to both Don and BlessD are in order.

You are correct that the autonomy of localities failed. That does not make every locality a cookie cutter image, or responsible for the actions of leadership from other places who happened to be in town at the time.

I am not defending Dallas as some utopia of perfection in the midst of a cesspool of LC filth. It was not so. But this incident was a poor choice of examples to bring out for the apparent purpose of saying something about Dallas. If it says anything, it is only tangentially. It was a poor example for the purpose.

It brought into renewed scrutiny the event in a manner that made BlessD wonder if we were ready to dismiss the primary accusation. Fortunately, there is enough evidence of other events of the kind to have no reason to doubt it. But it must have seemed we questioned the actual event in its totality.

Happening in Dallas without the knowledge of one of the key elders only demonstrates the power and authority that existed in some who were more regional, or even global. Your own words mention those who were building an empire. From my vantage point in Dallas, and from the history since I left, it does not appear that Don was one of those. We know who the empire builders were. Do you think they could do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted without so much as a mention to others? I surely do. I bet that the perpetrators of this little fiasco were just such persons. They would not care that Don was or was not there.

You know that I am not an LC apologist. I also am not a Don Rutledge apologist. He has done quite a bit of apologizing on his own. He has seemed forthcoming with his own shortcomings to such an extent that I would tend to accept that he does not recall this incident. He has admitted that if he were there, it would be quite evident that he had blocked it out. He has mentioned enough things privately me to me that I realize that he has carried some guilt about being present at events as vile and corrupt as this one perpetrated against BlessD. If he remembered being there, I would not expect him to run from it.

Last, in my previous post, I refrained from using a longer and more pointed version. (Hard to believe, isn't it.) But you have inserted yourself as an authority into something which you have nothing more than hearsay knowledge. Further, when it comes to anything written in The Thread of Gold, you are less than objective. I do not distrust the book. I am willing to accept that certain details of the accounts are less than perfect since they are recorded decades after they happened. I still believe them as factual accounts. Your mom is not under attack. Back off. It is not a “help” to insert yourself in such a manner. You were not in Dallas. Thankful was not in Dallas. (In fact, ignoring the fact that there could be some others who were actually in Dallas but have not identified such, it seems that Don and I are alone in this.) And BlessD may have been the only one who frequents this forum in any way that was there for the incident. You are not an authority on the subject. Back off.

It is time for this particular line of reasoning to end. It is way off logically and spiritually.

[Nell]

Mike,

This is shameful language to use on this forum and is disrespectful to each and every member...not to mention the Guests. It sounds like you're trying to start a street fight. Please take up your issues with Matt in private.

Nell

[Overflow]

I posted I think on page 7!?!? Look for my name: Process. There was a lot of heavy talk going on so it may have been missed. I was in Dallas as a child for a number of years. I testify that my father was abusive (neglectful and physically) and still is trapped by the teachings he devoted his life to for 20 years. Our family left LC about 15 years ago but continues to be a mess because of the tangled lies, arrogance, lack of confession and biblical falsehoods that were taught and continue to be tightly gripped. I'm still new here, maybe at some point I'll share more. Hopefully sharing can be something that is embraced on this forum rather then picked a part and attempted to be disproved!

[Nell]

I posted I think on page 7!?!? Look for my name: Precious. There was a lot of heavy talk going on so it may have been missed. I was in Dallas as a child for a number of years. I testify that my father was abusive (neglectful and physically) and still is trapped by the teachings he devoted his life to for 20 years. Our family left LC about 15 years ago but continues to be a mess because of the tangled lies, arrogance, lack of confession and biblical falsehoods that were taught and continue to be tightly gripped. I'm still new here, maybe at some point I'll share more. Hopefully sharing can be something that is embraced on this forum rather then picked a part and attempted to be disproved!


Hi Process/Precious :),

Welcome to the forum. I read your post, ( #132 (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2303&postcount=132) ) and you're right...there was a lot of heavy talk going on. You were brave to enter the frey. If you'd care to share your testimony at some point, there is a testimony thread that should be a kinder, gentler place.

This forum is all about sharing our experiences and not picking them apart, but some of us forget that sometimes. Spiritual abuse will never be easy to talk about. Thanks for your post.

Again, welcome to the forum.

Nell

[Matt Anderson]

Last, in my previous post, I refrained from using a longer and more pointed version. (Hard to believe, isn't it.) But you have inserted yourself as an authority into something which you have nothing more than hearsay knowledge. Further, when it comes to anything written in The Thread of Gold, you are less than objective. I do not distrust the book. I am willing to accept that certain details of the accounts are less than perfect since they are recorded decades after they happened. I still believe them as factual accounts. Your mom is not under attack. Back off. It is not a “help” to insert yourself in such a manner. You were not in Dallas. Thankful was not in Dallas. (In fact, ignoring the fact that there could be some others who were actually in Dallas but have not identified such, it seems that Don and I are alone in this.) And BlessD may have been the only one who frequents this forum in any way that was there for the incident. You are not an authority on the subject. Back off.


OBW,

I'm not that easily swayed or scared off. If I haven't made myself clear yet, let me do so now.

1. I am not pointing my guns at Hope, personally speaking. I already know he is an exception by the very fact that he is on these forums. I will point some guns at what he has to say if it is off. I expect he would do the same in my direction.

2. I am pointing my guns at the fact that the LC was idolatrous and every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry. Some more or less than others. The leaders/ex-leaders are more guilty of the idolatry than the commoners.

Note: Now that's a broad generalization! :D Keep in mind that I consider myself to have committed idolatry based on the Biblical standard of it and don't overreact just because of your ignorance on the matter.

3. If someone is going to come along and try to paint one locality more "white" because they were there then I am going to bring as many examples out of the woodwork as I am able to do to help confront the fact that no locality was "white". They were all interlinked into an idolatrous system and party to the idolatry.

I don't have to be a first-hand expert at the LC to see that it was an idolatrous system. I can prove the idolatry based on the Word of God and many aspects of the system.

You responded to a post that I deleted. Maybe you should have considered the fact that I deleted it within a few seconds after I wrote it before you went ahead and responded to it.

In closing, I am no authority. I am just one voice. I'll speak and if you want to try to call me an authority to try and put me in my place go ahead. In this case, it's not having the desired effect. It's producing the opposite effect. You should well know by now that I am not dumb and that using tactics of bullying simply won't work with me.

I'm not defending a book here. That's just plain silly (and stupid).

Matt

P.S. Please note that the examples I provided were 1st hand accounts and I restrained myself to that. Your accusation is false about the hearsay. I'm working to support one of the examples brought forth with corroboration.

[Peter Debelak]

I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.

My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits. This dynamic coupled with the mainstream media bombardment gave license for their behavior.

My question is: what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?

NOTE: This post is not about or responding to the current discussion regarding Dallas etc...

djohnson and all:

I have little doubt that particular ways of thinking and practices which became habituated and were emphasized played a role in the development of these behaviors.

And it is a valuable effort to pursue this question on this thread. Specific cases - such as with bless D - should be cited and their effect on the victims carefully considered.

But it really is hard to answer the question as stated. This is an area where it is so very difficult to pinpoint cause/effect relationships. As John pointed out, each child is so very unique and a single influence can effect them in diametrically opposing ways.

Furthermore, we don't really have a frame of reference. For example, is the instance of gross fleshly behavior among the LC second generation more or less than second generation in "community churches?" How about in denominations? We have no comparator. Surely, whenever such conduct results, we should look hard to find its roots. But its occurance itself does not automatically reveal an specific underlying problem. So far, we don't even know if such behaviors happen more than in other groups. Anyone have stats or even anecdotal evidence?

Not too long ago, lordsarmy (from the "lordsarmy" xanga cite) posted photographs of young people from Toronto who were, well, being young people - pictures of them on the beach together (scantily clad) and photos of them at a prom or something. lordsarmy used these pictures as "evidence" that the GLA's Mountain Top events etc... produced fleshliness. Well, what do you all think? I immediately asked him to remove those photos. Why? There was absolutely no evidence that the supposed practices of the GLA had the specific effect of "loose" behavior etc... I noted that I knew of equally "loose" behavior from even children of BBs. And I will also say here that I have seen as bad and worse behavior among second generation kids in mainstream Christianity. We should be really really careful attributing such behavior to specific practices/teachings in their youth.

I am not saying to drop the line of inquiry. I say pursue it; it is important. But do so with more rigor than I've seen here. This is not a commentary on the sub-discussion about the relative "purity" of Dallas. I am not addressing that issue. I am addressing the main purpose of this thread and the manner in which we determine what is and what is not "evidence" of certain behaviors being attributable to certain practices, etc. At the very least, let's get a comparator. Is the behavior amoung LC second generation worse and/or more common than in mainstream Christianity? I find it hard to have a fair discussion about this without knowing at least that much.

There are a lot of problems in the LC and there has been a lot of damage. But as we proceed with healing and discernment between babies and bathwater, we need to be so very careful in our cause/effect hypothesis, no?

Thoughts?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. blessD, I want to say that I am sorry that you went through your experience as you described. I cannot imagine how difficult that was. Sharing your story exposes many behaviors among leadership and practices that absolutely must be addressed. I hope you do not take my post here as attempting to detract from that in any way.

[Matt Anderson]

Now I must ask. What are you trying to protect?

This question deserves a response. I am trying to protect the ability of those who were abused at the hands of your fellows (fellow leaders in the LC) to speak up here and know that they will be given full opportunity to speak even if some of their facts aren't perfect. I am trying to protect that.

The substance of what they experienced was real and it was abusive to the soul and spirit. There are a lot of men who are still in love with the concepts produced by the LC. I am trying to protect those who were dropped in the pit and left to die against those who still love the concepts.

This is an honest response. You may not like it or what it implies, but it is given honestly.

Matt, what did your three anecdotes demonstrate.

I think I stated my actual point, but I will restate it here for your benefit.

I resisted the oppressive environment successfully in these cases, but even those who were "rebels" around me didn't have the strength to do it. Most just were dominated by the environment to the destruction of their souls.

Baylor university did not allow women to wear shorts on campus.

Baylor didn't allow it in the 60's? 70's? Which one? I'm referring to the 90's.

At least they told them before they went to school there. That was at least fair. If you accept it before you go, then you agree to it in advance and have a right to make a choice not to go if you don't want to live by that rule.

1. We were all told we could wear shorts at one conference. We showed up only to have this decision reversed. It was the middle of summer in Texas and the heat was sweltering. I defied them. I walked out in my shorts to the next meeting after the decision was reversed. I knew I might be sent home, but it was worth it. They were executing psychological manipulation. Within a few hours everyone was in shorts and it didn't get re-reversed.
Come on Matt. Psychological manipulation???

To tell an entire group of kids who have already been abused in a system that they can wear shorts before the camp and then to revoke it after you get to the camp is a form of psychological manipulation. It's a kind of conditioning to enforce bad authority.

So, Come on Hope.

2. Without being told that there was a seating order for the kids... Girls on one side and boys on the others side, everyone always segregated. I didn't. I went and sat by the one person who I had been in babysitting with since I was 6 years old. Even she was a little concerned about my presence. I told her that it was fine and that they needed to learn how to grow up. We didn't live in a prison camp. One brother started to approach me. I shot him a look and he turned and walked the other way.
Come on Matt. Prison camp because girls and boy at junior high age self segregate.

This was anecdotal evidence that the psychological tactics (concious or subconcious) of the leadership were working. Young people didn't even have to be told to separate. They just did it. This is because they understand the cultural environment and follow the unspoken rules blindly.

So, Come on Hope.

3. Each night before bed they would go around the room in prayer. Each person would pray something and then go to the next. I sat in silence when it reached me until the next person started praying. The silence lasted for 30-40 seconds. After two nights of this one of the "brothers" decided to talk to me about it. I told him, "You are free to pray. I'm not comfortable with it, so just leave me alone."
Come on Matt, prayer in the cabins one by one is a long standing practice at Christian camps.

My explicit point in this case was about the coerciveness and pressure to pray AND NOT the idea that prayer would happen in Christian camps. We were expected to pray, one at a time as you circled the room. This meant that anyone who didn't pray would be noticed and accounted for. It didn't stop with this simpler peer pressure or coercion, but it went further. I was called aside and questioned as to why I wouldn't pray. More coercion.

I think you will remember the signature sheet for the 1986 letter of idolatry. It had each elder's names listed with a signature line on it. That's coercion and you were coerced by it as were many others. If you didn't sign, you were noticed.

Am I still speaking Greek here?

So, Come on Hope.

You really don't want to go down the path with me about how much abuse there was of children in the LC, including Dallas. It won't be pretty. It's not a topic I have ever emphasized or tried to draw out, but it definitely happened. I don't base this just on my own perceptions. I base it on the fruit. Look at how many kids struggled to survive and develop a relationship with the Lord.

If your own children could be 100% honest with you, what would they say? Would they say that the LC was as you say? Would they say that it helped them develop a relationship with the Lord? What things would they point to as being problems for them?

Honestly, I'm protecting the truth as best as I am able. I think you are trying to do the same. Due to the differences in our perceptions we have a very different thought about the underlying truth. Who wins? I hope neither of us. I hope that others win as a result of our dialogue. This is what I am trying to protect. The freedom for them to dialogue in an environment that allows them to heal.

Matt

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Peter I generally agree with your well made point however I would mention that community churches are probably not an accurate comparison. The LCS are not community churches. The LCS is a separatist sub culture that positions itself in direct opposition to other Christian groups which they consider to be whores, etc. In other words in their frame of reference only they are pure and right and God's best and have the one ministry and the one minister blah blah blah...you know the drill. I have never been to a community church that had this collective self-concept.

My their own doing the LCS has positioned themselves to be heavily scrutinized. If you are so pure and right and holy and separate and God's best and have so many riches ...then why is your second generation and third generation plagued with so many social problems? Not all of course but enough to bring into question their thesis about themselves.

I am not promoting community churches but since you mentioned them it is only fair to say I have also never been in one that did not teach the family over and above all else except God. They are very family centric. And if they are not family centric enough for ones taste you just leave and go somewhere else. Such an atmosphere and attitude is a far cry from the LCS.

If a child is raised in a system that prioritizes family below the minister of the age and all that goes along with such pompous nonsense including the abuse of authority then certainly such a group can be held accountable for the negative influence they exercise. And if the leadership engage in outright hypocrisy with special passes given for the MOTA and his family while clamping down on everyone else then they can hardly expect their youth to take them too seriously when they are adults and can at least physically break free from groups hold.

[Ohio]

In my mind, Don was/is clearly a brother with a good heart towards people and is one of the few that didn't allow himself to come under the control of the abusive Texas leadership. I have and will continue to commend him for that. That took a lot. In no way is his person or character in question. What came in question is some of his behavior on this thread.



While I appreciate the conciliatory tone of this post, I must protest this highlighted statement.

I also have to thank OBW for his posts. I don't believe one conference can be used to characterize -- painting with a broad brush -- the church in Dallas, or anywhere else. Neither should the rotten behaviors of a few leaders be used to characterize the whole church. That's like condemning all Americans because you don't like the President, or all in Dallas because you don't like the Mayor.

Please note I am doing my best to reconcile things here, but have to be fair. I believe, as a rule, it is more helpful to all involved that specifics are addressed rather than generalities. This is the reason for this conflict and many others that have occurred on the forums. In my view, Hope was only protesting generalizations, and that's how things got started.

[OBW]

You responded to a post that I deleted. Maybe you should have considered the fact that I deleted it within a few seconds after I wrote it before you went ahead and responded to it.

In closing, I am no authority. I am just one voice. I'll speak and if you want to try to call me an authority to try and put me in my place go ahead. In this case, it's not having the desired effect. It's producing the opposite effect. You should well know by now that I am not dumb and that using tactics of bullying simply won't work with me.

I'm not defending a book here. That's just plain silly (and stupid).
But that is almost the only times that you get so heated. It is hard to separate the two. You are almost entirely the voice of reason. But when something comes up where anyone says anything that even hints at negativity, you are suddenly a different person. I would not call that stupid. And you, of all people, should reconsider using that word here.

In post #115 there were no such examples. You came to say that the account of BlessD says something about Dallas. That is simply not an accurate statement. You attacked Don as if he were trying to hide a bunch of dead bodies in the lawn of the big house or something. (I know, hyperbole.) Before you accuse me...

Yes, your examples were 1st hand accounts (Post #117). They spoke volumes about the LC in general. They say volumes about what they actually say, not what someone can stretch them to say. Lest we all forget, many of the problems of the LC are Lee’s taking scripture where the do not truthfully go. I do not wish to paint an idyllic picture of Dallas. It was far from that. But you have nothing to add to the discussion. If these were added for the general discussion outside of this particular debate, then that is OK. I do not say “OK” to suggest that I have some authority in the matter. I am speaking in terms of valid facts v logical fallacy. On their own, for their own purpose, they are welcome. As kindling for the discussion about Dallas, they are fallacy because they are not on topic but are, at best straw men. Beat up someone about something and everyone else gets swept in.

You are free to ask questions that dig deeper. But you cannot suppose to say that things are any particular way in Dallas because they were that way anywhere else. Even in the absolutely aberrant system that is the LC, even here in 2008, they are not all cookie cutter mirrors of each other, no matter how strongly Benson and company try to say they are and make them so. Broad-brushing can only be taken as a general thing, not specific.

Stick to actual accounts of issues rather than innuendo concerning things you do not know anything about. I know that there are truly valid issues relating to the LC, and also to Dallas. When you said (in your now deleted post) that the incident relating to BlessD did have relevance to Dallas, you made my case that there was an attempt to take the example where it did not go because that was simply an incorrect statement.. You are correct to retreat to talking about the LC in general. There is a lot to say there. That is where we all should be. And each of us may have something to say. There is surely something worthwhile to say about Dallas. But the Dallas history does not speak to the history in Cleveland, Toronto, Houston, OKC, or Anaheim. And those do not speak directly to the experience in Dallas.

As for the deleted post, evertying of substance in it was in #115.

[Matt Anderson]

But that is almost the only times that you get so heated. It is hard to separate the two. You are almost entirely the voice of reason. But when something comes up where anyone says anything that even hints at negativity, you are suddenly a different person. I would not call that stupid. And you, of all people, should reconsider using that word here.


Most certainly there are times I will choose to go "toe to toe" with a topic and sometimes even a person. That is what you are observing when you say I get "so heated". I'm not really mad. I'm matching the rhetoric of my verbal sparring partner. You heated up the rhetoric in your post. I'm heating up mine. You cool yours down. I'll probably cool mine down too. I'm not always reactionary, but sometimes I am. I admit to it.

Hope is matching my rhetoric to some extent and it's heated up some too. Hope's a good person and I like much of what he has to say. In this instance, he's attempted to set a precedent I simply won't support and will openly object to for the sake of the abused. If you don't know what I am talking about, I'll gladly point it out.

As for the substance of this topic, under the forum it is in (Spiritual Abuse -> LCS Factor) I think I will continue to take a pretty strong stance against anyone who wants to paint with a whiter color.

God doesn't sit around and say, "Well you built my temple, so the idolatry wasn't all that bad". God says, "Idolatry... Bad... Period... Don't defend it. Repent." He also points at the many consequences of idolatry including your enemies having sway over you and your family.

Do you have any idea how many people haven't spoken up on forums like this one? There are more than just a few. When they see an ex-leader having sway to try and encourage everyone against someone the ex-leader doesn't like, do you think they are ever going to speak up here?

Answer: No. Now you may be getting some of where I am coming from in my response(s). I'm not an authority, but I will dig in an fight on something like this for the sake of the oppressed and their ability to heal.

Matt

[aron]

The last meeting I went to, the out of town "trainers" were on hand, training the saints for the "new way". One of them mentioned, in the discussion of the "new move", that sacrifices were called for. He said, "You all have families, I know. You have jobs. There is a limited amount of time available. I know. Something has to give."

