By their fruits will you know them

[Freedom]

Does the fruit of a practice really dictate how to understand it? Are we really sure that the practice is the problem? Or is it something else?
…
The real issue is whether there is really such a construct or it is a fantasy devised first by Nee and then strengthened by Lee that just does not represent anything that the Bible actually teaches, directly or indirectly. If it is garbage teaching, then there is no reason to need to argue over what is responsible for the fruit in question. It doesn't deserve a hearing on the fruit issue. It gets booted on the truth issue.
Without Scriptural backing, any teaching put forth as "Christian teaching" is in fact false, fantasy, even heretical. Bad fruit is a symptom of false teaching. In that sense, the fruit isn't the problem. The problem is the junk teaching.
Where the string of bad fruit comes in, is that it helps us re-evaluate the teaching. When WL had us convinced that the teaching was the Truth with a capital "T", then we could pass off all the bad fruit as the bumbling efforts of mooing cows that couldn't dance while he played piano. (I think that was the imagery). So the bad fruit was the fault of the bumbling disciples and not the teacher. We ignored the bad fruit and continued to cling to the bad teaching that produced it.

I’m starting this thread to discuss a topic that has been raised in a different thread. That is the question of the extent to which you should evaluate someone (and the teachings/practices they introduce) by their fruit alone.

The way I approach the issue as someone who has the background of a LC upbringing is that in some respects I have had no choice but to evaluate certain teachings and practices by their fruit. For example, long before I ever questioned the scriptural basis of the ground of locality doctrine, I could see the fruit of division that it caused. Before I ever knew what deputy authority was, I knew the detrimental effects of the teaching and how it was practiced.

Nee and Lee have both been evaluated from the outside on an apologetic level. I would ask, has such an evaluation led to a desirable conclusion? I would say the answer is no, at least with respect to what the CRI did. On the other hand evaluating the LCM by their fruits alone could also possibly lead to a false conclusion if you don’t look at the entire picture. For example, the ground of locality has resulted in a network of churches across the globe, any of which a member could expect to receive hospitality at. I see it as a 2 sided coin.

[Freedom]

Matthew 7:15-20
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

With respect to what Jesus said in Matthew 7, something occurred to me. Part of the reason that Jesus might have taught that you can know a tree by its fruit is simply because there is not necessarily an implicit expectation that everyone would readily know the truth or to be able to discern it. Both Nee and Lee introduced questionable teachings that had some amount of scriptural basis, and they could at least they could make an argument according to the scripture for their teachings. Thus, in order to refute some things that Nee and Lee taught can be a draw out process of deconstructing their arguments. Sometimes just pointing to the fruit is enough to refute a teaching or practice.

What about teachings that seem absurd at first glance, should they be immediately rejected? In John 6:55 Jesus made a radical statement - “For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” Many had just thought that Jesus was just some kind of prophet, so when they heard this some disciples who were not of the twelve stopped following him. It goes without saying that they assumed he was either crazy or was teaching something not according to what they felt to be true.

Those who knew Jesus for who he really was had a different reaction as what was expressed by Peter in John 6:68 - But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” My point is here is that some of Jesus’ disciples were willing to accept something that would have been utterly perplexing to them simply because they knew Jesus for who he really was. They saw his works and they saw the good fruit of his ministry. It's fair to note, however, that not everyone recognized Jesus for who he was by the fruit of his ministry.

The point I’m trying to make here is not that every Joe Schmo preacher or teacher who says something ridiculous needs to be paid attention to. Not at all. What I think is that there may quite a bit more importance on evaluating a teacher by their fruit above any other standard.

During his lifetime, Lee essentially said that he was a modern day prophet by claiming to be God’s oracle. Should everyone in the LC have immediately rejected that? I would say that many in the LC thought that he really was a prophet, so there wasn't necessarily grounds for those within the LC to immediately reject such a claim. Looking back, it can be said that by Lee’s fruit he was revealed to be a false prophet in certain respects. His fruit exposed him for who he really was. Just compare Lee to Billy Graham. Billy Graham is well-known almost entirely by the fruit of his ministry. What is Lee known for? Sad to say, those outside the LC who have even heard of Lee probably know him best for the trail of division he left behind.

