How Can LocalChurchDiscussions.Com Improve?

[UntoHim]

First of all a hardy and heartfelt thanks to all who have participated on the Forum for the past year.

I'm opening up this thread for input and suggestions on how the Forum can be improved.

There are also some goals I would like to set.

One would be to see some participation by current Local Church members. We all know the reasons why most are not participating. What I would like to see is for us to give them reasons TO participate.

I also would like some help from some of you tech savvy brothers and sisters on how the Forum may get some increased exposure out there in cyberspace. This would include increased exposure on the various search engines. Also I like some ideas on the best way to integrate the Forum with some of the social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

[Terry]

I like what UntoHim is trying to do in fostering communication. I would ask is it possible to bridge the gap without sacrficing integrity? We know the mindset of touching the past is akin to the "Tree of Knowledge". Still it is not possible to sacrifice integrity by looking the other way relating to sins. I ask, is it possible to have dialogue objectively? This would be my first and foremost goal on this forum in relation to brothers and sisters currently meeting in the Local Churches. Past experiences has indicated otherwise; a subjective reaction when questions related to history or practices are asked. At best the response given is "be one with the brothers". Which may illustrate concerns have merit, but not to the point of breaking one accord with the blended brothers.

As far as improvements go, I'd like to see easier thread navigation. Perhaps not having so much content threads are located under.

[Unregistered]

First of all a hardy and heartfelt thanks to all who have participated on the Forum for the past year.

I'm opening up this thread for input and suggestions on how the Forum can be improved.



"Hardy" is what a plant is, that helps it to survive cold winters, heat and drought. "Hearty" is what kind of thanks we give; it means like 'unstinted'. Genuine and full.

[UntoHim]

"Hardy" is what a plant is, that helps it to survive cold winters, heat and drought. "Hearty" is what kind of thanks we give; it means like 'unstinted'. Genuine and full.

And a hearty thanks for the grammar lesson! Not being of the hearty (strike that, I mean) hardy variety of spellers, I can use all the help I can get!

I like what UntoHim is trying to do in fostering communication. I would ask is it possible to bridge the gap without sacrficing integrity? We know the mindset of touching the past is akin to the "Tree of Knowledge". Still it is not possible to sacrifice integrity by looking the other way relating to sins. I ask, is it possible to have dialogue objectively? This would be my first and foremost goal on this forum in relation to brothers and sisters currently meeting in the Local Churches. Past experiences has indicated otherwise; a subjective reaction when questions related to history or practices are asked. At best the response given is "be one with the brothers". Which may illustrate concerns have merit, but not to the point of breaking one accord with the blended brothers.

As far as improvements go, I'd like to see easier thread navigation. Perhaps not having so much content threads are located under.

Thanks Terry. I think you bring up a lot of good points here. You are so right about "past experiences". One of the things I would like to see happen right here on this forum is to see some current members take a chance, come out on a limb, and break the cycle of ignoring their brothers and sisters in Christ.

[OBW]

We know the mindset of touching the past is akin to the "Tree of Knowledge".According to Lee. It was his way of avoiding the truth.

But I do not think that anything in scripture actually suggests that we should avoid the truth due to any reference to this pre-fall tree or the fall itself. In fact, it would seem that knowing the right path is very important in the scripture

The whole thing is a flight of fancy. An imaginary construct. He may have come upon it honestly, but it served him well over the years as he caused so many to refuse biblical directives to righteousness and holiness when it was his or his family's unrighteousness involved. A system in which you do not act according to righteous knowledge, but refrain from it in favor of awaiting more dispensing. And using the lack of dispensing as an excuse for unrighteousness and the TOKOGAE as a cause to ignore the unrighteousness that remains.

"Study to show yourself approved." Somehow I don't think this verse aligns with Lee's assault on knowledge. So who wins — Lee or scripture?

[OBW]

Now, having responded to an off-topic comment, I will weigh in on the topic.

I'm not sure that the answer to participation is in sections devoted to Local Church-friendly posts. That may be OK.

But the problem I see is in how we deal with some of the LRC people that do come.

It is a forum violation to "out" the identity of another forum member. Yet we feel quite OK with arguing about how someone is using a different moniker here than in the Bereans forum. So what. Get over it. I did it too. The fact that you don't like the way that someone is posting should be dealt with in terms of the arguments, not the person. And while we have generally not been dishing out ad hominems, we often are too focused on perceived motives than on what is said. If you can't deal with what is said, then study it until you can. Or until you change your mind.