He let it sit there. Silence. Then he moved on to the next point. The unstated conclusion, to me, was that family has to be sacrificed on behalf of the latest push out of Anaheim.

All I could think of was the stories in the OT of the groups who sacrificed their children to idols. Scary stuff.

[Peter Debelak]

As for the substance of this topic, under the forum it is in (Spiritual Abuse -> LCS Factor) I think I will continue to take a pretty strong stance against anyone who wants to paint with a whiter color.


Matt

I strongly agree that when we seek to create a forum in which victims of abuse can share their experiences, we have to vigilently guard the atmosphere of openness and empathy. There should be threads which are purely for this purpose, without the "balance" or whatever.

I am just not sure that it is fair to treat this particular thread as one of them. In short, what I am saying is this: this thread perhaps should not be on this "spiritual abuse" Board and insulated from "positive experiences." Perhaps "Practice what He Preached" or something.

The thread proposed a sweeping thesis but opened up a general question about whether certain elements of the LC can and did lead to fleshly behavior in the second generation. It also implied that this was, in fact, the case.

To that end, it is entirely appropriate to present experiences from both sides of the issue. Surely, when some relay their difficult and negative experiences, those of us who had positive experiences should not share them in a dismissive way. But I don't think it is fair for this thread to be insulated from "positive experience" posts. Such posts can be challenged, called out as "rare" or whatever else. But on this thread I think they are appropriate.

In short, there should be a thread - even many threads - which provide an environment for vicitims of abuse to share their stories without their experiences being "handled" by those in the LC, ex-LC or anyone else. Their stories should stand on their own, have merit in their own right and should engender in us a vigilence to ask what is at the root of such damaging practices.

But I don't think this thread with its question and its thesis should be insulated from sharing positive experiences, which are part of - even if not indicitive of - the LC experience.

For what its worth...

In Love,

Peter

P.S. I want to add that this dialogue with Hope regarding the ways in which we converse with those who are sharing their stories of abuse is an important one. I am not writing any of this to stiffle that on-going dialogue.

[Peter Debelak]

Peter I generally agree with your well made point however I would mention that community churches are probably not an accurate comparison. The LCS are not community churches. The LCS is a separatist sub culture that positions itself in direct opposition to other Christian groups which they consider to be whores, etc. In other words in their frame of reference only they are pure and right and God's best and have the one ministry and the one minister blah blah blah...you know the drill. I have never been to a community church that had this collective self-concept.

My their own doing the LCS has positioned themselves to be heavily scrutinized. If you are so pure and right and holy and separate and God's best and have so many riches ...then why is your second generation and third generation plagued with so many social problems? Not all of course but enough to bring into question their thesis about themselves.

I am not promoting community churches but since you mentioned them it is only fair to say I have also never been in one that did not teach the family over and above all else except God. They are very family centric. And if they are not family centric enough for ones taste you just leave and go somewhere else. Such an atmosphere and attitude is a far cry from the LCS.

If a child is raised in a system that prioritizes family below the minister of the age and all that goes along with such pompous nonsense including the abuse of authority then certainly such a group can be held accountable for the negative influence they exercise. And if the leadership engage in outright hypocrisy with special passes given for the MOTA and his family while clamping down on everyone else then they can hardly expect their youth to take them too seriously when they are adults and can at least physically break free from groups hold.


DJ:

There are a couple of things going on here. Based on this post here and your intial post, I think you are asking two questions, perhaps related but nevertheless different:

1) Are their particular teachings/practices/culture in the LC which produces excessive fleshly behavior in its second generation - more so than in mainstream Christianity?

2) Regardless of what caused the fleshly behavior and regardless of whether it was worse than elsewhere, does its mere existence refute the elitest claims of the LC that they "have it" and are so pure?

These are different inquiries. For the second question, I agree that it doesn't matter whether other groups are better or worse as far as fleshly behavior among the 2nd generation. For the first quesiton, however - the one from your first post, the comparator very much does matter. Do you agree? I have more to say, but first let me know if you get what I mean by the difference of questions here.

Peter

[Matt Anderson]

The thread proposed a sweeping thesis but opened up a general question about whether certain elements of the LC can and did lead to fleshly behavior in the second generation. It also implied that this was, in fact, the case.

To that end, it is entirely appropriate to present experiences from both sides of the issue. Surely, when some relay their difficult and negative experiences, those of us who had positive experiences should not share them in a dismissive way. But I don't think it is fair for this thread to be insulated from "positive experience" posts. Such posts can be challenged, called out as "rare" or whatever else. But on this thread I think they are appropriate.

Peter

Peter,

I do understand your comments and I may seem a bit worked up.

Can you think of any examples of kids who grew up in the LC that haven't had to overcome significant personal & family obstacles in establishing a healthy walk with the Lord? I'm not asking for names. Just curious if you can think of any of them. I think there are a few, but just a few.

The only ones I know of are:
1. Those who have had to pass through some amount of personal hell first.
2. Ones that still claim membership and whose eyes are still glossed over.

This is open to response from others too.

Matt

P.S. I now know of quite a few of a non-LC background that have grown up and had healthy walks with the Lord without significant personal hell. Of course, there is always some struggle, but nothing like what I've seen and heard about for the 2nd generation of LCer's.

[OBW]

I posted I think on page 7!?!? Look for my name: Process. There was a lot of heavy talk going on so it may have been missed. I was in Dallas as a child for a number of years. I testify that my father was abusive (neglectful and physically) and still is trapped by the teachings he devoted his life to for 20 years. Our family left LC about 15 years ago but continues to be a mess because of the tangled lies, arrogance, lack of confession and biblical falsehoods that were taught and continue to be tightly gripped. I'm still new here, maybe at some point I'll share more. Hopefully sharing can be something that is embraced on this forum rather then picked a part and attempted to be disproved!Process,

This issue is not about whether there were any actual problems in Dallas. It is also not about denying your issues and the pain it has caused you. I would agree that things were “off.” There is a lot that was/is off about the LC to this very day. It was complicit in the way many families operated. It was probably not responsible for all of the problems in any family, but it was responsible for creating a sense of a God-ordained way that the family should operate — mainly that the father was the head, and everyone else submitted.

That means that the LC is not the sole problem. But it was nowhere near clear of responsibility either. I did not have anything like the problems it seems you had. It still took almost 20 years to get rid of what I have, and there is probably more hiding somewhere inside. I do not diminish anyone's pain or suffering.

Unfortunately, you came along in the middle of a discussion about an invalidly broad brush being used, and when that fact is questioned, an inappropriate example being rushed out to create an image that was not supported by that example, followed by a gang trying to make it fit anyway. It is not a pretty sight. It doesn't happen very often. I've probably been on the wrong side of at least one such occurrence. Don't let it scare you off. But I would be sure that you can handle the exposure that telling your own story might bring. Everyone here is not necessarily sympathetic. Some will try to diminish it. Most will embrace you warmly and try to help if they can.

I don't think anyone was trying to diminish BlessD's issue. Instead, it would appear that some were trying to inflate it. Either way, she got hit in the cross-fire and that should not have happened.

As for the discussion happening in public, the problem is that this began as a lynching in public. It is not just one person. I was somewhat harsh with Matt because I hold him to a higher standard than some others. (I hope that no one thinks that means I think less of them. It's just that he bears the responsibility of moderating a similar forum and knows errors in argument better than I do.) Unfortunately, that means that it probably has to end here in public. That is my opinion. It is not a fact.

Don't let my demeanor scare your off. I just take time to articulate and it ends out sounding more academic than conversational. When I do it fast enough to be conversational, I sometimes end out saying things I did not intend. Drop me a PM sometime if you want to talk about anything. It is more than likely that we know each other, at least somewhat. I will not expect you to be more open than you wish and I will probably be more open than I should.

[Peter Debelak]

Peter,

I do understand your comments and I may seem a bit worked up.

Can you think of any examples of kids who grew up in the LC that haven't had to overcome significant personal & family obstacles in establishing a healthy walk with the Lord? I'm not asking for names. Just curious if you can think of any of them. I think there are a few, but just a few.

The only ones I know of are:
1. Those who have had to pass through some amount of personal hell first.
2. Ones that still claim membership and whose eyes are still glossed over.

This is open to response from others too.

Matt

Matt:

First, if you will allow me, I would like to re-word your categories - please tell me if you think my re-wording has changed your meaning too substantially:

1)Those who have had to pass through some amount of personal hell first.
2) Those who still claim membership but do so out of a habituation of being raised in that culture, not necessarily due to a calling from the Lord.

Whether in response to your categories or to mine, I'm not sure I can think of any who haven't fit in some way into one of these broad categories.

Here's the thing though: I think this is the character of being second generation in any group, particularly a Christian one. When you are raised in a strong belief system which has its way of operating and ways of practicing and thinking (which is every single group that I can think of), you come to your belief system- at the outset - without the dynamic salvation of the first generation. As such, from my personal experience, a seeking second-generation-individual will by nature be full of doubt about their beliefs. Always questioning - "do I really believe this is truth or just because this is all I've ever known?"

My personal belief: you will either end up “glossed over” (and a good little church member) by supressing that doubt without addressing it or you will go through a “personal hell” of some kind in order to seize a faith that is yours and not your parent’s or your culture’s. I am not saying everyone will have to go through craziness, but where there's a genuine wrestling, there's going to be bruised legs...

What do you think?

Peter

P.S. This is not meant to dismiss the valid inquiry into how and in what ways the LC system affected the second generation. But I want to have the broad parameters set before getting into that.

[Ohio]

This question deserves a response. I am trying to protect the ability of those who were abused at the hands of your fellows (fellow leaders in the LC) to speak up here and know that they will be given full opportunity to speak even if some of their facts aren't perfect. I am trying to protect that.
................
Honestly, I'm protecting the truth as best as I am able. I think you are trying to do the same. Due to the differences in our perceptions we have a very different thought about the underlying truth. Who wins? I hope neither of us. I hope that others win as a result of our dialogue. This is what I am trying to protect. The freedom for them to dialogue in an environment that allows them to heal. Matt

Matt, this post of yours was painful for me to read. I read Hope's post to you as a pleading and an entreaty, but your post is on the edge of mocking and disrespect. This is so out of character as compared to all your previous posts I have read.

Is there some personal animus between your family and Hope's? Which would explain the "rising temperature" on this thread? For the life of me I can't explain this conflict any other way. When you were moderator on the other forum, you would have closed this thread long before this level of tension had been reached.

[Matt Anderson]

Matt,

Is there some personal animus between your family and Hope's?

Not that I am aware of. I know I am not playing friendly on this thread. Stated plainly, I am not going to let someone who was a 1st generation leader of the LC group carve out a special place for himself saying, "Everything else was screwed up, but my locality wasn't and me and my wife did fine." (<-- I can provide the direct quote upon request). I've got enough facts to prove otherwise and the general culture of the group as it related to the 2nd generation cannot be left to a 1st generation leader to interpret. I just won't let that stand.

If I am bordering on disrespect, then I am sorry. I'm just not going to put up with this. There are facts that I know that I will not speak about on this forum that form some of the core of my fundamental resistance which may border on disrespect.

Matt

[Thankful Jane]

As for the discussion happening in public, the problem is that this began as a lynching in public.Dear OBW,

Are you talking about the "lynching" of djohnson by Hope in post #56 (see below) or some other lynching? (I have put the rope in red.)

Dear brother and sisters,

Could we step back and take a deep breath. djohnson, who is no friend, started the thread with a very spectacular charge regarding the children of dear saints who happened to have been in the local churches. “I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues. Some that I am familiar with are: alcoholism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, divorce, paying for sex i.e. engaging in services of prostitutes, infidelity, porn addiction.” He adds, “My guess is that once the hypocrisy of the leaders became well known something "snapped" in a lot of the youth. A subculture that was restricting them thus became a culprit in their lustful pursuits.

Then many of the forum members followed with sweeping statements which summed up the local churches and the believers who participated in them. When others such as Terry, Arizona, Peter Debelak, and OBW, Mike and myself attempted to add some moderation they were dismissed out of hand. Yet they gave their experiences and were not agents of the LCM sent here to cover up the real situation. Arizona was immediately dismissed by one of the dear forum members as a current LSM member.

Roger, I feel the above posters are being denigrated and being subjected to a kind of peer pressure.

Forum members, do not let djohnson stir up trouble and destroy the forum and fellowship as he has in other settings. He wants you all to admit you are addicts. He wants you all to admit you are terrible parents with terrible children and hopes that all that was ever any good, testimony or persons would be discredited and buried. He wants you all to disappear. If we join his kind of wild sweeping condemnation, we will self destruct.

Arizona made a very simple and true statement when he declared, “Many of us parents were just damaged people out of the Sixties scene who had no clue how to raise children so we did the best we knew how,,, and the LC helped in many ways in that endeavor.”

The Local Churches collected a lot of peculiar people who were damaged in some way or other. They applied things often in an extreme way. Some of the leaders did not practice proper leadership because they were themselves damaged and odd. The story that Roger related is a classic on authority abuse. Never should a leader use a meeting to shoot a silver bullet at a dear saint. I am all for exposing such practices.

The main leadership had very serious flaws in teaching and in practice. Nell declared that there was a class system. She stated that I could get away with behavior that a single sister could not. In the Body of Christ there should never be such a thing. I desire to be rescued from all my bad practices and am more than willing to have my specific faults pointed out and condemned. I believe that the specific bad fruit of some of the leaders and churches should be pointed out. I want to know the truth, both the clear biblical truth and the truth of the history. But I also am aware of the enemy’s practice of cursing. Satan, the accuser of the brethern, will accuse in broad sweeping charges. The Holy Spirit shines light in a very specific way and not only convicts of sin but offers forgiveness and a fresh start.

I am convinced that the original intent of this thread was to curse us all. Please take this fellowship to the Lord.

djohnson please repent from your way of seeking to discredit, belittle, condemn and destroy. I know these are strong words and I do not write them lightly.




Thankful Jane

[OBW]

Here's the thing though: I think this is the character of being second generation in any group, particularly a Christian one. When you are raised in a strong belief system which has its way of operating and ways of practicing and thinking (which is every single group that I can think of), you come to your belief system- at the outset - without the dynamic salvation of the first generation. As such, from my personal experience, a seeking second-generation-individual will by nature be full of doubt about their beliefs. Always questioning - "do I really believe this is truth or just because this is all I've ever known?"I think you have a very valid point. I have observed this in many places. Why does anyone expect a different result in the LC?

Children must ultimately come to own their own faith. Sometimes it will come without significant struggle or doubt. But it usually does not come until there is a separation from the family home (going to college, etc.) or some level of rebellion during which time the "truth" they've been taught has a chance to be come truth that they hold to.

Then, within this thread, how does the authoritarian and (semi?) abusive aspects of the LC drive those children 1) away from the faith (or at least outside of the LC fold) and/or 2) into sinful and destructive behavior. That is more what the thread is seeking to find. Those that remain and appear at least somewhat functional within the LC are not the obvious issue.

[Ohio]

OBW,

2. I am pointing my guns at the fact that the LC was idolatrous and every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry. Some more or less than others. The leaders/ex-leaders are more guilty of the idolatry than the commoners.



Matt, this type of statement is what started the whole conflict. There is no way I can agree with this.

I can't see why anyone needs "guns" in the first place. This sister BlessD needs the heavenly Physician, but the whole town now has a "gunfight" over "how hurt" she really is/was. Meanwhile the ones who "hurt" her were never "arrested" in the first place, nor are they "brought to trial" now. This thread has become like a western movie where the bank robbers turn the citizens against each other while they ride out of town with the loot.

You say the "LC was idolatrous" but that includes who? Every member? Every guest? How can you judge the hearts of people you never met? This is playing God.

This statement is outrageous: "every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry." I couldn't say that about all the Catholics that entered their statue-filled churches. Calling the LC's a cult pales in comparison to this claim.

What is happening here?

Your last statement touches on an important point. The leaders bear much more responsibility, if not the entire blame. The "cooperators" have a little blame, but the "perpetrators" bear the most blame. This whole story about BlessD should have addressed the ones who spoke in that "meeting." Why haven't their names been mentioned? Who called that meeting? Who humiliated her? Can't we focus on the responsible ones? They started this whole thing ... and now I (and everyone else) am being called idolatrous! What a stretch "guilt by association" this has become.

LC leaders have failed us. Some are evil workers. Let's focus on that.

[Matt Anderson]

LC leaders have failed us. Some are evil workers. Let's focus on that.

Ohio,

Then I don't think you have gotten it yet. Everyone was brought into the idolatry (me included). All you have to do is study history (including the history of Israel) to see that it is not just the leaders who are held responsible. The whole congregation is held responsible.

In fact, in the NT age we are all leaders. We are all priests. We all bear the responsibility.

Point of Proof: Many commoners sacrificed their children for the sake of the LC system. It wasn't just the leaders.

Matt

[Arizona]

Peter D,

I agree with what you have said in your last post. We all know that hanging on the coattails of the previous generation will only take us so far. We all must possess faith for ourselves so it is something real and genuine and not just feigned and second hand.

I remember well in the early 70's how much fellowship we had concerning the fact that the only way for us to gain Christ was "through the fire" of suffering and tribulation. How little we knew what lay ahead! I do have to thank the Lord for our ignorance for if we had known I for one would probably have run very quickly in the opposite direction. The Christian life is "not a game show". I am not making light of it all. I have my own story to tell. I have known perplexity regarding the situations of many dear saints that I grew to love in the past. My mind has been boggled. My tears have flowed before God. But the truth still stands, and one thing has never changed; God is faithful,,,,,, and Jesus is still Lord!

I would encourage us all to not go through this analysis, psychological or otherwise, apart from Christ. He is always the bottom line answer.

Much grace.

Arizona

[Ohio]

Ohio,

Then I don't think you have gotten it yet. Everyone was brought into the idolatry (me included). All you have to do is study history (including the history of Israel) to see that it is not just the leaders who are held responsible. The whole congregation is held responsible.

In fact, in the NT age we are all leaders. We are all priests. We all bear the responsibility.

Point of Proof: Many commoners sacrificed their children for the sake of the LC system. It wasn't just the leaders.

Matt

Matt, you are now using O.T. stories the way LSM uses lepers and quarantines. I have to disagree with both inferences.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Peter here is how I would frame it:

1. If church A promotes family and its well being is central to its message, mission and practices than how much of it's influence can be held responsible for the behavior of children raised in it? Not much in my view.

2. If church B i.e. those of the LCS variety where they have a one MOTA who takes priority over all else including family. And it's central message, mission and practices is designed to support and promote the one MOTA then how much of it's influence can be held responsible for the children raised in it? Quite a bit in my view.

To compare the LCS to community churches is comparing apples and oranges.

On the issue of refuting the claims of the LCS about their supposed purity etc. the actions of their offspring is not the only indicator but it is an indicator of the ridiculousness of their claim.

[OBW]

Dear OBW,

Are you talking about the "lynching" of djohnson by Hope in post #56 (see below) or some other lynching? (I have put the rope in red.)If that had been the start of the problem, then there might be some validity. Yes, he may have spoken harshly. I do in my way at times, as do you, Matt, Ohio, and many others. I think that we all sometimes look back at some posts and wish we had said things a little differently.

I just went back quickly through the history of posts and see that there was a growing instance of push-back on what Don was speaking. He was primarily speaking of his own experience. And he has indicated that he was not responsible for leading others to think in this way. I have mentioned the comments by George that would seem to underpin that.

Still there are some who will do what they do and be what they be. And there will be things said by others at conferences, etc., that will send some in different ways. Like so many things that Lee said, there was generally something that offset it at some level. He was a weasel in that regard.

And the fact that parents directed their kids according to their belief system is not unique to the LC.