[OBW]

Let me start by agreeing here. If we have not had the view to the error of teaching, or the understanding to dissect what is being taught and know that it is bad, then the only thing we have to go on is the mayhem that goes on around it. Call it bad fruit. Or whatever. The answer is to recognize that the files following us around is not because we taste sweet, but because there is rotting fruit everywhere.

And the whole argument that the bad fruit that keeps begin found under your tree is the result of the neighbors who keep tossing their garbage into your yard should eventually be seen as suspect. Maybe it is time to take a piece of fruit off the tree in your yard (that of the LCM or wherever you/we are) and discover if it really tastes good, or if it is bitter. Maybe that so-called "taste" that the BBs keep declaring the LCM likes so much can be spoken of because they never actually open their mouths and eat it. Just talk about it, study it, shout "hallelujah" about it, and spread it all over the neighborhood. And then they wonder why the neighbors complain.

[Freedom]

Let me start by agreeing here. If we have not had the view to the error of teaching, or the understanding to dissect what is being taught and know that it is bad, then the only thing we have to go on is the mayhem that goes on around it. Call it bad fruit. Or whatever. The answer is to recognize that the files following us around is not because we taste sweet, but because there is rotting fruit everywhere.

And the whole argument that the bad fruit that keeps begin found under your tree is the result of the neighbors who keep tossing their garbage into your yard should eventually be seen as suspect. Maybe it is time to take a piece of fruit off the tree in your yard (that of the LCM or wherever you/we are) and discover if it really tastes good, or if it is bitter. Maybe that so-called "taste" that the BBs keep declaring the LCM likes so much can be spoken of because they never actually open their mouths and eat it. Just talk about it, study it, shout "hallelujah" about it, and spread it all over the neighborhood. And then they wonder why the neighbors complain.

Of anyone, the BB's know best the bad fruit of Lee's ministry, no matter how much they want to deny it. They will probably remain in denial for the rest of their lives. When it comes to the average LC member, I think there are two types, those who think that LC encompasses nothing but good fruit, and those who are disillusioned, who see the bad fruit, but don't know what to do about it. For example, I overheard a long time LCer call the church life "a big farce". It surprised me a bit to hear that said, because at the time, I really had no idea that any disillusionment existed within the LC.

I agree 100% that the LCM alone is responsible for its fruit. It's time for them to stop placing the blame on "the opposers" or what have you. It's time to stop seeking justification through outside groups like the CRI. If the LCM is so great, that should be self-evident, they should be able to demonstrate that by their own merits. Since they can't, it exposes the system for what it really is.

[TLFisher]

Maybe that so-called "taste" that the BBs keep declaring the LCM likes so much can be spoken of because they never actually open their mouths and eat it. Just talk about it, study it, shout "hallelujah" about it, and spread it all over the neighborhood. And then they wonder why the neighbors complain.
Excellent point OBW.

[OBW]

I realize that the references to fruit are more than one. And they are not identical in nature. But it seems that it is used as proof to the casual observer of the truth of something. If we claim our lives are being transformed, yet everything looks the same, then it is probably the same and the transformation is not real. Yes, we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. But I don't think this means just thinking different things, but rather having our minds changed so that we have the will to do different things. If we are not doing different things, then our minds must not be transformed.

In this I see the fruit as evidence of what is going on inside. The fruit of the patience of Christ is a lack of horns, bulging veins, and one-finger salutes when someone cuts in front of you and you have to eat your brakes. I'm not suggesting that we have to react perfectly and not get hot. But at some point, there should be enough transformation to not then start to act out in response — shout at them, pull up beside them and try to cut in front of them, and so on.

Fruit. (either way)

When we work with the gay guy in the office, is it clear that we think he is a sinner, or do we treat him like we would treat ourselves?