And if they truly violate some forum rule, then deal with it. Otherwise, stick to the arguments.

If you want to direct a topic at someone, don't presume or demand that they agree with you to do so. It is antagonistic. And useless at much of anything.

Admit that the forum is not completely open. It took too long to evict the irrelevant posting of those "my writing is scripture" guys a few months back. Don't ask for permission to evict profane and inflammatory posts, especially after sufficient warnings. And don't cower to the soft-hearted who just want to let everybody do whatever.

And for those of us that think we are dong it mostly right, some of us need to quit being offended that someone disagrees. The nature of the discussion is "argument." Not dispute, but an interchange of ideas well formed and grounded in something that we tend to agree is a sound base for truth. There is interpretation, so we don't always agree on everything. Lay out your reasons for your positions. Don't presume that disagreement is personal. It is OK to agree to disagree. And a point being made due to "your" position (specifically against it) may be useful for others in the forum even if you do not think you the point is correct. But engage the disagreement in terms of the discussion, not in terms of your emotions and feelings.

While spiritual things are not always discoverable within logic and reason, the discussions should be logical and reasonable. Be sure that you are actually responding to what has been said. And be sure that you are saying what you mean to say. Do not presume that a response that says "you" means a personal attack. It may only be an identifier as to who made the particular statement. And when someone says that you said "X" and you just demand where it was said, beware that you may find that a directed response to a previous post may indeed show that you did. It is better to be a little humble and admit that you may have misspoke, or been unclear. Clarify. It may get tedious. And you may discover that someone simply does not want to understand. Or is trying to obfuscate things. Better to ignore them than just go ballistic. (I say that when I am not going ballistic.)

Last, the discussion of what it right or wrong about the teachings of any particular person cannot be based upon what they said. It is clearly about what they said. But if they are the foundation upon which their correctness or incorrectness is based, there is no discussion. All arguments are circular and we might as well go away. Lee is not right or wrong based solely upon Lee (or Nee, for that matter). There must be something outside of them that is relied upon to test them. That is mainly scripture. We can refer to other writers, but those must be tied to scripture or we are just arguing one secondary against another without reference to the primary source.

For this reason, we must discuss the teachings and doctrines meticulously. At this point, there is a tremendous lack of prior information because the old Bereans site is closed. It is still available for reference (at least I have managed to get into it about 2 out of 5 times I tried). But there is no certainty that it will remain. We need to stop relying on what has gone before. If it isn't in this forum, it might as well not exist. It is time to get theological. I would agree that most of the LRC's problems are practical and therefore, their orthopraxy, as well as all of the storms, cover-ups, etc., are extremely relevant. But while there is an orthodox core, the reason that the orthopraxy is so messed-up is that there is a serious problem with defining what is the main thing. And what is the way to read the Bible. It is too much like being handed a thick manual of how to reread so many words and phrases that what is important becomes unimportant and what is unimportant (or not there) become preeminent. It is a system of error that takes too many away from the real charge we have concerning our life here and now. It is replacing righteousness with "in your spirit." It replaces obedience with abiding and getting dispensing. It paralyzes too many, yet makes them certain that they are God's best and that all others are deficient, even harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon.

Simply having areas designated for the posting of untouched "pro LRC" material seems to undermine the very purpose of the discussion — unless it is implicitly for the purpose of giving material for immediate discussion of the "current" issues. The LRC has plenty of sites with their own things. And you can be sure that if you go to one of them and post something negative, you will be booted off. I feel that other than as a reference for the ongoing discussions, postings that are strictly advertisements for the LSM/LRC should be deleted. Same for any other kind of ministry. There have been too many others allowed in the past. Anyone can make a recommendation. But when threads are created that only tangentially have a link to Nee, Lee, or the LRC, then post copious quantities of material from another ministry and spend most of their time directing us toward following that, it should also be deleted.

I'm not even sure that the things you link on the sides are entirely appropriate. Links to the online LSM and RecV are good for sources materials. But advertising the next conference? Not sure it should be done. It opens the forum to advertisement for any conference.

[OBW]

Unto,

One more thing. I believe that you can track sources of posts (URL). Take a little more time (if possible) and refuse to repost more than 2 or 3 for any particular "unregistered" guest. Unregistered has become a place to hide. A place where one unregistered can deny having made any statement because there are other unregistereds.

In fact, it should become policy that only greetings or personal testimonies will be allowed as "unregistered." Any involvement in active discussion should be registered. It takes the burden off of you and moves the discussion along more smoothly.