Actually, the little bit of that post about DJ was far from the whole of it. He really only questioned the value of the overall thread. Don then said much about a lot of where the discussion went. That was mostly others besides DJ.

He did return to DJ at the end, but it was clear that he was already responding to a crowd that had an agenda and an expected outcome. If we are so sure we know everything so well, why do we bother discussing? If it is that clear, even the LC faithful would capitulate. But many of the posts, both before and after this debacle started, were ranting at gossip and picking on Don’s experience and efforts to avoid those errors in Dallas, as flawed and/or unsuccessful as they may have been.

As for DJ, while I have come to appreciate his input for the most part, he has been on a sort of a tirade on this “addiction” thing. I’m not sure that it really applies. He keeps cycling back to these one or two short paragraphs about “addiction to Lee.” He doesn’t respond to the actual posts, but rants again about “addiction to Lee.” He may be right at some level, but such drive-by comments do not help any real dialog on the subject. Suggesting that it end is not unreasonable. Maybe it would have been better to suggest that all discussion center on factual observations and issues that we can really discuss. But it hardly resembles a lynching. The mob came later. And they were after Don. The guy hanging from the rope with a crowd below can’t do much lynching.

That’s my observation.

Again, this whole thing needs to turn back to something factual and observable rather than innuendo and gossip. I’m not blaming anyone. It got the way it did like a wildfire. We need some California National Guard helicopters to dump water on us all.

BTW. Despite the seeming heat in my “voice,” I still look forward to getting together sometime. I hope that this is also your sentiment.

[Peter Debelak]

Peter here is how I would frame it:

1. If church A promotes family and its well being is central to its message, mission and practices than how much of it's influence can be held responsible for the behavior of children raised in it? Not much in my view.

2. If church B i.e. those of the LCS variety where they have a one MOTA who takes priority over all else including family. And it's central message, mission and practices is designed to support and promote the one MOTA then how much of it's influence can be held responsible for the children raised in it? Quite a bit in my view.

To compare the LCS to community churches is comparing apples and oranges.

On the issue of refuting the claims of the LCS about their supposed purity etc. the actions of their offspring is not the only indicator but it is an indicator of the ridiculousness of their claim.

Let me propose a scenario to explain how i think the comparison is important.

Let's say we do have stats.

Let's say in the LC roughy 20% of its second-generation at some point end up in gross sin of the type you describe in post #1 (the exact percentage doesn't matter - put in any number you want).

Then let's say in a typical mainstream church only 5% of its second-generation at some point end up in gross sin of the type you describe in post #1.

That then becomes a starting point to say: there is something particular to the LC system which produced this fruit - let's find out what it is. And then we have a basis for your question in post #1.

But alternatively, let's say the stats are these:

10% of the LC second-generation end up in gross immorality

10% of second generation in a mainstream church do as well

If that's the case, then you really can't say there is something particular about the LC system which caused this particular fruit.

That is not to say that the LC system doesn't cause some kind of bad fruit, just not this particular one - gross sin.

In short, the relative comparison to instances of gross sin among the second generation of other groups is very important. While we want to find a root of such behavior in any event, this comparison helps us narrow the field of the possibilities.

Make sense?

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

OBW my comments on Leeaholism are not drive-by by any stretch of the imagination. Further in my last several posts I have addressed directly several posters including Terry, Peter and Thankful.

I don't know why I became the target of Hope's little outburst. If he's not a Lee addict so be it. Just say so. No need to attack the guy who points out the Lee addiction in the LCS - an observation which many on this forum have expressed agreement with.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Peter I have never suggested that the LCS was the only factor that influenced the behavior of their offspring. My question is how much of a factor do people think it was? What part did it play?

In your scenario: if 10% of LCS children go off the deep end and 10% of other church children do the same but the other churches are not family-comes-last sub cultures then they are not a factor in the 10% are they? For the 10% of the LCS kids the LCS itself maybe the number one influencing factor. Maybe not but that is my question isn't it? Of all the factors what role does the LCS play?

[Matt Anderson]

Matt, you are now using O.T. stories the way LSM uses lepers and quarantines. I have to disagree with both inferences.

Ohio, No I am not using them the same way. I'm simply saying that idolatry is not exclusive to leadership in the LC and it had a lot of impact on families and especially the kids. This is obvious. I'm not making an inference. I'm making a statement. You've got every right to disagree, but just look around at all the kids and families you know about in the LC. How does it look?

Paul of the NT instructs us to look at the OT as an example for us and in particular on the issue of idolatry (1 Cor 10:1-14)

Matt

P.S. Some of the idolatry discussion belongs elsewhere, but the impacts on the 2nd generation of the idolatry are very much on point for this thread.

[Matt Anderson]

Again, this whole thing needs to turn back to something factual and observable rather than innuendo and gossip.

OBW,

Please quote one element of gossip and/or innuendo? I'd just like to see an instance you are referring to in particular. Your request is for us to return to facts, so I want to see if your statement is factual.

Matt

[Thankful Jane]

If that had been the start of the problem, then there might be some validity.

Dear OBW,

So what was the start of the problem in your mind?

Thankful Jane

[Matt Anderson]

When we consider how the children of Christian parents get into trouble in their teen age and adult years, it is important to never forget that there is an enemy. Do not forget Adam and Eve. They had the very best care from the very creator God. They had a walk and talk with Him everyday. They were not neglected and the creator did not make any mistakes. Yet look what happened! Why? Well there is an enemy.

In my life both as a Christian and in my profession, I have interacted with many wonderful Christian parents who were literally heart broken regarding their child. They did a lot of introspection as to where they went wrong and what their mistakes were. They were in great pain and most of it was totally unnecessary. Almost always there were children who had turned out wonderfully. Yet, the parents could only consider that they were awful failures due to the one child who was having problems.

I have heard parents blame themselves for placing the child in public schools or in a religious school or because they did not do home school or for belonging to the wrong church or because they were too strict or too lenient etc.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

What is worth while is to never forget that the Lord can save the most fallen, most backslidden, most disappointing child. I love the passage in Romans chapter 4:17, “God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.” NASB When someone is dead, there is no more hope. My younger brother was killed at age 16 in a hunting accident by his best friend. My parents had many plans for him, their youngest child. But after his death, there was no more hope, no more plans. But we believe in God who gives life to the dead. I have seen many seemingly hopeless "dead" children turn back to God and to their parents. I would encourage us all to focus on this rather than trying to assess blame.

There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

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.)

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Don,

I've been reading back through this thread from the beginning. I had read the post from you before and agreed with it except for the items about the "devil's game" and blame on parents and the environment they put their children. The devil also plays the game to keep us silent in the face of sinfulness. I also didn't agree with the idea that there isn't much profit in looking at the blame on the parents or the environment they placed their children. Sorry, but that one was off the charts wrong in my mind. It is absolutely one of the most important functions of a parent to keep a child from dangerous environments.

As I read it the first time something occurred to me. Reading it again, it occurs to me again. The OT Law set forward three main things:

1. Blessings for Obedience to the Law
2. Cursings for Disobedience to the Law
3. Mercy to those who repented

This is setup in multiple places (Leviticus and Deuteronomy).

- Part of the blessing for obedience was protection and success against your enemies.
- Part of the cursing for disobedience was the fact that your enemies would have success against you.

We are not under the Law, but in our disobedience to Christ we do open the door for the Enemy of God. The Enemy likes nothing more than to wreak havoc on families.

Yes, there is an enemy and he should not be forgotten. When fathers and mothers enter into things that violate basic tenets that the Lord sets forward the Enemy can take advantage. I think this definitely happened on a broader scale in the LC.

I don't believe we can point to the Enemy "outside" when we hold the door open to the Enemy to come "inside" through our disobedience to the Lord in regards to his instructions towards fathers and mothers.

This is why this is such a hot topic for me. It's not because of you, personally, but because the disobedience to follow the Lord's ways in regards to family were so seriously violated and the door was held open to the Enemy for him to waltz right in. He did and a lot of destruction followed.

I've seen a lot of destruction on the 2nd generation which hasn't ever been well represented on any of these forums.

Am I making any sense?

Matt

P.S. One of the best things my parents did was to repent to me (and later I found out my brother too) for the things they had done wrong in raising us (this included things that were LC specific and other violations of the Word). They pointed to their own responsibility and did not blame the system. This helped me as I believe it would help other kids if their parents could acknowledge the fact that they allowed their children to be in a spiritually and soully dangerous setting through their involvements with the LC. They didn't put God down in my mind. They made Him holy as a result of their willingness to repent for these things.

[Thankful Jane]

BTW. Despite the seeming heat in my “voice,” I still look forward to getting together sometime. I hope that this is also your sentiment. Of course it is. Family is family, no matter how many food fights we have :p.

Thankful Jane

[Hope]

Dear OBW,

Are you talking about the "lynching" of djohnson by Hope in post #56 (see below) or some other lynching?

Thankful Jane


Dear brothers and sisters,

I would like to give a little history of this thread. I have included several of the earlier posts. If you look at my first quotes, I expressed my concern for children and parents. I have heard from TJ and Matt that their concern is for the people, the abused. My point was to consider how to help the hurt and wounded. Simply to claim that it was the LCS does not really solve anything and I doubt if it is the best way or the Biblical way. TJ recommended the books of Neil Anderson. Tremendous work, not just for troubled Christians or substance abuse situations but for anyone. I believe I have read and closely studied all his works and have given them to troubled parents and children. I cannot recall him encouraging the counselor to find out how or what outside influence created the problem. When I began to post on the tread, I admit I did not pay any attention to the title of the thread. My attention was captured to the opening post and the presentation and description of damaged children.

I do not think that my initial posts which began with #13 were any kind of lynching of djohnson. But whenever I posted, he immediately dismissed my post with a kind of wave of the hand and cranked up the spiritual abuse charge.

I do not care what the title of a thread may or may not be, why does anyone get a free shot? What was wrong with five different posters putting up something that attempted to give a little perspective. I only brought up my experience and Dallas to say "no it was not all that way." I never claimed I or everyone in Dallas had their act completely together. In fact I declared we had a flat spot on the teaching on family etc.

When I saw the direction in which dj was leading the thread, I could not hold my peace. Posters on this forum take the actions and teachings of WL, the LSM and the BBs and come to conclussions about their motives. Are posters here under the same standard unless they are in an attack mode against all that is lc? Then do they get a free shot? From the actions and teachings of posters can a reasonable person fail to pick up on some of their motives or does that only apply to WL or an elder or an ex-elder?

Here are many of the earlier post starting at the beginning. My #56 is the post TJ references as the lynching of dj. I did not copy it but please go to it.


When we consider how the children of Christian parents get into trouble in their teen age and adult years, it is important to never forget that there is an enemy. Do not forget Adam and Eve. They had the very best care from the very creator God. They had a walk and talk with Him everyday. They were not neglected and the creator did not make any mistakes. Yet look what happened! Why? Well there is an enemy.

In my life both as a Christian and in my profession, I have interacted with many wonderful Christian parents who were literally heart broken regarding their child. They did a lot of introspection as to where they went wrong and what their mistakes were. They were in great pain and most of it was totally unnecessary. Almost always there were children who had turned out wonderfully. Yet, the parents could only consider that they were awful failures due to the one child who was having problems.

I have heard parents blame themselves for placing the child in public schools or in a religious school or because they did not do home school or for belonging to the wrong church or because they were too strict or too lenient etc.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

What is worth while is to never forget that the Lord can save the most fallen, most backslidden, most disappointing child. I love the passage in Romans chapter 4:17, “God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.” NASB When someone is dead, there is no more hope. My younger brother was killed at age 16 in a hunting accident by his best friend. My parents had many plans for him, their youngest child. But after his death, there was no more hope, no more plans. But we believe in God who gives life to the dead. I have seen many seemingly hopeless "dead" children turn back to God and to their parents. I would encourage us all to focus on this rather than trying to assess blame.

There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

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.)

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge



Hope I think the fact there is an enemy seeking whom he may devour is a given for most Christians. But this cannot be the catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting. It appears the issue with the LCS is not: we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end. But rather: our children were raised in an environment that was basically anti-family so it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults.


Greetings djohnson,

Sorry if my post gave the impression that I was offering a "catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting."

Also, I don't think any would claim "we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end."

But I can say that in my own home and in the church in Dallas in general we were not basically anti-family."

In Dallas and in the other lc in Texas, there were many activities for the children, young people etc. I took my children to their various practices and attended the majority of their games. Others also who were involved with my children would attend their games and I went to other children's activities.

Some of the children were outstanding students and citizens. Others were big busts. I saw a few who were excellent at avoiding their responsibility in their unhappy lives and quick to blame, blame, blame.

I have witnessed some adult members who could not hold a responsible job and it was always someone else's fault. I have witnessed some terrible failures at marriage and family and it was always someone else's fault.

Just because someone who has made a mess of things starts crying LCS is to blame, do not be so quickly persuaded that there was some sort of systemic problem and "it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults."

On the other hand, maybe it is a miracle that any of us survive and become healthy adults. Thank the Lord for his never failing love and mercy toward us all.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge



This thread bothers me as my intention of joining the board was to have meaningful discussions based on fact. The opening post states "I have learned that among those who grew up in the LCS many face social issues..."

Is this a fair thread? Is the level of social issues for those in/left the 'LCS' greater than 1) that in society where the church is 2) than that in any other Christian group?

I would hope that our evaluation of the 'LCS' is fair and based on fact not on the whim of someone who has had a bad experience and is looking for to blame.

Dennis



Dennis,

There are many threads that are based on fact. And this one, despite the inability to nail down specific facts, is not a factual void. It is just that there is no "one size fits all" analysis and therefore not very helpful.

I'm sure that each of us had different thoughts when the thread began. That is because this is much more complicated than blaming the LC. Of course, there is probably blame that can be leveled at the LC, but it will be difficult to isolate since they actually had little teaching on the subject. It's hard to say that it is the LC's fault that one family followed the pattern of another that turns out to have been simply dysfunctional. If everyone had turned out somewhat the same, there might be something clearer to say.



In addition to being insular the LCS engaged in behaviors that most children later working through it would find quite strange e.g. burning baby and wedding pictures in front of their children, no TV, no sports, vacations all used for Lee crazed conferences, no Christmas, migrating and the overall obsession with Lee and his group prioritized above the well being of the children.

Thankfully children are not completely stupid and know when mommy and daddy love someone i.e. Lee more than them and when mommy and daddy's behavior is being dictated by Lee and his cronies. In short they know that Lee was their shadow mommy and daddy.

Perhaps it should be said more plainly: their parents were addicted to Mr. Lee and thus they are children of parents with a chronic addiction. Some children can overcome this in their adult lives but not without tremendous difficulty. For anyone who does not believe this please just do a little research on adult children of alcoholics. Interesting stuff!


As this thread developed, it went from how may the LCS have contributed to errant behavior of some of the children to the members are like drug addicts and thus have dysfunctional families to all are idolaters to stories of gross abuses of authority and attacks and belittling of anyone who offers a different perspective. Thus my prediction seems to be coming true. Concern for abused children is way down the line from discrediting all involved in a local church.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Matt Anderson]

Hope,

Please see my previous post. It was responding to your original post to this thread that you also requoted and I was posting while you were posting.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

I've been thinking about these two statements more closely. It is occurring to me that neither of them are Biblically accurate. Do you agree or are you still of the same mind? If you are still of the same mind, I would like to present a reasoned argument from the Word that entreat you on the substance of these two statements.

At the same time you were reposting original portions of this thread to draw the readers attention back to what you felt was the substance of this thread, I was also looking at your original posting. Let's focus on your original intent a little closer and especially these two statements that currently seem to be anti-biblical. I didn't catch the full impact of them the first time.

Matt

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Hope for you to say I dismissed your post is obviously not true. I addressed it I did not dismiss it. That's what you do in a forum. Second I do not recall beginning the conversation about spiritual abuse. Not sure who it was but it wasn't me.

Further most good counselors do indeed ask their patients what their backgrounds were as children because adult behaviors are rooted there.

Instead of being so reactionary I recommend you calmly study some work done for Adult Children of Alcoholics.

And frankly I don't care if you try to "lynch" me or target me or make up things like I'm cursing everybody. I'll still be here so please try to get use to it.

[blessD]

Ok, I am trying to respond to a post by Process who is from Dallas. I did not see much greeting to the post, except for Nell.

[blessD]

Hi Process/Precious :),

Welcome to the forum. I read your post, ( #132 (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2303&postcount=132) ) and you're right...there was a lot of heavy talk going on. You were brave to enter the frey. If you'd care to share your testimony at some point, there is a testimony thread that should be a kinder, gentler place.

This forum is all about sharing our experiences and not picking them apart, but some of us forget that sometimes. Spiritual abuse will never be easy to talk about. Thanks for your post.

Again, welcome to the forum.

Nell

Hi Process,

I also saw your post and just wanted to say hello, too. I noticed you said you were from Dallas. I had many friends there and thought we might know each other or have mutual acquaintances.

[Hope]

The following is from Matt

Hope,

Please see my previous post. It was responding to your original post to this thread that you also requoted and I was posting while you were posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.


I've been thinking about these two statements more closely. It is occurring to me that neither of them are Biblically accurate. Do you agree or are you still of the same mind? If you are still of the same mind, I would like to present a reasoned argument from the Word that entreat you on the substance of these two statements.

At the same time you were reposting original portions of this thread to draw the readers attention back to what you felt was the substance of this thread, I was also looking at your original posting. Let's focus on your original intent a little closer and especially these two statements that currently seem to be anti-biblical. I didn't catch the full impact of them the first time.

Matt


Dear Matt,

ANTI-BIBLICAL !!! WOW

It would have been better if you had not isolated the sentence. Here is the entire statement.

In my life both as a Christian and in my profession, I have interacted with many wonderful Christian parents who were literally heart broken regarding their child. They did a lot of introspection as to where they went wrong and what their mistakes were. They were in great pain and most of it was totally unnecessary. Almost always there were children who had turned out wonderfully. Yet, the parents could only consider that they were awful failures due to the one child who was having problems.

I have heard parents blame themselves for placing the child in public schools or in a religious school or because they did not do home school or for belonging to the wrong church or because they were too strict or too lenient etc.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

Of course parents should bring up their children in the principles of the scriptures. Eph 6:4, And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. NASB

Please keep in mind that my experience over the last 22 years has included interactions with a wide range of believers as well as ordinary citizens who have opened to me for help. When a parent has an erring child, they are open to help from where ever it may come. I have never met a concerned parent who was not searching for where they went wrong. Almost always they beat themselves up unmercifully. I have spoken with a mother who was in great anguish and declared that they tried to do everything right. They followed “focus on the Family,” read all the right books etc. But what went wrong??? Do you really think it comforts the parents to then say “well let us focus on all the mistakes you made and determine how you destroyed the child you loved.” Sounds like a Pharisee of the first order. I believe it is critical to bring the parents to the Lord and to His comfort and encouragement. Then to help them stop the cursing of the child and of themselves. Often I go to prayer with the parents and first thank the Lord for the true genuine care and concern for the child that is in these parents. Then I pray that the child would become all that the Father has planned. Finally I believe it is very important to join in spiritual warfare and deal with God’s enemy regarding the child. We read verses regarding God’s goal for their family and His good plans for them and for the child. We speak of never giving up. Of how the good shepherd “went until he found the lost sheep.” There are many passages regarding the parent’s role in not only raising the child but in recovering the child. It is so important to get their eyes off of themselves and what terrible parents they are as well as getting their eyes off of how terrible and hopeless the child is.

I was hoping to trigger a discussion like this. I am sure that many of the posters have a wealth of real experience in helping parents and children and know of many helpful books. That list of terrible social problems listed by dj are rampant in our society at large and we as the Lord’s disciples need to be equipped and ready to serve these dear souls.