Fruit.

It seems that fruit is a general view into the general condition. It is difficult to assert that any particular item is the cause of bad fruit. Is deputy authority the cause of bad fruit? Or is getting to deputy authority the fruit of other things? Or is it all just part of a corruption that constantly bears fruit?

I am not saying that deputy authority does not bear fruit. But I have a hard time accepting that deputy authority would be the only thing bearing bad fruit on any person. Therefore bad fruit does not prove deputy authority is bad, but rather that the overall nature of the person from which the fruit is seen is bad. In the right environment, deputy authority or something like it is just part of the overall makeup of someone who is under the microscope. They bear either good or bad fruit. Deputy authority is not singularly a person, therefore it cannot be scrutinized as a singular source of good or bad fruit. Instead, it is part of a whole person. It is one of many features. Not all may be bad. But if we have gotten to deputy authority, then I would suggest that it is nowhere near to being alone. It has several more demons in there with it. And together they spread fruit.

"By their fruit you know them." Not "by the fruit you can scrutinize the doctrine."

However, if you want to scrutinize deputy authority, look at its principles compared to the servant leadership that Jesus insisted upon. At the contrast to the constant examples of how the Pharisees were lording it over their flock. At the way Paul said that an elder should be made an example of when they are found in sin. That should shoot deputy authority in the foot because it does not put leadership on top. It does not insist upon a natural hierarchy that runs from the top dog to the lowest among them. It does not refuse admonition from anyone other than directly from God (lightning bolt?). That is a plain analysis of the tenets of deputy authority put up against those of the Bible. With out ever being given enough time to grow some fruit, it is found wanting.

But if I am going to be taught by someone and it is seen that their fruit is terrible, then I don't need to try to figure out what teaching they have wrong. I just need to understand that they are not qualified to teach. Their fruit has disqualified them. And if someone is claiming to be of Christ but does not practice sound teaching (rephrased — live it) then there is a big question mark. I'm just not sure that this analysis ever gets to the cause of the problem. To the details of the bad teachings. Just he evidence that not all is well.

And that is an important principle. We still have too much effort going into trying to figure which of Lee's teachings we can like (talking about teachings that you can't find elsewhere) when we should reject Lee altogether and find a different source. His fruit was bad. It was bad in Taiwan. (Of course we didn't know of that in time to act on it.) It was eventually seen as bad here. And we let him blame everyone else for the problems inside of his group. Inside of his teaching. He should have been shown the way to his seat. Never allowed the opportunity to teach. Not saying to excommunicate him. But he should never have been more than another brother. And one not worthy of the position of teacher.

By the fruit Lee was disqualified. No need to dissect the bad teachings.

But there is good reason to dissect the bad teachings. They are ensnaring many good Christians. Even among us who have left the LCM far, far behind us. We need to be freed from those teachings. But fruit is not the proof against any particular error. The scripture is. And coming together to reason over it. Not just take someone else's word for it.

[Cal]

Although we should scrutinize the scriptural basis of teachings, sometimes the validity of teachings can only be determined by the fruit they bear. Some biblical interpretations are debatable. There is ground both to accept and reject them. In fact, there are a lot of teachings like this. So the only thing you can do is see how they bear up in practice. Unfortunately this can take a lot of time.

Many LCM teachings sounded good on the surface. There seemed to be some biblical ground for them. But they fell flat in practice. A couple of these are deputy authority and the local ground. I would add to them mingling or "having God worked to your being," rejecting all enjoyments but Christ, avoiding friendships, rejecting the "soul life," the New Way, and quite a few more.

Because of Lee's persuasive demeanor, the high pressures of the LCM and the lack of alternative views, unfortunately it took a big chunk of some lifetimes to learn that these teachings did not pass the fruit test.

Better late than never. And at least some lessons were learned from which other people can benefit. Perhaps that was what it was mostly about.

[Freedom]

I realize that the references to fruit are more than one. And they are not identical in nature. But it seems that it is used as proof to the casual observer of the truth of something.