[77150]

Unto,

One more thing. I believe that you can track sources of posts (URL). Take a little more time (if possible) and refuse to repost more than 2 or 3 for any particular "unregistered" guest. Unregistered has become a place to hide. A place where one unregistered can deny having made any statement because there are other unregistereds.

In fact, it should become policy that only greetings or personal testimonies will be allowed as "unregistered." Any involvement in active discussion should be registered. It takes the burden off of you and moves the discussion along more smoothly.

Since this probably refers to me (in part, there are definitely others posting as unregistered) I will comment. When you post without having registered you are required to read those letters and numbers and type them in. So if you wrote Guest 1 but wrote in the letters and numbers incorrectly it erases your name as Guest 1 and puts in unregistered and a new set of letters and numbers. So there were several times when I was posting as "unregistered" when I had put in Guest 1 but it got deleted. Once I realized this was happening it happened less.

Second, the only reason I registered was because I had been sucked into a discussion and felt that to respond to Igzy I needed to start a new thread.

[bookworm]

I would agree that most of the LRC's problems are practical and therefore, their orthopraxy, as well as all of the storms, cover-ups, etc., are extremely relevant. But while there is an orthodox core, the reason that the orthopraxy is so messed-up is that there is a serious problem with defining what is the main thing. And what is the way to read the Bible. It is too much like being handed a thick manual of how to reread so many words and phrases that what is important becomes unimportant and what is unimportant (or not there) become preeminent. It is a system of error that takes too many away from the real charge we have concerning our life here and now. It is replacing righteousness with "in your spirit." It replaces obedience with abiding and getting dispensing. It paralyzes too many, yet makes them certain that they are God's best and that all others are deficient, even harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon.

Thank you OBW for these excellent points. You put into words just what the local churches and their allegiance to the LSM (Living Stream Ministry) have done. As a result many people have suffered at the hands of those who idolize Witness Lee and “the ministry” with his so-called life study messages that apparently continue to be read as the basis of worship in the present local church meetings worldwide. Because of such there is a real need for an open forum that can expose such works and protect others (especially idealistic young college students) from being lured into the local churches/LSM.

[OBW]

Since this probably refers to me (in part, there are definitely others posting as unregistered) I will comment. When you post without having registered you are required to read those letters and numbers and type them in. So if you wrote Guest 1 but wrote in the letters and numbers incorrectly it erases your name as Guest 1 and puts in unregistered and a new set of letters and numbers. So there were several times when I was posting as "unregistered" when I had put in Guest 1 but it got deleted. Once I realized this was happening it happened less.

Second, the only reason I registered was because I had been sucked into a discussion and felt that to respond to Igzy I needed to start a new thread.Sorry. I was not making any particular statement concerning any particular person. I just note that there have been concerns raised that conversations between members and undefined "Unregistered" people have been problematic. And the delays in posting due to the moderator's required intervention is a problem even if everyone chooses a consistent temporary name and manages to get it right every time.

And, as I have suggested that a little more moderator intervention might be required anyway, not burdening him/her with too much hands-on work with unregistereds is preferred. I do believe that engaging in the discussions implies membership and should be reflected in actually becoming a member. Monikers need not be revealing. Like 77150. A number might be meaningful to someone, but not likely to anyone else. Same for many of the kinds of monikers found here. They are only as revealing as the users desires to make them.

[77150]

Sorry. I was not making any particular statement concerning any particular person. I just note that there have been concerns raised that conversations between members and undefined "Unregistered" people have been problematic. And the delays in posting due to the moderator's required intervention is a problem even if everyone chooses a consistent temporary name and manages to get it right every time.

And, as I have suggested that a little more moderator intervention might be required anyway, not burdening him/her with too much hands-on work with unregistereds is preferred. I do believe that engaging in the discussions implies membership and should be reflected in actually becoming a member. Monikers need not be revealing. Like 77150. A number might be meaningful to someone, but not likely to anyone else. Same for many of the kinds of monikers found here. They are only as revealing as the users desires to make them.

I have already tried to explain the moniker. If you use a phone keypad it spells PS 150, is that more meaningful to you?