Regarding the second quote: The Holy Spirit always convicts very specifically and with the conviction comes light, supply, forgiveness and hope for the future. The devil’s accusation brings anger, vindictiveness, blaming, hopelessness. His accusation can be pretty much summed up with “you are wrong, wrong, wrong and you have always been wrong and you always will be wrong. The only thing you can do is just get out of the way and stop making a mess of things.”

But when the Spirit convicts and enlightens there is specific direction which gives hope and strength to act on the Spirit’s leading.

You mentioned the power of repenting to your children when you are wrong. I cannot tell you how many times I have apologized to my children. Many times I could not sleep until I made it right with the child I had offended. Poor little fellows were sometimes awakened from sleep so their father could tell them that he had been wrong and would they forgive him. This practice has been in my life and in my wife’s life since we married. First we regularly repented to each other and then to the children. When I had sinned against the kids my conscience would be killing me and I could find no peace until I humbled myself and made it right. Many times it was not an overt act on my part but a sin of omission. Perhaps I had neglected something that was important to them etc.

I can recall many talks with parents in Dallas regarding family and children. I can never remember declaring “put the church first and the family will be ok,” Or any such nonsense. Yes, I heard this said a few times or words like that from WL and from some in So. Cal. and repeated by some in Texas. Such an obviously erroneous statement should have been corrected out right. I know I corrected it in private conversations and may have said something contradictory in public. Before every marriage if possible I sought out the couple for a few times of one on one fellowship. Never did I tell them to take their marriage lightly or not to seek to love each other dearly. One of my favorite verses from the Old Testament for these sessions was Deut 24:5 "When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army, nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken. NASB I would tell the young brother that he should not be running off to every conference and service group meeting but focus on his new wife.

George Whitington had a boat load of verses he used to counsel young couples and married couples. His home was always full of church members seeking advice and help for their practical day to day life and for their family life. He always had time for them and never turned anyone away. He was a true shepherd and has much reward laid up.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[TLFisher]

Then, within this thread, how does the authoritarian and (semi?) abusive aspects of the LC drive those children 1) away from the faith (or at least outside of the LC fold) and/or 2) into sinful and destructive behavior. That is more what the thread is seeking to find. Those that remain and appear at least somewhat functional within the LC are not the obvious issue.

OBW, all I can really say is when there's an appearance of two sets of rules.
I believe many young people want to know what the guidelines are, where the boundaries lie, and that there is consistency. When there appears to be two sets of rules, a young person can get discouraged quickly. The early teenage years is what I consider to be the most impressionable and delicate time of a person's life.

Terry

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Hope this thread is not about parents who gave 110% to their parenting responsibilities and some of their kids still went off the deep end. That's one category and they surely need help to understand they should not be beating themselves up.

This thread is about parents who did not give 110% because they were too obsessed with Lee and Lee's agenda and Lee's program and Lee's teaching and Lee's events, etc. They gave 110% to Lee. Now those parents need to get some introspection going on because it is their fault and they are to blame and they are responsible for the neglect of the children God gave them to shepherd and care for. Get it?

[blessD]

Matt, this type of statement is what started the whole conflict. There is no way I can agree with this.

I can't see why anyone needs "guns" in the first place. This sister BlessD needs the heavenly Physician, but the whole town now has a "gunfight" over "how hurt" she really is/was. Meanwhile the ones who "hurt" her were never "arrested" in the first place, nor are they "brought to trial" now. This thread has become like a western movie where the bank robbers turn the citizens against each other while they ride out of town with the loot.

You say the "LC was idolatrous" but that includes who? Every member? Every guest? How can you judge the hearts of people you never met? This is playing God.

This statement is outrageous: "every single soul who went into the LC and loved it at any stage of their experience there was entering into a level of idolatry." I couldn't say that about all the Catholics that entered their statue-filled churches. Calling the LC's a cult pales in comparison to this claim.

What is happening here?

Your last statement touches on an important point. The leaders bear much more responsibility, if not the entire blame. The "cooperators" have a little blame, but the "perpetrators" bear the most blame. This whole story about BlessD should have addressed the ones who spoke in that "meeting." Why haven't their names been mentioned? Who called that meeting? Who humiliated her? Can't we focus on the responsible ones? They started this whole thing ... and now I (and everyone else) am being called idolatrous! What a stretch "guilt by association" this has become.

LC leaders have failed us. Some are evil workers. Let's focus on that.


Hi Ohio,

Although I do remember some people at that meeting, I don't see much reason for them to come forward or be named. I know some people feel differently about his subject.

Like I said on earlier posts, this was only a tiny instance in a decade of overstepped boundaries by authority figures. Much worse consequences resulted from the elders involvement in who I chose to marry.

Candidate#1: The boy from the Dallas inquisition story and I wanted to marry someday, but he was branded as not "absolute". Remember, I mentioned his dad was not a meeting-goer. He was a healthy kid, played sports, and that just wasn't spiritual enough. I recognize now we had the "it" factor that few couples ever find. I thought he was perfect. I was advised our relationship was of the flesh. It died a slow death by intrusion, opinion, and other long-distance causes.

Candidate #2 - not in the church (he was the natural brother of a sister whose house I lived in at the time). Obviously, elders said no. That was ended in one day in one private meeting with the elders.

Candidate #3 - considered a "fringe" brother and the elders hadn't picked him out anyway so again, NO! To me this guy was like Prince Charming, and we had quite a bit in common. One elder threatened to chase the poor guy out of town, literally.

Candidate #4 - this was the elder’s choice. An elder approached me once, I said no - not enough in common. An elder's wife approached me again, I said no. I gave her college registration papers to give to him and say he can come talk to me after he gets his degree (he had a 10th grade education). Then, one more time, an elder's wife came and told me all the virtues of this brother. He was so given to the church, bla-bla-bla. By now I am thinking I must be fighting against God's choice so I said ok. We were married 5 weeks later. I knew his name, his age, that he had been married before and had a son, and had a 10th grade education. Our marriage was declared by yelling we were for Christ and the church.

I spent years asking myself why I let leaders manipulate my life-changing decisions.

[John]

It seems that it’s my turn for a little thread history. I am working from memory here, so I hope I don’t bust any facts. Here’s the way I see what went down. At any rate, the facts are in this thread for any to read and come to their own conclusions.

This thread was started by djohnson asking why so many children who grew up in the Local Church have severe social problems. Several of us speculated on what happened. I stated my opinion that the place was abusive and lacked real Christian love.

Then Hope and OBW felt to warn us about painting all the Local Churches with such a broad brush. They explained to us that their church was pretty good in the children department.

I noticed and was bothered by the way that Hope attacked djohnson for creating this thread. Also, while he criticized us for using a broad brush, I think that they were using one too, just with a different color of paint.

Hope continued to speak about Dallas being an exception with regard to the children. Several posted about parents and children having good experiences together. Eventually, it seemed like most of the walls were going white. I felt like he wanted to put us on a guilt-trip for using those broad brushes with black paint. In my opinion, problems with Local Church children were being whitewashed.

So, I found the quote from Witness Lee inspiring the elders to basically think poorly of mothers who love their children too much. Then, I found the example of church discipline of a teenager, which happened to occur in The Church in Dallas. So, I painted with those quotes.

I was disappointed by Hope’s reaction. I was praying that he would let it rest for a day or so, but it didn’t happen. He said something to the effect that this was like something from Mars, etc. Thankful Jane responded to most, if not all, of Hope’s excuses and, eventually, his accusations. Later, he stated that he never said that the abuse didn’t happen. This is true; however, he sure did make it sound as if he had very, very serious doubts about its occurance.

And he tried to put doubt into all of our minds as well, jumping on the table in the room. I didn’t realize that we were going to have to paint the furniture too! But, Thankful Jane did more fact-checking and even painted the table for him.

At one point, Hope explained something about how the machinery of The Church in Dallas worked and how it could have happened. (Even though it seemed less than an optimal response to me, it was an admission on his part that it could have happened.)

In one post, he went into an everyone-is-against-me mode just because of his brush and the color of his paint. He even tried to gain the moral high ground of righteous indignation and demand an apology from Thankful Jane, even trying to use the author’s oft-quoted verses against her. As of the last I looked, he still has not responded to her regarding her request for details of any offense. (In my opinion, I think that it is he who should apologize to her.)

Now, I see OBW trying to paint people’s reaction to Hope’s behavior as a lynching. I don’t think that I need to explain to OBW the fallacy in argument he is trying to foist on us. There have been plenty of “lynchings” in elders’ rooms. What happened to Hope doesn’t even come close. How you now expect to paint Hope here as the victim when we’re talking about a teenage girl’s abuse is fantastic to me! I even see you blaming me for not using the BlessD example of abuse properly. I think that if you read from the beginning of the thread, as I have explained it, you may see how it fits. If not, that’s okay. Let me just give any other readers a brief hint of the color of off-white we’re supposed to accept in this room:

You can’t use that example because it has Dallas in it. That’s not fair because the sister was from Houston and her parents were from Oklahoma City; and, even if our doctrine says that when you’re in Dallas, you’re a member of The Church in Dallas, in order for this to be admitted into evidence, she would have to be a card-carrying member of The Church in Dallas; and, just because elders were there from 4 different churches, Hope himself wasn’t there, so this is one example of abuse that shouldn’t have been brought out. Or, something like that. I’m sure there’s a lot more twists and turns we could take through LC doctrine to insulate ourselves from its damaging effects if you’re willing to get into the car with him.

This one example does show us several things: There was abuse of children in the Local Churches; the disciplinary action of abuse took place in the church house in Dallas; there were elders there from Dallas, Houston, Austin, and Oklahoma City; and the leading elder from Dallas does not remember any kind of meeting like this bit admits its possibility. Hope has come up with a possible scenario; I could conjecture as well. I’ll leave that up to the readers.

I see this whole thing getting started because a couple of people wanted to paint Local Churches in various shades of gray and at least one as mostly white. They put forward their church as an example of basic success with children. When they were given an example of abuse, they tried to shift the blame to others. Now, they have put forward their perspective, and so have some of us. Let the readers decide if they like either of our versions or if they like a different one altogether.

Meanwhile, while one is busy deflecting and another is arguing the proper rules of evidentiary procedure, another person, Process, posted about being abused while being in The Church in Dallas. In fact, Process even had to post twice to get recognized by anyone. Process, I am also sorry for the pain that you experienced in your family. You are very courageous to post under these circumstances. (Please note: I am not trying to lay this sin on the doorstep of The Church in Dallas or on Hope. I believe that Process does not want his/her situation examined.)

Dallas may have been better than the other churches in Texas and Oklahoma in this area. I’ll even give them that. However, I do know that there was abuse of children in Dallas. And what I don’t agree with is the attempt to whitewash it with a broad brush, and I don’t agree with trying to shift the blame to others to protect some kind of an image.

P.S. I don’t have anything against OBW or Hope. I myself am a victim of abuse and want to stop its spread. I spent many years in the Local Churches, where I was also mistreated by elders. I have also been out for many years. I have seen too much.

[TLFisher]

Hope this thread is not about parents who gave 110% to their parenting responsibilities and some of their kids still went off the deep end. That's one category and they surely need help to understand they should not be beating themselves up.

This thread is about parents who did not give 110% because they were too obsessed with Lee and Lee's agenda and Lee's program and Lee's teaching and Lee's events, etc. They gave 110% to Lee. Now those parents need to get some introspection going on because it is their fault and they are to blame and they are responsible for the neglect of the children God gave them to shepherd and care for. Get it?

djohnson, as i read Hope is only speaking for his own family. Even the childhood I had in the local churches does not come close to your post. My parents gave more to their children than the 110% giving to WL you have posted.

Terry

[finallyprettyokay]

blessD:

Much worse consequences resulted from the elders involvement in who I chose to marry.



Shades of Warren Jeffs.

Horrible, terrible, sad, sickening.

What an amazing thing that we survived. I guess you just gotta say God is really big.

FPO

PS -- glad to have you here.

(I just posted on the My perspective thead.) (I want everyone reading this thread to read my new post. Just humor me.)

[Nell]

Hope this thread is not about parents who gave 110% to their parenting responsibilities and some of their kids still went off the deep end. That's one category and they surely need help to understand they should not be beating themselves up.

This thread is about parents who did not give 110% because they were too obsessed with Lee and Lee's agenda and Lee's program and Lee's teaching and Lee's events, etc. They gave 110% to Lee. Now those parents need to get some introspection going on because it is their fault and they are to blame and they are responsible for the neglect of the children God gave them to shepherd and care for. Get it?

DJ,

There's one thing I'd like to add to your post: discussions like this one are long overdue. Matt. 18 makes a provision for offenses among brothers. That's the same as acknowledging that there will be problems.

This matter of spiritual abuse, especially in the rearing of children in the LC, has been buried long enough. This thread is about the deeds done in darkness being shouted from the rooftop.

Your point is well taken.

Nell

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Terry so my post is not about your parents. Great! If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

[TLFisher]

Thankful Jane, such an experience can happen to sister or brother. It doesn't matter how old the receptient is, the numbers observing whether it's 6, 12, or 18 is intimidating. Furthermore the subject of the meeting is blindsided when they meeting takes place. No forewarning.
If a meeting is necessary, why not one on one with a third party as a witness?

Terry

As I had quoted last night, why are such large numbers needed for a so called private meeting? It doesn't matter how old the subject of the meeting is, having unnecessary attendees is intimidating and shameful. If such a meeting (generally speaking) is needed in the first place, it doesn't need the cloak of mystery. Just set up a suitable time for all parties involved and have no more than four present ALTOGETHER (two elders, the meeting subject, and a third-party witness). Could be done at any location. A restaurant, a Starbucks, or even a home. Anything else would make someone uncomfortable if not an unwilling attendee.

Terry

[TLFisher]

Terry so my post is not about your parents. Great! If the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

As I thought more about your post djohnson, it's more suited for those absolute for Witness Lee and his ministry. My childhood recollection was Jesus Christ first with the local churches as the local expression and The Stream/Living Stream as a tool for the churches. It wasn't as it is now where the churches exist for the benefit of Living Stream.

Terry

[blessD]

As I had quoted last night, why are such large numbers needed for a so called private meeting? It doesn't matter how old the subject of the meeting is, having unnecessary attendees is intimidating and shameful. If such a meeting (generally speaking) is needed in the first place, it doesn't need the cloak of mystery. Just set up a suitable time for all parties involved and have no more than four present ALTOGETHER (two elders, the meeting subject, and a third-party witness). Could be done at any location. A restaurant, a Starbucks, or even a home. Anything else would make someone uncomfortable if not an unwilling attendee.

Terry

How about if one elder just came and talked to my parents and then my parents to me? Or, better yet how about the elders let my parents decide if we could have hung out at each other's house with parent supervision? We would have been perfectly happy doing so - we were good kids and pretty obedient to our parents. All the hooplah wasn't necessary.

[finallyprettyokay]

How about if one elder just came and talked to my parents and then my parents to me? Or, better yet how about the elders let my parents decide if we could have hung out at each other's house with parent supervision? We would have been perfectly happy doing so - we were good kids and pretty obedient to our parents. All the hooplah wasn't necessary.

blessD:

I have shared before that I live in the Salt Lake City area --- lots and lots of Mormans, and a very strong culture. Well, one of my friends that is Morman told me when her sister (one of 9 girls) was in high school, she wanted to 'go out' with this guy, and her parents were sort of uncomfortable for whatever reason, but they were so smart -- they said, sure, you can see him as much as you want -- in the front yard. And so they hung out in the front yard for a while, the girl figured out he really wasn't for her, and they all moved happily on. The kids were protected, and the parental relationship was in tact. Smart!!!! Maybe the LC elders could learn from the Mormans!!

Has everyone read my new post? :o:o:o:o On the Testimony thread. Read it, it is dedicated to all of YOU.

FPO

[TLFisher]

How about if one elder just came and talked to my parents and then my parents to me? Or, better yet how about the elders let my parents decide if we could have hung out at each other's house with parent supervision? We would have been perfectly happy doing so - we were good kids and pretty obedient to our parents. All the hooplah wasn't necessary.

In my opinion, the elders had no authority how your parents raised you. All they could do is express their concern. If the elders didn't like whatever decision your parents made, it's not their business. Isn't the function of elders to be bondslaves through their work? To minister, to exhort, to teach, to do all for the building up?

Terry

[blessD]

In my opinion, the elders had no authority how your parents raised you. All they could do is express their concern. If the elders didn't like whatever decision your parents made, it's not their business. Isn't the function of elders to be bondslaves through their work? To minister, to exhort, to teach, to do all for the building up?

Terry

Sounds good ;-). Just wasn't going to happen in 1970s Houston. I adore my parents even with all of this obedience craziness.

[Paul Cox]

The Church is the Body of Christ. And, of course, the Living Stream Church all but says they are exclusively THE Body of Christ. When addressing problems in the Body, we must look at specific symptoms, and then find out what the systemic problem is, as there is almost always a systemic problem leading to ill health, baring some type of trauma.

If I presented to a doctor, and she or he found a lump in my chest, she or he would, or should, move with all haste to find out what is my root problem. It would be malpractice for them to set back and say, “Okay, now we need to observe what good health problems you have to offset your lump, so we can have a balanced view of what’s going on in your body.” This may be an example full of holes, but I think you get my point.

I see forums, and more specifically threads like this as a lab to find out what was the systemic problem in the Local Church, a system many of us dedicated decades of our lives to. This thread is certainly not supposed to be a fair and balanced view of the Local Church. It’s a thread about spiritual abuse in the Local Church. Excuse me but defending certain localities is altogether besides the point.

There is nothing stated or practiced by any of the Living Stream Church that would indicate that any of them stands alone, and therefore are immune to criticism of the entire LSM. They all stand as one with clinched, raised fist, saying loud AMENS to Anaheim. They do this at least for the two trainings, and the so-called “Seven feasts.” Without exception, every locality which remains loyal to Anaheim has a part in this.

Regardless of what can be said positive about any of the localities, I think abuse was widespread, and there is a systemic problem that addresses it. More than anything, it can probably all be traced back to the “sold out” view with which most hold Witness Lee, his ministry, and his self-appointed successors, “The Blended Brothers.”

Once we have identified the systemic problem then we can start to understand what happened to us. We can also learn what to avoid in the future. But most importantly, our posts and conclusions can serve as a warning and a help to those who maybe considering an entry into the Living Stream Church, and also those who are starting to question, and investigate sites such as this, for their eventual exit. To the later I would certainly say lay the axe, maybe not to the whole group, but certainly to your connection. And yes, run, run as fast as you can in the other direction. It’s a grand deception and most are held under the spell (Gal. 3:1) of Witness Lee.

One of the problems on the other forum was the persistent work by some to torpedo any effort to expose the LSM and its leadership, and its churches. You start a thread pertinent to the issues of the Local Church, and an appeaser would come along and take aim at you, instead of addressing the issue. That’s why I’ve said goodbye to that stagnation for good. It’s becoming almost impossible to get any traction on any subject without appeasers coming along to spoil everything, and imply that we all should just forget everything, and join hands in kumbaya.

I believe we should stay on track. This is a discussion forum about the Local Churches, and this is a thread about spiritual abuse in that group. It’s not about abuse in the denominations, neither is it a discussion about abuse and misbehavior in other Christian groups. Other venues take up these subjects more than adequately. No need to be fair and balanced here. The “baaaaaaady” is sick. Let’s not pull any punches in diagnosing the problems.

Roger

[blessD]

There is a code of conduct and it is mostly that we do not divulge names of anyone who does not want their name revealed.

The problem with this whole fiasco for the past 36 or so hours is that it appears to have been brought up as an example of how it was in Dallas. Even if all the facts are entirely correct, it really has nothing to do with Dallas because it appears to have been orchestrated by elders from Houston and/or OKC and likely with the oversight/blessing of Benson, wherever he was living at the time.