I was mainly thinking of "fruit" in the context of Matt 7, and to what extent it can reveal things about someone or the teachings/practices that they introduce. For me, I see the bad fruit of Nee and Lee as being the most apparent evidence that there is something wrong with the their teachings and the LCM that they created. For me, the bad fruit was the first thing that became apparent to me. Something stunk badly. I didn't know what it was, but I just realized that I was in a system that wasn't what it was made out to be.

But if I am going to be taught by someone and it is seen that their fruit is terrible, then I don't need to try to figure out what teaching they have wrong. I just need to understand that they are not qualified to teach. Their fruit has disqualified them. And if someone is claiming to be of Christ but does not practice sound teaching (rephrased — live it) then there is a big question mark. I'm just not sure that this analysis ever gets to the cause of the problem. To the details of the bad teachings. Just he evidence that not all is well.

And that is an important principle. We still have too much effort going into trying to figure which of Lee's teachings we can like (talking about teachings that you can't find elsewhere) when we should reject Lee altogether and find a different source. His fruit was bad. It was bad in Taiwan. (Of course we didn't know of that in time to act on it.) It was eventually seen as bad here. And we let him blame everyone else for the problems inside of his group. Inside of his teaching. He should have been shown the way to his seat. Never allowed the opportunity to teach. Not saying to excommunicate him. But he should never have been more than another brother. And one not worthy of the position of teacher.

The fruit of Nee and Lee is the barrier that LC leaders cannot get past, and they just don't seem understand what the problem is. It's actually really simple, but for whatever reason, they think they can polish up the images of Nee and Lee. Their understanding of the public perception of Nee and Lee might be something along the lines of "through an exoneration by the CRI will you know Lee" or "by an entry in the congressional record will you know Nee". Unfortunately for them, things don't work that way. LC leaders can get Nee and Lee in the congregational record, or distribute millions of RcV Bibles for free, but at the end of the day, nothing has changed. Nee is still Nee and Lee is still Lee. They are known by their fruits.

I spent my whole life wondering why if we, “the recovery”, really had something so special, then why weren’t more people interested in what we had to offer? It was a question that literally drove me nuts. Of course, the LC had plenty of excuses for this. They might say something like it being the fault of "the opposers". Well, Jesus had plenty of opposers. That didn't stop him or hinder him. He accomplished what He set out to accomplish. When it comes to fruit, there really are no excuses, what you see is what you get. People know Nee and Lee by their fruit. LC leaders really need to honestly ask themselves, just what was the fruit of Nee? What was Lee’s fruit?

By the fruit Lee was disqualified. No need to dissect the bad teachings.

But there is good reason to dissect the bad teachings. They are ensnaring many good Christians. Even among us who have left the LCM far, far behind us. We need to be freed from those teachings. But fruit is not the proof against any particular error. The scripture is. And coming together to reason over it. Not just take someone else's word for it.


I would take the position that fruit can lead to a probable indication to what teachings need to be put under the microscope. Of course there are many exceptions to this, but I think that generally speaking, it can be a good indicator.

Fruit, as an indicator, should serve to give people an idea of what teachers not to follow, or who are the false prophets are. People doesn’t necessarily need the ability to evaluate or dissect teachings. Not everyone has enough Bible knowledge to do this, and let’s face it, not everyone has the desire to engage in apologetic debates. In the LC, I've seen situations where the fruit of those in a meeting was manifested to a newcomer such that they sensed something was wrong, and didn't come back. I used to feel so disappointed when I saw that happen, but now I look back and realized that there were many who came through and didn’t see good fruit. It all worked out fine, because these people didn’t need to do any evaluation of LC teachings. They never even got that far. The fruit had raised a flag as it should.