[UntoHim]

Thanks for all the input, however, what I am really looking for is not commentary on the inner workings and past history of the Forum, but rather how it can be improved and even more "accommodating" for the participation of current LC members. There are plenty of threads already in place where we can take jabs at the teachings, practices and history of the movement, what I am looking for here is a way forward, for the future, vis-a-vis the encouragement of participation of current members. I never envisioned the Forum to be simply a gathering place for former members, although that is one of the main reasons, and I think the Forum has served that purpose well. I think it is high time that we fulfill the statement on the header banner "a community of former AND CURRENT members". I know this will take some "accommodating" by many of us oldies-but-goodies (translate: crusty, set-in-our-ways and jaded but well-meaning) And by accommodating I do NOT mean that we sacrifice the truth in any way, shape or form. That would be a great disservice to all concerned, and even to God Himself.
Simply having areas designated for the posting of untouched "pro LRC" material seems to undermine the very purpose of the discussion — unless it is implicitly for the purpose of giving material for immediate discussion of the "current" issues. I did want to quickly address this concern. I have no intention of allowing entire threads for the promotion of "pro LC" material. As noted, the LSM already has ample Internet sites for this. I would like to see some threads set up, and moderated in such a manner that would put current members on "equal footing". This may involve allowing current members to initiate and moderate such threads. The way that many of the Forum threads are set up, we are asking current members to jump right into a shark tank with absolutely no protection. After all, who in their right mind would do that? I have more to say regarding this but it will have to wait for later today.

[77150]

Thanks for all the input, however, what I am really looking for is not commentary on the inner workings and past history of the Forum, but rather how it can be improved and even more "accommodating" for the participation of current LC members...

I think it would be more accommodating if it created a unique "unregistered" instead of a generic one. Or better yet if it required you to put in a name instead of assigning "unregistered" automatically. I expect many people find this site and might be interested in saying something even if they are not ready to go to the hassle of registering. These would most likely be those who are looking up the LC for reasons other than being a past member, perhaps a new member or a relative or friend of a new member.

[Ohio]

I have already tried to explain the moniker. If you use a phone keypad it spells PS 150, is that more meaningful to you?

I would never have guessed. Clever mix of letters and numbers to fool the most astute. I guess that was just way beyond my pay grade. Try dialing it. Sounds like a British ambulance. :D

[Terry]

I would like to see some threads set up, and moderated in such a manner that would put current members on "equal footing". This may involve allowing current members to initiate and moderate such threads. The way that many of the Forum threads are set up, we are asking current members to jump right into a shark tank with absolutely no protection. After all, who in their right mind would do that? I have more to say regarding this but it will have to wait for later today.

I wouldn't want the forum used to parrot LSM publications, but rather current LC attendees to step up and speak according to their conscience and convictions (i.e. not relying on what "the brother's say").

[OBW]

I have already tried to explain the moniker. If you use a phone keypad it spells PS 150, is that more meaningful to you?That's fine. Once again, I was not talking about you or your moniker. Instead, I was simply noting that it can be as revealing or covering as anyone desires.

There was previously an "11of101" which someone suggested (and correctly, I believe) that it was binary and in decimal would be 3 of 5. Cute. Interesting. A great moniker. And not revealing unless there is something special that some would understand "3 of 5" to mean. I sure don't get it. That is fine.

And I am fairly sure that whatever Unto requires for joining, even the things that are not revealed to anyone else, remains unknown to anyone but him. And I'm also fairly confident that what he does see is not stored in memory for the purpose of treating people differently. If anyone is overly accepting of what occurs here, it is our moderator. (I'm not complaining. Just an observation.)

[77150]

I would never have guessed. Clever mix of letters and numbers to fool the most astute. I guess that was just way beyond my pay grade. Try dialing it. Sounds like a British ambulance. :D

Every month I have to come up with numerical passwords, so this makes it a lot easier for me to do that, and then the verse itself can remind me of my PW.

[Ohio]

Every month I have to come up with numerical passwords, so this makes it a lot easier for me to do that, and then the verse itself can remind me of my PW.

I have my own methods for remembering username's and password's, but I think yours is better, since they bring you to the Lord. :)

[Nell]

One would be to see some participation by current Local Church members. We all know the reasons why most are not participating. What I would like to see is for us to give them reasons TO participate.

Do current LC members have First Amendment rights now?

Nell

[Terry]

Do current LC members have First Amendment rights now?

Nell

In the United States? Of course! However if they choose to exercise their freedom of speech, elders may and ask them to meet somewhere else. So there is an environment where your receiving is conditional; based on that you do not express concerns on matters, issues, or persons. That your speaking is positive and affirming and not rebuking or correcting.
Here is an environment where there is freedom to exercise speech within the guidelines of the forum. There's no expectation we need to agree with one another and in many cases, we do not.