It was fairly quickly established that there was no clarity on who specifically was present. It was stated as 16 elders, although there were few times that all elders from all the major localities in the region were together anywhere other than Anaheim. The big house was grand central station. It was generally home to a couple and a number of either single brothers or single sisters. It was not a choice location for an elders’ meeting. It was a big house, but it was not a huge house. It did not have huge rooms.

Unfortunately, bringing the event up as an example of Dallas is like when a TV news anchor made a very public remark like “I knew it” when it was revealed that there was a Dallas connection somewhere in the life of the guy who shot Reagan. Like the city of Dallas was responsible. The reported event, even if it was at the big house, is not a reflection on Dallas, but on the whole of the LC leadership. It did not clearly involve Don, yet he is willing to apologize for the event anyway. He did not deny it happened, but simply has no recollection of being party to such an event, even as an unwitting witness.

It is a tragedy that such things happened, and probably too regularly. Throwing it into the mix here with a motive of saying something that the event actually does not say is problematic. It exposes things that should not be exposed. It has brought into question the totality of the event. I do not doubt that it happened. But since BlessD has admitted that the event was partly a blur, it seems that bringing it up to make a point about the “change of venue” location of the confrontation was a bad idea. It has opened wounds that did not need reopening. That was not Don’s fault. But since it was mentioned with what I can only read as the unstated purpose of making comments about Dallas, a place virtually no one involved in this discussion can claim, and about Don, also quite uncertain as to validity, it is unfortunate that the result can only be to damage the story. It does not fit the purpose for which it was brought out.

Before anyone responds, remember, I have not dismissed the account as false. I believe it happened. But why was it mentioned? Question that. BlessD was drug into the open under poor circumstances once. Why was it done a second time?

Ok, OBW, maybe you did not mean to do it but there was more fluff around the main issue and how Dallas leadership was so different - I thought I would ask about another very common abuse of authority that hurt me much worse than this one.


Like I said on earlier posts, this was only a tiny instance in a decade of overstepped boundaries by authority figures. Much worse consequences resulted from the elders involvement in who I chose to marry.

Candidate#1: The boy from the Dallas inquisition story and I wanted to marry someday, but he was branded as not "absolute". Remember, I mentioned his dad was not a meeting-goer. He was a healthy kid, played sports, and that just wasn't spiritual enough. I recognize now we had the "it" factor that few couples ever find. I thought he was perfect. I was advised our relationship was of the flesh. It died a slow death by intrusion, opinion, and other long-distance causes.

Candidate #2 - not in the church (he was the natural brother of a sister whose house I lived in at the time). Obviously, elders said no. That was ended in one day in one private meeting with the elders.

Candidate #3 - considered a "fringe" brother and the elders hadn't picked him out anyway so again, NO! To me this guy was like Prince Charming, and we had quite a bit in common. One elder threatened to chase the poor guy out of town, literally.

Candidate #4 - this was the elder’s choice. An elder approached me once, I said no - not enough in common. An elder's wife approached me again, I said no. I gave her college registration papers to give to him and say he can come talk to me after he gets his degree (he had a 10th grade education). Then, one more time, an elder's wife came and told me all the virtues of this brother. He was so given to the church, bla-bla-bla. By now I am thinking I must be fighting against God's choice so I said ok. We were married 5 weeks later. I knew his name, his age, that he had been married before and had a son, and had a 10th grade education. Our marriage was declared by yelling we were for Christ and the church.

Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

[TLFisher]

The Church is the Body of Christ. And, of course, the Living Stream Church all but says they are exclusively THE Body of Christ. When addressing problems in the Body, we must look at specific symptoms, and then find out what the systemic problem is, as there is almost always a systemic problem leading to ill health, baring some type of trauma.

If I presented to a doctor, and she or he found a lump in my chest, she or he would, or should, move with all haste to find out what is my root problem. It would be malpractice for them to set back and say, “Okay, now we need to observe what good health problems you have to offset your lump, so we can have a balanced view of what’s going on in your body.” This may be an example full of holes, but I think you get my point.

I see forums, and more specifically threads like this as a lab to find out what was the systemic problem in the Local Church, a system many of us dedicated decades of our lives to. This thread is certainly not supposed to be a fair and balanced view of the Local Church. It’s a thread about spiritual abuse in the Local Church. Excuse me but defending certain localities is altogether besides the point.



Roger

Roger, I look forward to your contributions.

Terry

[Peter Debelak]

Please delete.

[Hope]

In my opinion, the elders had no authority how your parents raised you. All they could do is express their concern. If the elders didn't like whatever decision your parents made, it's not their business. Isn't the function of elders to be bondslaves through their work? To minister, to exhort, to teach, to do all for the building up?

Terry

I know when I began to write the history many were interested to know how the eldership worked and how our relationship with WL and the LSM worked. The way the thread has gone has given an excellent opportunity to take a look at some of the service of the so called leading ones.

In Dallas, the elders were usually the last to leave the hall. Many nights my phone rang after mid-night. Poor old George Whitington, the papa elder and master bond-slave was deluged everyday as soon as he arrived from work. There was a dear sister, (one of the junior high students who was saved in Waco) who lived with George. She once told me that she would never marry an elder because she had seen how much George and Cleo, his wife, had to lay down their lives to serve others.

Serve others? There were many young people who wanted your prayers and advice as to college, dating, engagement, marriage, where to live, what job to take, their parents, their boss and on and on. I have had college students call me at 2:00 in the am. They could not sleep because they were so worried about what to major in and wanted to talk. No problem. Slaves do not have the right to chose when they are called to duty.

One of the most difficult matters to handle was a request for fellowship regarding marriage. I cannot count how many times I heard WL give the advice of "the elders should not put people together." "If the marriage does not work out then you will be blamed, the church will be blamed and the Lord's Testimony damaged." But I never heard him say anything about what if someone approaches you about their getting married. Are you just to utter some platitudes on marriage? What if you see the relationship leading to over the cliff? Should you just say nothing less you be accused of manipulating people? In my own experience, 95% of the time I had no particular impressions regarding a couple. They got the general Biblical help and I wanted to be sure that they realized I was for them and available. That needed to be demonstrated. It could not just be a nice slogan. It does take time to demonstrate your love and care. George and Bob Bynum were outstanding at this and far ahead of me.

On two separate occasions I was approached by a couple who were considering marriage. The inward anointing said warning, warning! I had to be honest and faithful. The brother had lived with me for over two years and was very very dear to me and to my entire family. My sons loved this brother dearly and still do to this day. The brother was very upset with me but took the fellowship and stepped back from the relationship. Later he met the sister he was to marry. They have a wonderful marriage. He has thanked me at least 50 times over the years for saving him from a life wrecking decision. The other case was a sister set on getting married. She found a boy who would have her. Again the Lord said I must serve them by giving a warning and asking them to reconsider. A few weeks later, her parents spoke with me regarding my fellowship. They had been visitors for a few weeks and began to attend because their two daughters had become regulars. They told me that because I had the courage and leading to approach their daughter in such a way they saw that the Lord was here. They were so happy for their daughter that the marriage did not happen. Later the daughter thanked us for the fellowship.

But on the other hand what was done could have become ground for unhappiness and the charge of manipulation and control. Same when saints wanted fellowship about jobs, college, where to live etc. Not only were there the normal situations but we did have many dear ones who had damaged souls and needed constant special care.

On several occasions, I was approached by parents to speak with their teen-age children or young adult children regarding some issues. Take a deep breath and turn to your spirit. Of course you do not say, "hey son your mother wants me to talk with you about your ....." That would have been the end. How do you get close to the young person? They are going to be spooked at the slightest misstep. Once a deeply concerned mother asked me to visit her immoral son. When I appeared, all I could say was "hello D. How are you?" Then he unloaded on me and told me to never see him again. Of course, I was open to the charge that I handled it all wrong. Maybe I did. He died a few years later due to his sinful life. My inabilities to help were certainly evident.

This kind of activity was the main duty of the elders. Giving messages was a piece of cake. But for the real job of shepherding you always felt inadequate. If you had opportunity at a conference etc to ask for advice from other elders you did. Often this question - advice was the content of the WL private small group gatherings during a conference.

To defer to the "ministry" for direction of the local assembly was an easy decision to make. The stress on local leadership was more than they often could handle and frankly often being over their heads led them to choose the centralization and promoting of WL. If some elders used the Lee statement about putting the church first and all would be well, I can understand. They sure hoped it was true.

In the proof case which has come up on this thread, I am still wondering about some of the details. Did the parents actually ask the Houston elders to intervene? Did the Houston elders actually expect their fellowship to be followed or else? I learned fairly early on that the brothers and sisters took everything I said very seriously and that made the job even harder. One of the undertones I got to know was, "If Don does not give a specific answer that means he either does not trust you or feels you are not open and not in life. But if I gave some fellowship that was not appreciated then we were open to problems in the future, but even worse what if someone took your advice, fellowship and things went south. Boy oh boy!! Wouldn't it be easier just to follow some higher deputy authority? Thus it was not hard to sell this teaching to the elders and co-workers.

Forget about the errant teachings for a moment, I and the other elders made lots of mistakes, lots of mistakes. The tragedy was that the mistakes were with real people not with objects.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[YP0534]

The tragedy was that the mistakes were with real people not with objects.

Brother Hope,

I do appreciate the fellowship and note that you have at least partly answered my speculative reasonings and questionings along this line, for which I thank you.

I think anyone in a leadership role ends up in situations like you describe but the weight in the case of the Local Church is multiplied by the feeling that the leader is, for lack of a better term, the acting God in the situation. Kicking things up the hierarchy makes perfect sense in that case. I don't have anything to help, maybe the guy who's closer to God has something.

I'm impressed by your story, receive your self-reporting and deeply sympathize. I'm going to be like that young sister's husband and not be an elder.

However, some men in authority arrive by grasping at power and, despite some teachings regarding being the slaves, would be instead little kings. I believe I heard brother Lee speak to this a number of times as a problem, not only with the ambitious elders but also with their wives who would comport themselves like First Ladies. I have to wonder, then, about the actions of those who did not take things as seriously as you did.

Your premise in addressing these things here, especially as they might touch Dallas, is that others were as you were (and are). And I think my query basically goes to the issue of how one got clothed with the mantle of "Deputy Authority" in the eldership in the first place since clearly some things did happen in some places that did not comport with good practice on a number of levels.

That you and others close to you struggled under a heavy yoke, as the oxen, is praiseworthy and in and of itself covers over a large number of mistakes in my book, including, perhaps, the wearing of such a yoke in the first place.

You have repeatedly spoken of "Deputy Authority" and as I understand that concept to have been taught and practiced, by virtue of obtaining a title by some means (I know not how), one's working became the expression of God's own will and thereby required the obedience of the saints and mistakes, if there were any that occurred purely, were covered by that same system.

Correct that impression, please, if it needs correcting.

My thought following this is, given Lee's general public identification of improper ones holding the position of eldership and the doctrines of obedience and the covering of mistakes, wouldn't this naturally produce a fertile ground, easily recognizable to most, for abusive situations of many kinds to develop?

Please note: this is expressly not directed to holding you or your close co-workers in your locality accountable for anything so please do not become defensive. I think everyone here, including those that have given you the hardest time here, recognize that you have always done and still do your best before the Lord and we are all thankful to Him for your portion.

Instead, I'm speaking of, say, an environment in another locality which would produce an inquisitorial approach to teenage hormones. You disclaim personal involvement in such things and declare your constant struggle to remain apart from them. Haven't you in this implicitly acknowledged that you knew such things were transpiring?

I'm not accusing you of anything in this, as if you could stop it by railing against the system or something. You left at your appointed time and that was surely from the Lord. I'm just really probing now to see if you honestly believe my prior story just could never have happened. Because the details you have provided here about seeking advice from "superiors" on how to give these practical points of help really seem to reinforce my prior speculations.

I apologize if I caused offense to you with my prior postings, or perhaps even with this one. I just don't think there's anything in the Elders' Training books about how to deal with teenagers in general and my realization is that the informal hierarchical and clerical system which did provide such information was not really well calculated to meet the actual need. (To say the least.) Which I kind of thought was the point of this whole subforum. (Which I take issue with in several ways myself.)

The system of "Deputy Authority" is self-perpetuating and self-replicating and demonstrably chews up the real people and spits them out. My story was an example of how that reasonably might come to pass in the circumstances. I believe you yourself are still stuggling to understand how it might have happened otherwise.

The Lord bless and preseve you, brother Hope.

YP0534

[Matt Anderson]

Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

This is an excellent point and one that others need to fully consider when thinking about just how messed up the LC system was.

Even elders in a locality are not free to act in good conscience towards other elders for fear of retribution. So when things like what happened to you happen by the authorization of those with more "power" then there is no correcting it. It just stands regardless of how hellish it really is.

Matt

[Paul Cox]

Dear Roger:

To my knowledge, no one else has addressed other Christian groups aside from myself, so I take your comments - on this point - to be responding to my posts (if that is not the case, let me know).



Hi Peter,

I guess I did a bad thing in associating the two forums in my post. I was not addressing anything specific you said, but rather considering a general tendency. In fact, I could only remember that other Christian groups had been mentioned, but not by who. I guess I sort of carried over from the other forum. Please allow me to cut that rope right now.

I'm short of time this morning. But I will try to do my "homework" later and get back with you.

I would say that I am trying my best to be a little less sharp around the edges since coming here. I let some of those folks over there get under my skin. I know that is totally my fault, since Love is not easily provoked.

Talk ta ya later.

Roger

[Nell]

...Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

BlessD,

It sounds like you were a target for some meddling old men who had the mistaken idea that their job was matchmaking. I cannot call these men elders. They in no way fit the biblical description. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us.

Did Dallas have a "hands off" policy? I have personal knowledge of a near miss. A young teenage boy in Dallas, years ago, was painfully shy. He had finally gotten up enough courage to talk to someone he liked...a sister his age who, if you can imagine the scene, was even more shy than he was! So there they were, in the meeting hall in Dallas, after a meeting, people everywhere, and they were actually talking. You could have probably counted the words they exchanged on two hands and two feet, along with a couple of silly, embarrassed grins, but they were talking. This was monumental!

One of the "elders" saw this conversation taking place and made a beeline toward them. He commented on the way, aloud, to the boy's father no less, that he was going to "put a stop to this". Dad got in his way and said "if you ever say one word to those two, I'll break every bone in your body!" Dad 1, elder 0.

The role of the parents is huge and Dad did his job. Whether this guy would have ended up in a body cast or not, we can only speculate, but he certainly had a near miss that day.

Where are these two shy young people today? They have been married for 20+ years. They gave Dad two beautiful grandchildren. They are happy.

Nell

[Matt Anderson]

The following is from Matt

It would have been better if you had not isolated the sentence. Here is the entire statement.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Hope,

I quoted out both items in isolation because I had already quoted the entire post just a few posts previously.

I had read the quoted portions in context.

None of the blaming of the parents or of the environment in which the parents placed the child is of much profit. Remember there is an enemy.

I just re-read the context again and I am not seeing how these are Biblical even with your added explanation.

Let me clarify. It is a primary responsibility to take care of a child's environment. Even when a parent tries to put their child in a good environment they cannot control everything. This is very true, but to realize that you did put your child in a bad environment (knowingly or unknowingly) should generate a remorseful response about the environment and not a defensive one that tries to carve out a very, very, very small section of the bad environment as being better. This is what you have done. You've basically said, "We tried to do better and Dallas wasn't as bad as Houston, OKC, etc". The fact is that the whole thing was corrupted and unhealthy for kids.

Let me go straight to the crux of my concern.

Looking backwards do you believe that having your children in the LC environment was a good one for them? I'm asking a specific and direct question to you because your responses are pointing in many other directions towards various generalized anecdotals about others. This can be evasion, so I am just asking the direct question. Your response to this question may shut me up.

As you can tell by now (and before now) this thread has really bothered me. The role I've seen you play on this thread has really bothered me. I know you probably feel the same way about me right now. Sorry.

There is profit in seeking the Lord to learn from our short comings and to course correct but be careful not to be drawn into the devils game of accuse, accuse accuse.

You used this statement to try and counter djohnson who was making an accusation. The devil's game is to accuse. However, it is also the Lord's job to accuse (or better said, convict). The Lord accuses and convicts the guilty for the purpose of repentance and mercy. The devil accuses for the purpose of condemnation and destruction. So, Biblically speaking it is not just the devil who does the accusing. God does it when it is righteous to do so. So again, I say that your statement in it's context was not Biblical. You were actually on a path towards accusation against djohnson that came a few posts later.

In this case, I think there is a level of righteousness to what djohnson has been saying that the system of the LC was very messed up and it has had a big impact on children who grew up there. Trying to paint one bad situation against the backdrop of other bad situations is evasion. If there was sin (and there was) then it should just be addressed and root causes determined. Roger said this better than I could.

Although, I do realize that there is need for balance I have no stomach for it when it is done BEFORE root causes are established as appropriate before the Lord.

I'm being very direct because to be terribly honest I am watching what appears to be a pattern of evasion in your posting. You are very, very smart and capable of moving around something like this so I am putting myself in the path (not as a pharisee), but as a little roadblock that you can move right around while others wonder what I am doing. I'm doing this in all seriousness before the Lord and not just to accuse, accuse, accuse.

Matt

[bookworm]

This is the best example I can come up with for the existence of a "class system" in the LC. Not only are elders and their families a "privileged class" but people with money, or the potential to make money, are right in there too. The result is people like me looking longingly on the freedom of the "privileged class" and trying to figure out what class I was in, other than the lowest class of all..."single sister."


I believe Nell’s statements above ring very true regarding a “class system” in the LC. (Post #47 on this thread) This should not come as a shock to anyone as this is the situation in the fallen world among fallen human beings. However, it is the antithesis of what we were told the LC was and stood for. Many of us were young, idealistic college students who had “seen through the hypocrisy of fallen Christianity” and were eager for an opportunity to be absolute for the Lord and be a part of a clear testimony of faith in Jesus Christ. We were sold a bill of goods by the LC leadership that assured us that we were giving ourselves for the building of the true church that the New Testament speaks about. In time, however, we were told we were a part of the Lord’s army and should follow orders without questioning, all for the sake of the building of the church. The peer pressure increased and we were put in a position of trying to please men as we vied with one another in being transformed for the building. In such circumstances abuse is inevitable because of fallen human nature—and no locality can claim exemption.

I, too, am happy for Hope that he and his family were able to experience a degree of freedom and that it occurred within the LC. But surely he would admit that the only reason he had such freedom was because of his place of leadership. It is a blessing that he and his family had some degree of protection, but I hope he would realize that for the majority (even in Dallas where I am my family were) this was not the case. Each person in the LC was there of his/her own volition and because of his/her own needs or good intentions. Therefore each person has his/her own perspective of how the dynamics of the LC played out. There is no need for him to “shoot the messenger” so to speak to defend his viewpoint on this forum.

[Hope]

Hope,

Let me clarify. It is a primary responsibility to take care of a child's environment. Even when a parent tries to put their child in a good environment they cannot control everything. This is very true, but to realize that you did put your child in a bad environment (knowingly or unknowingly) should generate a remorseful response about the environment and not a defensive one that tries to carve out a very, very, very small section of the bad environment as being better. This is what you have done. You've basically said, "We tried to do better and Dallas wasn't as bad as Houston, OKC, etc". The fact is that the whole thing was corrupted and unhealthy for kids.

Let me go straight to the crux of my concern.

Looking backwards do you believe that having your children in the LC environment was a good one for them? I'm asking a specific and direct question to you because your responses are pointing in many other directions towards various generalized anecdotals about others. This can be evasion, so I am just asking the direct question. Your response to this question may shut me up.

As you can tell by now (and before now) this thread has really bothered me. The role I've seen you play on this thread has really bothered me. I know you probably feel the same way about me right now. Sorry.