All that being said, those who wish to dissect or evaluation teachings that “stink” should. Even teachings that aren’t raising red flags, but are being introduced as new teachings should be evaluated. This was also a big part of Lee’s problem. He was prepared to declare whatever he wanted to, but he wasn’t prepared to defend his teachings at length, and he didn't want people criticizing him. An evaluation of a teaching should be enough to lead to a strong indication of whether it is erroneous or not. But I do note that even letting people dissect a teaching can still lead to the wrong conclusion. It depends on who is doing the dissecting. Just look at what conclusions the CRI came to in regards to what Lee taught.

[Freedom]

Although we should scrutinize the scriptural basis of teachings, sometimes the validity of teachings can only be determined by the fruit they bear. Some biblical interpretations are debatable. There is ground both to accept and reject them. In fact, there are a lot of teachings like this. So the only thing you can do is see how they bear up in practice. Unfortunately this can take a lot of time.

Many LCM teachings sounded good on the surface. There seemed to be some biblical ground for them. But they fell flat in practice. A couple of these are deputy authority and the local ground. I would add to them mingling or "having God worked to your being," rejecting all enjoyments but Christ, avoiding friendships, rejecting the "soul life," the New Way, and quite a few more.

Because of Lee's persuasive demeanor, the high pressures of the LCM and the lack of alternative views, unfortunately it took a big chunk of some lifetimes to learn that these teachings did not pass the fruit test.

Better late than never. And at least some lessons were learned from which other people can benefit. Perhaps that was what it was mostly about.

With teachings like the ground of locality, I don't think anyone had any idea how it would turn out. It just sounded compelling and people wanted to try it. Lee provided just enough scriptural support for it to fly under the radar and that was all he needed to set things in motion.

I think we know the ground of locality doctrine for what it is mainly by its fruits. In the case of this doctrine, fruit has certainly been a reliable indicator. Maybe more so than other teachings.

[Ohio]

With teachings like the ground of locality, I don't think anyone had any idea how it would turn out. It just sounded compelling and people wanted to try it. Lee provided just enough scriptural support for it to fly under the radar and that was all he needed to set things in motion.

I think we know the ground of locality doctrine for what it is mainly by its fruits. In the case of this doctrine, fruit has certainly been a reliable indicator. Maybe more so than other teachings.

I and others have read Nee's The Normal Christian Church Life more than once, and most of us knew that Lee never intended to follow the guidelines laid down in the book. Whether the book is scriptural, idealistic, or workable in this age is another matter altogether. Fact is, it was our LC "handbook," and many of the original saints in the LCM bought into the program due to Nee's teachings. Titus Chu tried to convince us, by examining the book, that it was the Blendeds who went off course, but Lee went off course long before.

[TLFisher]

but at the end of the day, nothing has changed. Nee is still Nee and Lee is still Lee. They are known by their fruits.

I spent my whole life wondering why if we, “the recovery”, really had something so special, then why weren’t more people interested in what we had to offer? It was a question that literally drove me nuts. Of course, the LC had plenty of excuses for this. They might say something like it being the fault of "the opposers". Well, Jesus had plenty of opposers. That didn't stop him or hinder him. He accomplished what He set out to accomplish. When it comes to fruit, there really are no excuses, what you see is what you get. People know Nee and Lee by their fruit. LC leaders really need to honestly ask themselves, just what was the fruit of Nee? What was Lee’s fruit?

It's difficult to measure what the fruit of Nee is? However with Lee, we can see since the late 1950's, the fruit is division.
I would venture to say over the next 20 years there will be more brothers and sisters ex-lcers than those meeting in the local churches. What would that tell you?
As it is, times I have visited LC meetings all I see is brothers and sisters I once knew getting older without much fruit to show. Compared to a community church, not all ages are represented in the LC.

[Freedom]

It's difficult to measure what the fruit of Nee is? However with Lee, we can see since the late 1950's, the fruit is division.
I would venture to say over the next 20 years there will be more brothers and sisters ex-lcers than those meeting in the local churches. What would that tell you?
As it is, times I have visited LC meetings all I see is brothers and sisters I once knew getting older without much fruit to show. Compared to a community church, not all ages are represented in the LC.