You used this statement to try and counter djohnson who was making an accusation. The devil's game is to accuse. However, it is also the Lord's job to accuse (or better said, convict). The Lord accuses and convicts the guilty for the purpose of repentance and mercy. The devil accuses for the purpose of condemnation and destruction. So, Biblically speaking it is not just the devil who does the accusing. God does it when it is righteous to do so. So again, I say that your statement in it's context was not Biblical. You were actually on a path towards accusation against djohnson that came a few posts later.

In this case, I think there is a level of righteousness to what djohnson has been saying that the system of the LC was very messed up and it has had a big impact on children who grew up there. Trying to paint one bad situation against the backdrop of other bad situations (among christianity) is evasion. If there was sin (and there was) then it should just be addressed and root causes determined. Roger said this better than I could.

Although, I do realize that there is need for balance I have no stomach for it when it is done BEFORE root causes are established as appropriate before the Lord.

I'm being very direct because to be terribly honest I am watching what appears to be a pattern of evasion in your posting. You are very, very smart and capable of moving around something like this so I am putting myself in the path (not as a pharisee), but as a little roadblock that you can move right around while others wonder what I am doing. I'm doing this in all seriousness before the Lord and not just to accuse, accuse, accuse.

Matt

Hello Dear brother Matt,

Just had an appointment not show up. Thus, I have a few minutes. The Lord put you on my priority list today so I will try to give some answers. I may write more later. It is up to the Lord and the environment.

ROOT CAUSE: DEPUTY AUTHORITY, DEPUTY AUTHORITY, DEPUTY AUTHORITY.

Secondary Cause: "The Work" as a parrallel entity.

Third Cause: Bad people gain position in heirarchy and cannot be challenged.

Fourth Cause: All of us have a fallen nature, flesh, old man, body of sin, natural life, some amount of conformation to the age-culture from which we came. But once position in heirachy is established, (see root cause) this side may be unchecked and the bad fruit comes out. Even very sincere Christians are subject to works of the flesh that war against the spirit.

Setting for the above causes to be developed: We are in a spiritual warfare. 98% plus of the dear ones in the local churches have no idea how to fight this warfare. I did not until I learned after I left. What a difference it has made in all areas of my Christian life, family life and business life.

Did anyone on purpose put there children in a bad environment? I hope not but I have done foolish things and seen plenty of foolish things done in regards to the children. (But that is not unique to the local churches. What is a problem is when the problems cannot be addressed. So here we have some common ground. Wow, :hurray: (I learned wow from FPO.)

Yes, having my children in the Dallas church environment was very good for them. Some of the finest Christians I have ever known were in the church in Dallas. I could list names and it would be like an honor roll of faith. The local churches were full of wonderful believers. I like to think of the following verse from Psalms when I think of Bud and Judy Philley, Thurman and Dianna Massey, Leon and Mary Ann Hunter, Gary and Chris Brashears, George and Cleo Whitington, Ed and Jerilyn Lamp, Tim and Valerie House, Mary and Milas Lizby, Buddy and Yvone Britt and on and on. Ps 16:3, As for the saints who are in the earth, They are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight. NASB


On the other hand, as the LSM developed (remember it was not always there) I began to isolate my children from the programs coming from So. California. There were some rotten characters who had wormed their way into "the Work". You will have to wait for the book to get the names but you probably already know some. From 1981 until I left Texas in 1986 I kept my children away from anything coming from Anaheim and kept them away from particular bad apple types. If I ever get to it, I plan to zero in on things and evil workers who really hurt children. Just as I have wonderful remembrance of the majestic ones, I am a lot madder at the evil workers than you are. I will speak of their deeds without mercy. The chariots of Jehu are coming. But Jehu made sure that he did not harm any of the servants or prophets of the Lord. Even at the time of Ahab, the Lord had 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. I will be very specific as to personalities and as to the actions. I do not believe in communist justice. That is if you know the criminal probably lives in a neighborhood then just send the entire neighborhood to Siberia and you know you got the criminal.

Now if you put the above together you know what I will write about. Maybe there is no need to write the rest of the history.:)

Thanks for the complement but I am not falling for that Matt. ;) I know you are way smarter than I. I am an old man now and I am experienced enough to know when I am over matched. I just happen to have my own set of information and experiences.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[blessD]

Hello Dear brother Matt,

Just had an appointment not show up. Thus, I have a few minutes. The Lord put you on my priority list today so I will try to give some answers. I may write more later. It is up to the Lord and the environment.

ROOT CAUSE: DEPUTY AUTHORITY, DEPUTY AUTHORITY, DEPUTY AUTHORITY.

Secondary Cause: "The Work" as a parrallel entity.

Third Cause: Bad people gain position in heirarchy and cannot be challenged.

Fourth Cause: All of us have a fallen nature, flesh, old man, body of sin, natural life, some amount of conformation to the age-culture from which we came. But once position in heirachy is established, (see root cause) this side may be unchecked and the bad fruit comes out. Even very sincere Christians are subject to works of the flesh that war against the spirit.

Setting for the above causes to be developed: We are in a spiritual warfare. 98% plus of the dear ones in the local churches have no idea how to fight this warfare. I did not until I learned after I left. What a difference it has made in all areas of my Christian life, family life and business life.

Did anyone on purpose put there children in a bad environment? I hope not but I have done foolish things and seen plenty of foolish things done in regards to the children. (But that is not unique to the local churches. What is a problem is when the problems cannot be addressed. So here we have some common ground. Wow, :hurray: (I learned wow from FPO.)

Yes, having my children in the Dallas church environment was very good for them. Some of the finest Christians I have ever known were in the church in Dallas. I could list names and it would be like an honor roll of faith. The local churches were full of wonderful believers. I like to think of the following verse from Psalms when I think of Bud and Judy Philley, Thurman and Dianna Massey, Leon and Mary Ann Hunter, Gary and Chris Brashears, George and Cleo Whitington, Ed and Jerilyn Lamp, Tim and Valerie House, Mary and Milas Lizby, Buddy and Yvone Britt and on and on. Ps 16:3, As for the saints who are in the earth, They are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight. NASB


On the other hand, as the LSM developed (remember it was not always there) I began to isolate my children from the programs coming from So. California. There were some rotten characters who had wormed their way into "the Work". You will have to wait for the book to get the names but you probably already know some. From 1981 until I left Texas in 1986 I kept my children away from anything coming from Anaheim and kept them away from particular bad apple types. If I ever get to it, I plan to zero in on things and evil workers who really hurt children. Just as I have wonderful remembrance of the majestic ones, I am a lot madder at the evil workers than you are. I will speak of their deeds without mercy. The chariots of Jehu are coming. But Jehu made sure that he did not harm any of the servants or prophets of the Lord. Even at the time of Ahab, the Lord had 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. I will be very specific as to personalities and as to the actions. I do not believe in communist justice. That is if you know the criminal probably lives in a neighborhood then just send the entire neighborhood to Siberia and you know you got the criminal.

Now if you put the above together you know what I will write about. Maybe there is no need to write the rest of the history.:)

Thanks for the complement but I am not falling for that Matt. ;) I know you are way smarter than I. I am an old man now and I am experienced enough to know when I am over matched. I just happen to have my own set of information and experiences.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

I have a simple question, what is a fine Christian?

[finallyprettyokay]

Hope:

You listed four causes for a lot of the troubles. I would submit a fifth --

Good, decent men (and women, to some degree -- but they were 'lesser') who truly loved God and wanted to serve Him. These men were usually 'born' leaders, with charisma. They were appointed as elders. With no experience, often, and almost always with no real training or education in dealing with the sort of human problems you describe in your post. Family problems, kids, marriage, work, all these things. I remember some of the 'elders' as real youngsters -- married maybe 5 or 6 years, having toddlers and preschoolers, and working at their 5th or 6th job. Not much life experience, really. Even the gentlemen that were older had little or no training in counseling or family support skills. An exception that I think of (I'm sure there were more, I just don't know them) was John Smith in San Diego. He had been a Baptist minister pre-LC, had experience and education being a pastor, a shepherd. And it showed. He also had a few years under his belt, raising a family, etc. He was the man I wrote about early on this (long, long) thread that stood up and said 'my kids WILL be in school sports, etc'. Some easier to stand up when you are the leader, but still a brave, honorable thing to do. Amazing man, John.

So, in all of our superiority and arrogance about poor, fallen Christianity, we allowed unqualified men to become leaders that really shouldn't have been leading in that sort of powerful capacity. Because we all know how much power those elders had. I can imagine that many of the good, decent, sincere men (Don, you included, I think) just trembled at the responsiblity and plowed their way through as best as they could, given the tools they had. Or lack of tools. But we just couldn't follow the ways of 'religion' and have trained, educated leaders. Heavens, no!!!!


Yeah, there were plenty of bad people going for the gold of controlling people --- terrible. But some of the people were just in way over their heads. Still, that does not in any way excuse them. Not even close. Hurting people, especially kids, is never every excused for ANY reason.


It was a sick, corrupt system.



Bookworm, boy howdy was there a class system. And single sisters? Bottom of the heap. I have some thoughts about that, sometime for another thread -- (oh, boy something to look forward to ;))

Has everyone checked out my post on the My Perspectives thread? I am shameless. Self promoting. The worst. :idea: :crazy:


fpo

[Thankful Jane]

Good points, FPO. I checked your post and PMed you!! :)

Dear Hope,

The discussion is moving on and I plan to move on with it, but first of all, I would like to respond to something from yesterday. Also, since you have not responded to my request for further clarification about how I offended you, I will assume you did not feel the need to do so and that you are not still offended with me. If you would prefer to have further dialogue about this privately, please feel free to contact me via a PM.

When I saw the direction in which dj was leading the thread, I could not hold my peace. Not being able to hold our peace is not an excuse for going after a person. It is wrong to make a person and their motives the subject.

When we are disturbed by what we are hearing, the only thing that is fair game is the statements or deeds that are disturbing us. We can expose the error we see in them. (Granted, it may feel quite personal when statements or actions are questioned, but that is different than making the person the topic.)

Posters on this forum take the actions and teachings of WL, the LSM and the BBs and come to conclussions about their motives. Are posters here under the same standard unless they are in an attack mode against all that is lc? Then do they get a free shot? From the actions and teachings of posters can a reasonable person fail to pick up on some of their motives or does that only apply to WL or an elder or an ex-elder?As for addressing motives, we shouldn’t do this no matter who it is. No one gets a free pass. We can address deeds because we can see them, but we cannot see inside a man’s heart to know his motives. Maybe we can wonder and even have suspicion in our own mind, but to pronounce a public judgment about another’s perceived motives is over the line. We are all guilty of this at times; however, I don’t think anyone has done this to you on this thread. If I or anyone else has, please show me where. I will gladly repent for this if I did it.

As this thread developed, it went from how may the LCS have contributed to errant behavior of some of the children to the members are like drug addicts and thus have dysfunctional families to all are idolaters to stories of gross abuses of authority and attacks and belittling of anyone who offers a different perspective. Thus my prediction seems to be coming true.I think it's okay to use such terms to talk about serious problems related to "spiritual things." I am involved in a situation right now where the father is actually a God addict. That doesn’t mean he is really addicted to God. It means he is addicted to things that have the appearance of being God: church, ministry, serving others, etc. All his time and resources go there. This is what makes him feel good about himself. His drug keeps him from really seeing himself in the light of God and making very necessary changes in his present hurtful behavior towards his family. He is not putting obedience to God first, but is serving something else (idolatry). He is also guilty of abusing authority.

Please give me an example of what you are calling attacks and belittling. You’ve said this several times. I really want to see what you are talking about here. Not accepting another’s perspective does not equal belittling.

Concern for abused children is way down the line from discrediting all involved in a local church. My goal is not to discredit any person or locality or the LC movement as a whole. Rather it is to know the truth and to help others know the truth. Truth is what really helps people find freedom. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." If in any person or Christian organization is found to be not holding truth, then they stand self-discredited by this.

TJ recommended the books of Neil Anderson. Tremendous work, not just for troubled Christians or substance abuse situations but for anyone. I believe I have read and closely studied all his works and have given them to troubled parents and children. I cannot recall him encouraging the counselor to find out how or what outside influence created the problem. Thanks for mentioning Anderson’s works. Actually Anderson does speak about the importance of addressing what outside influence created the problem. He says, “The first step to freedom is to renounce your previous or current involvements with satanically inspired occult practices and false religions … Any activity or group which denies Jesus is the Christ, offers guidance through any source other than the absolute authority of the written Word of God, or requires secret initiations must be forsaken. No Christian has any business being a part of any group that is not completely open about all they do. If the leaders of any group demand absolute authority instead of serving the needs of their constituents, do no submit to them.” He includes a list of organizations. In His book Living Free in Christ, the Local Church is listed. In this step he is dealing with outside influences that contribute to the problem.

The most applicable step I believe, however, is step 2 which is truth vs. deception. This step requires separating truth from deception. Anderson says that deception is the most subtle of all Satanic strongholds. I spent a lot of time studying deception and reading other materials about this. I wrote some about it myself. I reached the conclusion that “deception” is the best description of the stronghold of Satan in the Local Churches. False beliefs and false teachings produce bad fruit. If a Christian group produces bad fruit in its members lives, then that all of that group’s teachings and beliefs must be carefully examined against the truth in God’s Word for what is false.

As for bringing up cases of abuse in the LC, there are many reasons to do this. The first is so that the abused can be comforted by fellow members. What they have lost cannot be recovered, but care, and even indignation, expressed by others does help them, even if the abused say they don’t need it. All of our hearts are examined by God in the process.

Also, cases of abuse are useful to identify what kind of deception is at work by examining the abusive practices in the light of the Bible’s teaching. Hearing about such cases can help others, who have been abused and are still suffering silently because of it, to realize they are not alone and begin to find help for themselves. They also can serve to convict abusers of their sin, and, of course, to warn others not to join up with the LC. Probably most important of all reasons to examine cases of abuse is that the final spotlight lands on the devil, where it belongs, and he loses the ability in that area, at least, to deceive us again.

Thankful Jane

[finallyprettyokay]

You know, I have shared that Max R. is a friend and a man who made a huge difference in my life. Anyone who ever heard him speak knows the man is a riot. I am talking stand up, Comedy Central here he comes. Funny and smart.

Well, one of my favorite things that he would say had to do with people misunderstanding each other. He would say something like this:

Did you think that I was thinking something about you? I wasn't thinking that, but I think you thought that I thought that and I think you think you know what I was thinking about your thinking, but I wasn't thinking that at all.

Something like that. The point being, we just misunderstood each other, and should have checked it out better.

So (deep breath here) -- I timidly advance this theory --- way back, at the beginning of this thread, the blessD story was posted. Terrible story, everyone who would hear that story would be horrified.

Don, having been from that city, and having been a leader there, thought something like this:

that we thought that he thought that he was thinking that maybe we thought he was one of the men who did that but when he first told us he wasn't one of them, we all (as far as I know) believed him, because we already had a sense of who he is but he didn't know that we really did think that, he thought that we were thinking something wrong. But we really weren't thinking that at all.

AT THAT POINT ( I feel like Perry Mason :D), Don sort of stumbled around in his horror at the story and his even more horror that we would think he was part of that shameful meeting. And in the stumbling, people heard evasions and maybe even denial that it really happened at all. And that created a lot of feelings.

But I think he was never thinking that.

And it just got worse. And really, I don't think anyone here really disagrees very much at all. I think we all agree that the system was bad, bad, bad. And people got hurt. We all know that. We all got hurt there, I think, or we probably wouldn't be spending time on this forum. Kids got hurt there. And we also know that there were plenty of good, well-meaning people, doing the best they could. But somethimes those good, well-meaning people hurt good well-meaning people. That is never anything but wrong, wrong, wrong.

Now I feel like Jimmy Carter, at the Peace Summit. I wish. What a role model that man is.

So. Timidly, I propose this scenario. Maybe?


FPO

[Hope]

Hello BlessD,

Not sure myself but any of the ones on the list would be fine Christians. It was a term I grew up with and have used it to describe a person you know who is a believer in Jesus Christ and who has had a positive impact on your life and others.

Hope

[bookworm]

Now I feel like Jimmy Carter, at the Peace Summit. I wish. What a role model that man is.

So. Timidly, I propose this scenario. Maybe?


FPO


Hello finallyprettyokay,

I just read your post on My Perspective and thank you for it. I, too, am grateful for this forum and the opportunity to try to “make more sense” of our LC experience. I agree this experience does have “profound, long-reaching effects” on each of us and it helps tremendously to have someone to talk with about it who understands. As Thankful Jane pointed out, in sharing with others our hearts are examined by God in the process. We realize we are not alone and we begin to find help for ourselves and be set free.

From your most recent posting it appears you are similar to me in that you like to try to smooth things over and “fix things.” However, I am learning that it is much better to stay in the light and allow the Lord to do His work because he knows our hearts and what problems we all have. He sees the big picture while ours is limited.

(By the way, I am by no means a Jimmy Carter fan, for what that is worth, but do agree with your statement of “what a role model that man is.” It reminds me of the Hebrews Conference in LA—the last one my husband and I attended. At that one Witness Lee used the statement, “What a ____!” and said it is a way to comment on something without offending anyone.)

[Hope]

This is the best example I can come up with for the existence of a "class system" in the LC. Not only are elders and their families a "privileged class" but people with money, or the potential to make money, are right in there too. The result is people like me looking longingly on the freedom of the "privileged class" and trying to figure out what class I was in, other than the lowest class of all..."single sister."


I believe Nell’s statements above ring very true regarding a “class system” in the LC. (Post #47 on this thread) This should not come as a shock to anyone as this is the situation in the fallen world among fallen human beings. However, it is the antithesis of what we were told the LC was and stood for. Many of us were young, idealistic college students who had “seen through the hypocrisy of fallen Christianity” and were eager for an opportunity to be absolute for the Lord and be a part of a clear testimony of faith in Jesus Christ. We were sold a bill of goods by the LC leadership that assured us that we were giving ourselves for the building of the true church that the New Testament speaks about. In time, however, we were told we were a part of the Lord’s army and should follow orders without questioning, all for the sake of the building of the church. The peer pressure increased and we were put in a position of trying to please men as we vied with one another in being transformed for the building. In such circumstances abuse is inevitable because of fallen human nature—and no locality can claim exemption.

I, too, am happy for Hope that he and his family were able to experience a degree of freedom and that it occurred within the LC. But surely he would admit that the only reason he had such freedom was because of his place of leadership. It is a blessing that he and his family had some degree of protection, but I hope he would realize that for the majority (even in Dallas where I am my family were) this was not the case. Each person in the LC was there of his/her own volition and because of his/her own needs or good intentions. Therefore each person has his/her own perspective of how the dynamics of the LC played out. There is no need for him to “shoot the messenger” so to speak to defend his viewpoint on this forum.


I have said several times that if the Anaheim leadership had been flawless in character and all the elders were kind and wise etc. I would have left. I was there for the same reason you were. It was for an ideal, a vision, which you have well described. But the direction and goal or vision changed over time. Many abuses also came in as there were some teachings that just opened the doors to the opposite of our ideal.

I am not sure when the change started for us in the USA but when I attended the first urgent national USA elders/co-workers meeting in January, 1974, I was inwardly nearly destroyed. But the deputy authority thing and the myths about WL etc caused me to seek to go on in Dallas according to the original motivation and assume we would be ok, but we had hit the so called slippery slope.

Here is your description of the slippery slope we went down, "We were sold a bill of goods by the LC leadership that assured us that we were giving ourselves for the building of the true church that the New Testament speaks about. In time, however, we were told we were a part of the Lord’s army and should follow orders without questioning, all for the sake of the building of the church. The peer pressure increased and we were put in a position of trying to please men as we vied with one another in being transformed for the building. In such circumstances abuse is inevitable because of fallen human nature—and no locality can claim exemption."

Nothing more to say.:iagree: Great utterance!! Thanks for the post.

You seem to indicate you were in Dallas. I am so sorry for the disappointment and discouragement I am sure you experienced. I am so sorry I was not of much help or use in steming the tide. I repent for my part in pushing you down the slippery slope.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[finallyprettyokay]

Bookworm:

I remember that too --- What a Baby!!!!

I thought a lot before my last post, a couple of days actually, wanting to be sure that I wasn't trying to just smooth things over, and finally decided to write. I do do that at times, but I am also very much a stand-up person who is not afraid to face the real situation. Head-on, if needs be.

I write this not so much to explain my motives or feelings, but to say I hope everyone really looks at what I wrote, and doesn't just see it as a Pollyanna attempt at peace. Peace is good, no doubt. But not at the cost of truth.

Sorry about the Jimmy Carter reference --- I really didn't mean to be political. I actually forgot everyone doesn't feel about him like I do. Dumb of me.

fpo

[blessD]

So (deep breath here) -- I timidly advance this theory --- way back, at the beginning of this thread, the blessD story was posted. Terrible story, everyone who would hear that story would be horrified.

Don, having been from that city, and having been a leader there, thought something like this:

that we thought that he thought that he was thinking that maybe we thought he was one of the men who did that but when he first told us he wasn't one of them, we all (as far as I know) believed him, because we already had a sense of who he is but he didn't know that we really did think that, he thought that we were thinking something wrong. But we really weren't thinking that at all.

AT THAT POINT ( I feel like Perry Mason :D), Don sort of stumbled around in his horror at the story and his even more horror that we would think he was part of that shameful meeting.
FPO

this totally made me laugh out loud.

When I was a teenager, I recall the young people in Dallas and TX area considered Hope a friend and someone they could talk to - he was one of the few leaders or non-leaders considered a trusted person. However, one person could never fix everything that was broke.

[Hope]

Hi Guys,

As I was closing down, I saw the post about this remark. Actually that was a statement by T. A. Sparks which WL claimed Sparks tried to teach WL. WL used it to discredit Sparks. I heard the story so many times sitting around the table or in a living room. WL liked to belittle Sparks. He would claim we know people by little things. This was an example of the "real" character of Sparks etc. Just a little note from the what is it worth bin.

Don

[countmeworthy]

Hope:

..... An exception that I think of (I'm sure there were more, I just don't know them) was John Smith in San Diego. He had been a Baptist minister pre-LC, had experience and education being a pastor, a shepherd. And it showed. He also had a few years under his belt, raising a family, etc. He was the man I wrote about early on this (long, long) thread that stood up and said 'my kids WILL be in school sports, etc'. Some easier to stand up when you are the leader, but still a brave, honorable thing to do. Amazing man, John.

Has everyone checked out my post on the My Perspectives thread? I am shameless. Self promoting. The worst.

fpo

Yeppers! John Smith was a most excellent Shepherd...His wife Sonya too. They had 7 kids I think...rowdy bunch they were! :D

That's why my experience in San Diego was good. John Smith, Les Cites (even though he is a die hard LSMR, UGH! Willie Samoff and Roger Beck were the elders in San Diego.)

Roger is with the LORD now. I loved them all. I still do. What a blessing it was for me to be under their covering. They were/are very good, decent, GOD loving people...people loving people. I think of them. I pray they are doing well.

Each of them were different from each other but complimented each other very well. They knew the flock and the flock knew them.

I think that's why me & FPO are pretty OK! :D

Uh...and Mrs FPO...can you get any MORE shameless & self promoting ? ;) :D

[OBW]

“Why do some want to stop folks from writing about what they know? What are they trying to hide?”

That is exactly the issue. Except for Process, virtually none of you know about the church in Dallas, and cannot contradict the accounts of the people who live there. I cannot see that anyone was trying hide anything. They were speaking of their knowledge.

Tell your story. Tell actual stories and tell what they actually mean. If there is a clear issue of abuse by the LC, its leadership, its teachings, its practices, make the point.

So the following preceded the account of BlessD’s humiliation. “Anyway, it's been intimated that The Church in Dallas was somehow without problems in this area, and Matt came out to refute that notion. Please consider another thread with reference to The Church in Dallas, The Thread of Gold:”

The story that follows is an excellent example of the kind of abuse (or for the squeamish, excessive exercise of authority) that happened within the LC. This story is one that actually speaks to real abuse of power, control, authority, etc. It is a clear example for this thread.

But it was presented to say something about Dallas. Read it again. Houston and OKC were the primary players. They happened to be in Dallas. Nothing about who was clearly there. How does this say anything about Dallas? Maybe that Benson and/or Ray had way to much sway in the whole region. Or maybe James. It says something about the “witness elders,” whoever they were, that sat by silently, cowards to speak up against the perpetrators (or maybe simply learning how to do it themselves). Would we be blaming the pilot of an airline if this had happened at 30,000 ft. over any particular city? Curse that pilot for not knowing what was happening on his plane!!

“You can’t use that example because it has Dallas in it. That’s not fair because the sister was from Houston and her parents were from Oklahoma City; and, even if our doctrine says that when you’re in Dallas, you’re a member of The Church in Dallas, in order for this to be admitted into evidence, she would have to be a card-carrying member of The Church in Dallas; and, just because elders were there from 4 different churches, Hope himself wasn’t there, so this is one example of abuse that shouldn’t have been brought out.”

That is a misrepresentation of the argument concerning this event. It seems to reinforce exactly what I said about a lynching. Everything that had even the remotest mention of Dallas was evidence of what Dallas was like. No one has made a case that this incident had anything to do with Dallas except for being host city to the perpetrators. For all the ranting you say that Don and I have done, this is clearly your error, not ours.

The facts do not support the position taken. Move on. Not to ignore actual problems, but to face the actual problems.

To paraphrase another, I’m stopping this in its tracks. Stopping the gross error in judgment for bringing this example out as a way to vilify Dallas. There are plenty of things available for you to use to pick on Dallas. This one is not close. It is a crime against logic. Might as well blame me for Watergate because I was in one of the bands in Nixon’s inaugural parade. It is just about as great a leap of logic.

Make the argument that BlessD’s story makes, not an argument that it does not make.

[Ohio]

I'm asking a specific and direct question to you because your responses are pointing in many other directions towards various generalized anecdotals about others. This can be evasion, so I am just asking the direct question. Your response to this question may shut me up.

As you can tell by now (and before now) this thread has really bothered me. The role I've seen you play on this thread has really bothered me. I know you probably feel the same way about me right now. Sorry.

I'm being very direct because to be terribly honest I am watching what appears to be a pattern of evasion in your posting. You are very, very smart and capable of moving around something like this so I am putting myself in the path

Dear brother Matt,

I have expressed my feeling about your recent posts in an honest way. Twice, when we have fellowshipped in the past, you expressed to me how forceful you are capable of being with people, and how you appreciated those who pointed this out to you. For the first time, I am seeing this side of you, so now I am only reminding you of our past conversation.

[Matt Anderson]

We were sold a bill of goods by the LC leadership that assured us that we were giving ourselves for the building of the true church that the New Testament speaks about. In time, however, we were told we were a part of the Lord’s army and should follow orders without questioning, all for the sake of the building of the church.

bookworm

I was there for the same reason you were. It was for an ideal, a vision, which you have well described.

Hope

Dear Mom (Thankful Jane),

I'm reading what bookworm and Hope said that they originally gave themselves to. This goes to one of the core things I have thought about a lot. I don't want to say what I am thinking without further clarifying what this "ideal" / "vision" was in all of you guys minds.

So, can you describe in more detail what was the "ideal" / "vision" you gave yourself to?

Matt

[Matt Anderson]

Dear brother Matt,

I have expressed my feeling about your recent posts in an honest way. Twice, when we have fellowshipped in the past, you expressed to me how forceful you are capable of being with people, and how you appreciated those who pointed this out to you. For the first time, I am seeing this side of you, so now I am only reminding you of our past conversation.

Ohio,

If you think I have been pressing to hard then I am sorry. I'm not completely finished with the topic of idolatry as it relates to this thread which I know you won't like it. Just take it for what it's worth in your mind. If that's zero, then okay. You don't have to agree with me.

Hope has quite successfully responded to what I was thinking and asking about in regards to the environment for kids. Here are the two key paragraphs.

Yes, having my children in the Dallas church environment was very good for them. Some of the finest Christians I have ever known were in the church in Dallas. I could list names and it would be like an honor roll of faith. The local churches were full of wonderful believers. I like to think of the following verse from Psalms when I think of Bud and Judy Philley, Thurman and Dianna Massey, Leon and Mary Ann Hunter, Gary and Chris Brashears, George and Cleo Whitington, Ed and Jerilyn Lamp, Tim and Valerie House, Mary and Milas Lizby, Buddy and Yvone Britt and on and on. Ps 16:3, As for the saints who are in the earth, They are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight. NASB

This is true. There were (and still are) some excellent christians in the LC who could have a great influence on children. I think the system prevented some of this more positive influence.

In this next paragraph, Hope clearly acknowledges that the only way to protect your children as time progressed in this particular group was to keep them out of various kinds of activities sponsored by the LC system. Eventually this meant removing your whole family from the LC as he did.


On the other hand, as the LSM developed (remember it was not always there) I began to isolate my children from the programs coming from So. California. There were some rotten characters who had wormed their way into "the Work". You will have to wait for the book to get the names but you probably already know some. From 1981 until I left Texas in 1986 I kept my children away from anything coming from Anaheim and kept them away from particular bad apple types.

In a subsequent post, Hope has indicated his attempts to seclude Dallas from some of the worse types of influence and has rightly indicated that it was a slippery slope that no one person could prevent the slide. To that end, Dallas may have been a little better while Hope was there but the leadership processes were so bad that one person could not make much difference.

So, thank God for one's like Hope who tried, but it was an uphill battle that was not surmountable at that time and the impacts on children were tremendous. Even more so than I think many parents may want to realize. As a child enters into adulthood they must take responsibility for their situation and all the baggage brought into it. This does not discount the fact that the child is having to face many things that were introduced as a result of the environment they were set in as children.

Matt

[bookworm]

You seem to indicate you were in Dallas. I am so sorry for the disappointment and discouragement I am sure you experienced. I am so sorry I was not of much help or use in steming the tide. I repent for my part in pushing you down the slippery slope.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge


Hope,

I think the rest of the story is that we were also convinced that Christianity was poor and degraded and that the only alternative to the LC was the world. Of course, we all were “ruined for the world” because we had burned the things that lured us to the world and had become part of the LC “subculture” so to speak and therefore no longer fit in anywhere.

This is why when my husband became disillusioned he did nothing in the way of leading our family spiritually and my only recourse was to continue to attend LC meetings with our children and trust the Lord.

I do thank you and Sheryl for the concern and care you showed to me in Dallas during those difficult days of my being a kind of “Mrs. Negative,” as my husband was “not in the meetings.”

[OBW]

Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?Unfortunately, I must confess that while there were not clear occurrences of such, there was in inference, and gossip about trouble in certain marriages that happened “outside of fellowship.” I have suspicions of marriages that were of the “get married or quit dating” variety. At least one of those has failed miserably. I also got my wife (eventually) because that happened to her when she first started meeting with the church. Despite her clear feeling that the ultimate result was best, she still rightfully considers the actual interference to have been far beyond the authority of the elder who did this. I have actually spoken to this in another place (maybe on the BARM). It is clear that the LC has no great track record in certain areas. It is not some “divorce free zone” and even the marriages that started within the LC are not immune and now would seem to bear no better track record than Christianity in general or even the country in general.

The problem with examples of truly arranged marriages from my perspective is that the actual involvement of the elders or other leadership in making it happen, putting two people together, etc., was not something that was heralded. If you inquired, virtually all said something about getting the “blessing” of the brothers. That does not reveal any further involvement, even if it happened. My experience is that they mostly just weren’t involved. Don has said in a previous thread that George Whittington was fairly involved in counseling in many cases. And he has mentioned his own experiences. Having been in a family that was relatively sound, I had no reason to know one way or the other about the existence of any counseling or its lack. Besides a little pre-marriage counseling from George, we moved to Irving not long after we married and he moved to West Texas. We could have used some of that a few years later.

Irving was another story. We were languishing. (And I must admit that our problems could not be simplified down to LC problems.) If you weren’t buried in the LSM operations in your off time, or eventually out knocking on doors, you might as well have been a stranger. As I said before, “know no man in the flesh” meant that only spiritual talk was acceptable. In that environment, who do you turn to? They don’t want to hear about your marital problems — or at least that was the perception given. (Don has since told me in private that staying in Dallas would not have been much of a help during the 80s.)

For us, the answer was a Bible church. 21 years ago this month. Life has not been wonderful at all times, but there are real people with real issues that care for you — all of you. We began to find the help we needed there. We weren’t “cured” overnight. But the process is moving upward.

My story is that for the most part, the most consistent problem with the LC in terms of marriage issues, family issues, etc., are concerned was that the LC mostly stayed out of things. They had no teaching, no counseling. So healthy families tended to be healthy because they had found the way(s) to be so. And unhealthy families were left to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, more pray-reading, and going to more meetings was not the answer. In this way, the LC must be seen as complicit, but the extent of that complicity is not easily determined.

Then come the direct instances of meddling. Your story is, unfortunately, not the only one. Being worn down by person after person is a horrible experience. I can’t say that happened to me, but my wife can say that there are a couple of brothers that were mentioned to her as possibilities that she simply said no to. That was the end of it. I’m sure that whoever it was that talked to her was simply playing go-between. It is true that marriage in the LC environment of the 70s (and probably mostly since then) was a strange thing. But my testimony is that while we were in that somewhat oppressive environment where dating was strong discouraged, my wife and I began to consider that it was about time to begin to think about marriage and we eventually caught each other’s eye. It did take an elder as go-between, but no one told us what to do. I’m sure that it would have played out differently if the “brothers” had different ideas. But evidently they didn’t. Of course, in typical LC fashion, having been requested to keep our courtship out of the eyes of the LC “public,” we married quite quickly, which is probably one of the biggest problems that we ever had to overcome in all these years. We did not have a more normal courtship, followed by an engagement and then marriage. We were thrust together too quickly and much of that “get to know each other” time got skipped. To me, that was one of the more problematic issues with getting from being single to being married. It was not necessarily arranged, but the way it transpired meant that it was sociologically, psychologically, and emotionally somewhere between normal and arranged, with much leaning toward the arranged. From our first date to marriage was less than 2 months. Her parents (who despised the LC) were really scared at first. Then they realized that I was not some “hallelujah brother” that couldn’t support their daughter. That helped. Leaving the LC 8 years later helped even more.

Someone has mentioned some particular elder that seemed to relish putting himself into things. I know of one in the mid-70s that did that in at least one case (with respect to my now-wife). But he moved away by around 76 or so and left in the Max R purge. Another that could have been like that was someone who I was never fully clear was an elder or just a “leading brother.” I think Don has cleared up for me that he was actually an elder. He did several rash things that I am aware of. I do not know about getting involved in breaking up couples, but I could believe it. He went on to get run off from another locality, at least partly for money issues. (I was aware of a questionable money practice of his when he was in Dallas.) I had a couple of run ins with him and I almost punched him once. Funny thing is that he was the “go between” for me and my wife. That was before the run-ins.

[countmeworthy]

Dear Mom (Thankful Jane),

I'm reading what bookworm and Hope said that they originally gave themselves to. This goes to one of the core things I have thought about a lot. I don't want to say what I am thinking without further clarifying what this "ideal" / "vision" was in all of you guys minds.

So, can you describe in more detail what was the "ideal" / "vision" you gave yourself to?

Matt

Hi Matt,

Here's waving at ya! I'm going to jump in..because I had a 'spiritual vision' when I came into the church-life I want to share w/everyone.

I got saved in January '75. One might say I came off the streets. I had been a party girl, living a hippie-like life.

I got saved on a Monday morning at work through some LC brethren. After work, I went to a sisters/family house for dinner & introduction to the new life I had found. Tuesday night, I went to a corporate prayer meeting & got water baptized. Wednesday was some other type of meeting. Thursday, I went door knocking with the sisters to invite them for Saturday evening's 'love feast', Friday night..first MESSAGE at the meeting hall.

I spent the night/weekend with the sisters. Sunday evening, I moved in with the sisters/family.

I had not seen the 'vision' of the church...just jumped into it head first.

It was a loving environment but was BOOT CAMP for me!! ARRGHH!! It was HARD!! I couldn't say anything without everyone 'calling on the Name of the Lord'. OHHHHHH Lord JESUS.' You know the routine.

But I loved the LORD and was grateful for giving me a way out of the way I was living. However....I was now entering a social life I was not accustomed to, with complete strangers and sometimes, frankly, I was scared.

I had a lot to learn. I had a lot of growing up to do.....spiritually and emotionally.

4 months later, I went to my first 'Young People's conference' in LA I think.

It was on Daniel. It was totally wayyyy over my head! But it was joyous & everyone was excited.

It was a 4 day conference and I recall something happening to me at the last day of the conference. I SAW with my spiritual eyes 'the church'. Something clicked inside of me.

Was I being brainwashed? I don't know. I don't think so. I truly believe it was a spiritual vision God gave me. I don't know how else to describe it.

At that point, I 'fell in love' with Christ ......and the church. I enjoyed picking up people for meetings, preparing dinners, cleaning and arranging, fellowshipping, praying with the saints, going to meetings...going out on the gospel...etc... Remember. I was in SAN DIEGO. It was a good church life there.

But it wasn't to last.

Perhaps that is why I still feel connected in some peculiar way to the saints in this forum.

I absolutely don't want anything to do with the LC messages/jargon/lingo/ but I can't seem to break completely away from my former LC connection..even if it's not part of my life at all...except when I come here.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Some interesting things have developed on this thread but I want to address the idea that Hope wrote regarding the LCS elders shepherding in regards to marriage etc. To understand the LCS one needs to understand the protocols of the tiny closed system itself. For example:

1. You do not consider marriage or anything else (e.g. moving to another city) without "fellowshipping" with the elders i.e. getting their permission.

2. You do not consider getting married to anyone outside the LCS or on the fringes of it including other Christians.

3. Whether the elders are qualified to discuss marriage or not is moot in the LCS context. The fact of their eldership = they are "qualified" even if their own marriages and households are a mess.

4. Nee who had no children and Lee whose own family was a mess are who you are officially allowed to read. Try recommending a marriage or family book by a qualified author in an LCS meeting and see what happens.

[Thankful Jane]

Dear Mom (Thankful Jane)

I'm reading what bookworm and Hope said that they originally gave themselves to. This goes to one of the core things I have thought about a lot. I don't want to say what I am thinking without further clarifying what this "ideal" / "vision" was in all of you guys minds.

So, can you describe in more detail what was the "ideal" / "vision" you gave yourself to?

Matt

Dear Matt,

I will only speak to my time period which started in the fall of 1967. There were others meeting in Texas a few years before this. Don R. was one of them. I never heard any talk like this until after we all moved to Houston in 1969. To my realization, the idea of a “vision” was something that gradually formed until it was clearly vocalized and understood by all.

1967-1969 (no “vision” talk)

Your Dad and I were excited about Jesus. We had just discovered how very, very, real He was, in the here and now. What was next? Find a church. We had new wine. The places we visited had empty wineskins. We didn’t fit. Then we met the little group in Denton, Texas. We were so excited to find other believers who loved Jesus only and were enjoying new wine. We were a happy little family. We sang together, ate together, talked about Jesus and listened to George W. talk (and talk and talk and talk .... and talk :)) to us about the Bible. We even uttered a few sentences our selves like toddlers learning to walk. Soon we met some from Waco and Lubbock. Wow. A bigger family. Then we went to L.A. Whoa there! An even bigger family and more new wine.

While in Denton, I don’t recall any talk about a “vision” or giving ourselves for something. There was also no thought or talk about elders. (Though it is clear there were a few older ones in the Lord who were really interested in taking care of us, the main one being George.) There may have been a little said about the ground of the church, but it was presented in a more loosely defined way as just meeting in the city where we lived without having a name. Near the end of this time, I think, I may have heard my first message by WL clearly defining the ground of the church and its importance.

1969-71 (“vision” talk begins and develops rapidly)

We all moved to Houston. Lots of changing. In the background the official eldership formed up, but I was pretty much oblivious to this. Soon it became apparent (by who was on the front row in the meetings and the verses on the board before each meeting which told us what the topic would be) that we had leaders. (And they were just a few years older than us ... except for George... but he hadn’t moved yet and wouldn’t for another year.) At first, it seemed that most of the messages were about Christ as life and about our human spirit and functioning in the meetings. There was a secondary topic always flying on the radar and that was the church.

Over time more and more messages were about the oneness and the building up of the church. The basic theme, which we all easily bought into, was that the true church had been lost and God needed to recover it. All Christians were in the invisible Body of Christ, but that could not defeat the devil. What God needed was a visible expression of the true church, a practical expression of oneness, that men could see. This is what would defeat the devil.

This was being set forth as our special calling from God. By 1971 we were publicly consecrating ourselves to this vision, the vision of Christ and the Church. “Christ” had come to mean “to Christ in our spirit” and “the Church” had come to mean “the practical expression of the oneness on the ground of the city” with the little add on understanding of “with one eldership.”

We were sold out to stand in the gap like pioneers to pave the way for other believers to follow.

So definitely by 1971 we had a clear understanding of this special calling, the vision, and were consecrating ourselves to it in droves. As one song said, “We’ve seen the vision, we’ve heard His voice, now we meet as the church of His choice.”

Maybe can others can add their recollection...

Thankful Mom Jane

[countmeworthy]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1967-1969 (no “vision” talk)


1969-71 (“vision” talk begins and develops rapidly)


Maybe can others can add their recollection...

Thankful Mom Jane

Thank YOU TJ!

You have a very good recollection and it helped me figure out how ~I~ may have actually 'seen' the 'vision of the church'.

Of course! When I went to the Daniel conference, there was talk about the Vision of the church..Christ and the church. ( I seriously doubt the conference was really about the book of DANIEL!

Although it IS possible I got personal revelation straight from God..I think my 'vision' actually came from the talk.

At one time...back in the day.... it was 'Christ and the church'...'the BUILDING up of the Body of Christ'..'the practical expression of the church'... of 'being one'..the ground of 'oneness'.

Today, I hear the 'Blending' and the 'bawwwwwwdy'. My LC friend(s) don't talk about the building up of the body of Christ anymore. It's about blending and being in the 'bawwwdy'.

I recall a few years ago being told I was in the 'bawwwwwdy'. I knew she meant Body of Christ. 'Of COURSE I'm in the BODY of Christ! Why does THAT come as a surprise to you?' I asked. DUH!

[Nell]

Matt,
... This was being set forth as our special calling from God. By 1971 we were publicly consecrating ourselves to this vision, the vision of Christ and the Church. “Christ” had come to mean “to Christ in our spirit” and “the Church” had come to mean “the practical expression of the oneness on the ground of the city” with the little add on understanding of “with one eldership.”

We were sold out to stand in the gap like pioneers to pave the way for other believers to follow.

So definitely by 1971 we had a clear understanding of this special calling, the vision, and were consecrating ourselves to it in droves. As one song said, “We’ve seen the vision, we’ve heard His voice, now we meet as the church of His choice.”

Maybe can others can add their recollection...

Thankful Mom Jane
Jane/Matt,

I came into the church in Houston in the fall of 1971. Jane, this is an accurate description of the atmosphere at the time. I remember meeting after meeting there were 3 concentric circles drawn on the board like a target: body, soul and spirit; inside the soul: the mind, emotion and will; inside the spirit: fellowship, intuition and conscience. I had never heard that I had a human spirit and this is the place where God came to dwell in me.

What really caught me off guard was the matter of the church. I was told that, having been raised as a Baptist, I was part of "dead Christianity" and that this was not what God wanted. To explain, the word picture was drawn by Benson Phillips that originally, all the believers met together as one in one large room, like the auditorium of a school. Throughout history, groups of Christians began to break off from the original group and go to the smaller classrooms to meet together according to what came to be their pet teachings. As a result there was division after division to the point that no one was meeting together in the auditorium anymore... except us. We were just going back to the original meeting place to meet together as one church in the city where we live. At the time, it was a compelling word picture.

I remember a sister, I guessed she was about 40 years old, who stood up in meeting after meeting and hammered on "dead Christianity" and how bad it was. At the time, I considered myself to be a Baptist and her words were always a problem to me. The real problem was that eventually in her speaking, she would thank the Lord that she was never part of "dead Christianity". Of course, my thought was...ok...if you've never been in Christianity, how can you condemn it...? I thought she was 40 years old. She was really 17. Go figure.

As I was being recruited, there was a full court press on the church. The sharing on the word was so rich and solid, and we were told that in the church is the only place you'll hear such speaking. It was hard to argue with that, because I had never heard such annointed speaking before. Over the months I was in Houston, person after person would stand and consecrate themselves to the church. They had seen "the church" and "nooooooooo, nooooo, nooo, nooo, no, I'll never go back anymore..." Everything revolved around "seeing" the church. If you didn't "see" it then just wait!

Looking back on that time, I realized that I had found a living Lord Jesus in a way that I never new existed; I heard the word that was richly annointed, in the beginning, like never before. I was told that this was the new wine, and it only could be contained in the new wineskin...the church in your city. I was told that the denominations were the old wineskin and could not contain the new wine...the old wineskin would break.

So I bought the package. I didn't want to go back to the old Jesus, or sermons that were dry and old. The Lord was recovering the church...taking us back to the big room to meet together. That's why the church wasn't a "division" because this was the recovery of the church life as God meant it to be, and that's why it was so rich, and "I'll never miss another meeting."

There is one thing that is built into the package that they hadn't counted on. The spirit is real and His word will not return void. I saw the truth of the word in the early days. When these truths began to be violated in the years following, I knew it. Eventually, I was empowered to stand with the word as truth and every man a liar.

Nell

[Matt Anderson]

Nell,

Were you consecrating yourself to Christ? Or were you consecrating yourself to Christ and the church? I think my understanding is correct that you and many others were consecrating themselves to the "vision" of Christ and the church.

This is what I have thought about a lot. I think that many were consecrating themselves to Christ plus something. I'm very interested in digging down on the plus something because I think it is the thing that held many in the system of the LC long after it was corrupted.

Matt

[Nell]

Nell,

Were you consecrating yourself to Christ? Or were you consecrating yourself to Christ and the church?

This is what I have thought about a lot. I think that many were consecrating themselves to Christ plus something. I'm very interested in digging down on the plus something because I think it is the thing that held many in the system of the LC long after it was corrupted.

Matt
Matt,

Christ and the church. Definitely I never heard the phrase "I consecrate myself to Christ".

That's an interesting choice of words: Christ plus something. WL gave a series of sermons on "Christ plus nothing". I've heard Benson say "If you pay attention to Christ, the church will come out. If you pay attention to the church, nothing will come out." He's right.

After a time away from the LC, I renounced my consecration to "Christ and the church" and gave myself again to Christ alone.

Nell

[finallyprettyokay]

Matt:

Christ and the church. I think we thought they were the same. :(


fpo

[YP0534]

This is what I have thought about a lot. I think that many were consecrating themselves to Christ plus something. I'm very interested in digging down on the plus something because I think it is the thing that held many in the system of the LC long after it was corrupted.

"universal church"

(I know. I'm like a piano with only one key.)

[OBW]

Nell,

Were you consecrating yourself to Christ? Or were you consecrating yourself to Christ and the church? I think my understanding is correct that you and many others were consecrating themselves to the "vision" of Christ and the church.

This is what I have thought about a lot. I think that many were consecrating themselves to Christ plus something. I'm very interested in digging down on the plus something because I think it is the thing that held many in the system of the LC long after it was corrupted.

MattJust as Nell said, it was "Christ and the church." Were we ever off.

I'm not sure that this sort of consecration thing on its own held us in the LC system. But when you coupled that onto the "God's best," the ground of the church with the "blessing of life forevermore," the highest ministry, etc., train, and put it up against a backdrop of poor pitiful degraded Whore of Babylon Christianity which meant there was nowhere else to go but to the world, you have a stranglehold on many. If the best is this bad, where else do we go?

[OBW]

"universal church"

(I know. I'm like a piano with only one key.)Yep. Ole one-note YP. :D

At least I got the connection this time. I can't say I did the first time you threw those two words into a post all by themselves. I sort of went "huh?" :confused: I'll have to go back and find them now and look again.

I'm not sure I bought into the idea at first either. But it is starting to show promise. It may be overly simplistic, but there is this undercurrent of "one universal church and we're it" that pervades so many of the issues and discussions. Sort of like the undercurrent of "dispensing" that will cure everything and cover a multitude of sins.

[Thankful Jane]

Matt:

Christ and the church. I think we thought they were the same. :(


fpoHonestly, I thought I already belonged to Christ. When I said I was consecrating myself to Christ and the Church, my thought was that I was consecrating myself to Christ for the vision of the true "Church," the true practical oneness, that I had become convinced He wanted to have. Our consecration meant we were willing to pay the price to give Him such a church.

I think that the reason we thought of them as the same was because we believed that just as He gave Himself for her, so should we. We read the verse "Husbands love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" as if it said, "Love the church as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for her."

Interestingly, it was a number of years later in April 1975 (I wrote my dated consecration to Him in my Bible), that I actually had a sit down time in which I gave myself to Christ. I ended my consecration with "save me into Yourself." This time I had no thought that I was giving myself to Him for something else, just to Him only. This happened during a period of time when the Lord had begun to freshly visit me and show me how wonderful He was.

Two years later (1977) I found myself in an ejection seat with a top dog elder's hand on the button, as God began painfully to rescue me from my earlier consecration to "the Church." It took him about 10 more years, to extract me/us completely. (Then began the really hard part--extracting all the "true church" teaching from me.)

Thankful Jane

[YP0534]

Yep. Ole one-note YP. :D

At least I got the connection this time. I can't say I did the first time you threw those two words into a post all by themselves. I sort of went "huh?" :confused: I'll have to go back and find them now and look again.

I'm not sure I bought into the idea at first either. But it is starting to show promise. It may be overly simplistic, but there is this undercurrent of "one universal church and we're it" that pervades so many of the issues and discussions. Sort of like the undercurrent of "dispensing" that will cure everything and cover a multitude of sins.

Well, let me just put it this way, then.

Even if nobody wants to buy my argument that in the New Testament there's only a universal Body and local assemblies (which is basically just an aggregate term for all the members organically assembling,) I'm not getting my feelings hurt. There's at least a couple of verses that are easily construed in that direction, I don't deny.

But at least consider that, practically speaking, for some reason, every time someone or some group undertakes to do something promoting in some way a concept of "universal church" they just coincidentally also always take their first step towards what we can eventually, years later, recognize clearly as denominationalism and divisiveness.

I'm just saying.

[Peter Debelak]

"universal church"

(I know. I'm like a piano with only one key.)

and what a key it is... :D

[Hope]

Dear Matt,

The vision was the big thing for me from the very beginning. I did not attach myself to a group or a ministry. This was difficult to explain to friends and family at the time. Everyone assumes you are attracted to personalities. James Barber always stressed that his vision was a man and that he followed WL just like Timothy followed Paul. For James, it was not Christ who is our life and the church as the Body of Christ but the ministry of WL. Benson Phillips had a very similar view. WL was God's man of faith and power for this hour. Thus, he attached himself to WL. Ray Graver was similar to Benson but with an even stronger view that included rendering service to the man of faith and power for this hour and seeking to duplicate that man in life and work. They were very successful in bringing this view into many of the local churches. Matt, here is where your premise of idolatry comes in.

There was a strong line in the local churches regarding the experience of Christ as life and seeking to practice the oneness of the Spirit etc. This kept me there for two decades but I was infected with the other notions. How did I get out? God's mercy. But I did a lot of damage to others because of the WL/BP/JB/RG vision. In trying to carry out the vision I thought I was carrying out, I was actually most of the time carrying out the other vision. Whew, is this as confusing as it sounds. Again this is a theme in my next chapter. This will take some real skill in telling the story. Pray for me. I actually believe that WL and many in his company had the same conflict within. Two things were going on within a single person.

In the very beginning, my vision was Christ as life, which I had learned from Ian Thomas, and the oneness of the Body of Christ based on the oneness of the Spirit and the oneness of the Faith. For years I sat along side brothers and sisters who used the same words as I and others but eventually I realized we had different definitions. Here is an example regarding "oneness." Oneness versus division is an important issue in the New Testament. Someone might declare that in Dallas we are standing for the "the oneness." All would say amen. But one group meant one with Christ and with all who were His dear believers while the other group meant one with certain personalities and a particular work and ministry. Later we began to learn we were different. Both groups had every right to be bothered and upset. The crowd that wanted to be one with the Apostle was bothered that ole Don Rutledge had turned his back on the ministry and had broken the oneness. They were correct, but I never knew that I had signed on to be one with someone's work and ministry. On the other hand, I and others were put out that the first group was blatantly promoting division on several levels and they had overthrown the Headship of Christ. Yet somehow we had a history that was intertwined. The "Oneness" issue is one of many major disconnects we found that we had.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[blessD]

My story is that for the most part, the most consistent problem with the LC in terms of marriage issues, family issues, etc., are concerned was that the LC mostly stayed out of things. They had no teaching, no counseling. So healthy families tended to be healthy because they had found the way(s) to be so. And unhealthy families were left to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, more pray-reading, and going to more meetings was not the answer. In this way, the LC must be seen as complicit, but the extent of that complicity is not easily determined.


Hello OBW,

Thank you so much for sharing your experience with me. I am very happy that your marriage has survived and grown. Great news!

My arranged marriage failed - 17 years and 3 beautiful children later. In retrospect and as you have said, I believe with strong and sound counseling we could have worked through our problems and survived. We were immature in many ways and had no idea how much help was really available to us as a Christian couple from a larger Christian community.

Everything has turned out ok, but it wasn't easy. This is when you find out God's ability to heal the deepest wounds.

[countmeworthy]

The vision was the big thing for me from the very beginning. I did not attach myself to a group or a ministry. This was difficult to explain to friends and family at the time. Everyone assumes you are attracted to personalities. James Barber always stressed that his vision was a man and that he followed WL just like Timothy followed Paul. For James, it was not Christ who is our life and the church as the Body of Christ but the ministry of WL. Benson Phillips had a very similar view.

What made San Diego different...or at least for MEEEEEE...was that even though the 'elders' & the church did acknowledge Lee, Christ was first and foremost in their lives. That was projected to me and thus I looked to Jesus & 'the church'...I did not elevate any person be it Lee OR the elders from my locality. Christ was my LIFE. I respected the elders I loved them and the saints period.

BUT by '78, LEE was becoming more & more the central focus of our meetings and fellowship. It went from Christ & the church to LEE and the church.

The 'vision' I had of the church left and thus I left too.

Buttttt to GOD be the GLORY !!! :hurray: I'm not there anymore and most of us on this forum are not there anymore either. Praise YOU LORD JESUS! :D

YOU are FIRST and FOREMOST in our lives. You are numero UNO!!! :hurray:

[TLFisher]

Like I said on earlier posts, this was only a tiny instance in a decade of overstepped boundaries by authority figures. Much worse consequences resulted from the elders involvement in who I chose to marry.

Candidate#1: The boy from the Dallas inquisition story and I wanted to marry someday, but he was branded as not "absolute". Remember, I mentioned his dad was not a meeting-goer. He was a healthy kid, played sports, and that just wasn't spiritual enough. I recognize now we had the "it" factor that few couples ever find. I thought he was perfect. I was advised our relationship was of the flesh. It died a slow death by intrusion, opinion, and other long-distance causes.

Candidate #2 - not in the church (he was the natural brother of a sister whose house I lived in at the time). Obviously, elders said no. That was ended in one day in one private meeting with the elders.

Candidate #3 - considered a "fringe" brother and the elders hadn't picked him out anyway so again, NO! To me this guy was like Prince Charming, and we had quite a bit in common. One elder threatened to chase the poor guy out of town, literally.

Candidate #4 - this was the elder’s choice. An elder approached me once, I said no - not enough in common. An elder's wife approached me again, I said no. I gave her college registration papers to give to him and say he can come talk to me after he gets his degree (he had a 10th grade education). Then, one more time, an elder's wife came and told me all the virtues of this brother. He was so given to the church, bla-bla-bla. By now I am thinking I must be fighting against God's choice so I said ok. We were married 5 weeks later. I knew his name, his age, that he had been married before and had a son, and had a 10th grade education. Our marriage was declared by yelling we were for Christ and the church.

Do you know of anyone in Dallas whose marriage was manipulated, arranged, controlled? This practice had devastating effects on lives everywhere. Did Dallas have a hands off policy of the leaders regarding personal choices like marriage partners. Were the young people allowed to date, make their own choices, and be engaged? I get the picture there was a leading elder in Dallas that took a more authoritative approach and could have been part orchestrator of my Dallas inquisition. Was there anyone that could and would balance him and stop him if he overstepped his boundaries of authority?

I am curious if the experiences of blessD among others who had their marriages manipulated was a practice that dissipated over the years? In the 1990's I never encountered any such practices.

Terry

[TLFisher]

I know when I began to write the history many were interested to know how the eldership worked and how our relationship with WL and the LSM worked. The way the thread has gone has given an excellent opportunity to take a look at some of the service of the so called leading ones.

In Dallas, the elders were usually the last to leave the hall. Many nights my phone rang after mid-night. Poor old George Whitington, the papa elder and master bond-slave was deluged everyday as soon as he arrived from work. There was a dear sister, (one of the junior high students who was saved in Waco) who lived with George. She once told me that she would never marry an elder because she had seen how much George and Cleo, his wife, had to lay down their lives to serve others.

Serve others? There were many young people who wanted your prayers and advice as to college, dating, engagement, marriage, where to live, what job to take, their parents, their boss and on and on. I have had college students call me at 2:00 in the am. They could not sleep because they were so worried about what to major in and wanted to talk. No problem. Slaves do not have the right to chose when they are called to duty.

One of the most difficult matters to handle was a request for fellowship regarding marriage. I cannot count how many times I heard WL give the advice of "the elders should not put people together." "If the marriage does not work out then you will be blamed, the church will be blamed and the Lord's Testimony damaged." But I never heard him say anything about what if someone approaches you about their getting married. Are you just to utter some platitudes on marriage? What if you see the relationship leading to over the cliff? Should you just say nothing less you be accused of manipulating people? In my own experience, 95% of the time I had no particular impressions regarding a couple. They got the general Biblical help and I wanted to be sure that they realized I was for them and available. That needed to be demonstrated. It could not just be a nice slogan. It does take time to demonstrate your love and care. George and Bob Bynum were outstanding at this and far ahead of me.

Forget about the errant teachings for a moment, I and the other elders made lots of mistakes, lots of mistakes. The tragedy was that the mistakes were with real people not with objects.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Hope, thank you for sharing your experiences as an elder. I had no idea of the sacrifices you endured. I don't think it's fair nor healthy to generalize when referring to elders, brothers, or sisters in the church. Just as there were elders that craved power, control, and manipulated, likewise were there elders who served, and didn't seek the power and control others sought. Rather they labored to keep marriages together when situations arose. Francis Ball was one such brother. There are other brothers like Francis, but like American media outlets it's easy to focus on the negative reports than the positive reports. I'm sure when negative reports about abuses in varying churches, my reaction is how could this happen? You summed it up with deputy authority.

Terry