When evaluating the LCM as a whole, I would say the fruit is apparent to everyone who sees it except those in the LC. The fruit is bad, and the system is full of thornbushes and thistles. For those deeply immersed in the system, their view is colored by the propaganda put forth by LC leaders. A quick peek outside the confines of the LC indicates that it is lacking in many areas. In many regards, they are one of the more stagnant groups out there these days. This is in contrast to the LC of yesteryear, when people were flocking in. I don't say that the LC of the past was anything better, however, I do think the fruit didn't stink as much. If nothing else, the system hadn't been exposed for what it really was.

In the city where I live, there is a newly formed community church that has been around for maybe five years or so, and they have managed to have a significant increase since they began. There must be at least 500 or more people going there, and this all happened within a few years. The LC that I've been with is far from 500 and they've been around for quite a while (decades now). The fruit isn't there, and the growth is rate is next to nothing.

If the LC really has something so special for everybody, then there should be measurable increase. It's as simple as that. When you see the same faces year after year, and you to to a different LC and see the same faces there too, something is wrong. Also when you take into consideration the numerous splits that happened, including the BB's turning their backs on a whole region of the U.S., it really makes you wonder. How long can they survive like this? Like I said before, the BB's can polish up Lee's image all they want, but that doesn't change his fruit. He remains virtually irrelevant outside the LC. I do suspect that longtime members may also be growing weary of reading and rereading Lee. It gets old fast, at least it did for me.

[Ohio]

In the city where I live, there is a newly formed community church that has been around for maybe five years or so, and they have managed to have a significant increase since they began. There must be at least 500 or more people going there, and this all happened within a few years. The LC that I've been with is far from 500 and they've been around for quite a while (decades now). The fruit isn't there, and the growth is rate is next to nothing.

We're on a narrow path. God cares for quality, not quantity. One day they will receive WL. One day God will vindicate His church. :blahblah:

Or so I heard for decades.

[Freedom]

We're on a narrow path. God cares for quality, not quantity. One day they will receive WL. One day God will vindicate His church. :blahblah:

Or so I heard for decades.

They come up with those kind of excuses all day long. I've heard that nonsense far too often. :yep: Actually, when it comes to quantity, even a megachurch of a few thousand in a city of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people is not really "quantity" in my book.

[TLFisher]

In the city where I live, there is a newly formed community church that has been around for maybe five years or so, and they have managed to have a significant increase since they began. There must be at least 500 or more people going there, and this all happened within a few years. The LC that I've been with is far from 500 and they've been around for quite a while (decades now). The fruit isn't there, and the growth is rate is next to nothing.

If the LC really has something so special for everybody, then there should be measurable increase. It's as simple as that. When you see the same faces year after year, and you to to a different LC and see the same faces there too, something is wrong.

In the city where I live, the local LSM church came about by taking ones from nearby LSM churches.
If these churches (who only take LSM publications as their basis for fellowship) truly believe God's move on the earth operates solely through them, wouldn't it be for all Christians and not just those who are in agreement with LSM?
If it is for all Christians, wouldn't there be an increase?

[TLFisher]

They come up with those kind of excuses all day long. I've heard that nonsense far too often. :yep: Actually, when it comes to quantity, even a megachurch of a few thousand in a city of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people is not really "quantity" in my book.

That's the LSM spin-zone. A way of trying to explain a lack. I'm sure when they were filling up that stadium in Taiwan, they were probably saying "look at us". Look at the quantity.
As for quality, we all fall short of God's glory. To suggest in the local churches "we have quality" to rationalize for a lack of quantity is a type of boasting, but really it's relative to ones preferences.

[Freedom]

In the city where I live, the local LSM church came about by taking ones from nearby LSM churches.
If these churches (who only take LSM publications as their basis for fellowship) truly believe God's move on the earth operates solely through them, wouldn't it be for all Christians and not just those who are in agreement with LSM?
If it is for all Christians, wouldn't there be an increase?

A lot of these things are just fruits of the ground of locality teaching, especially the practice of migration. How is a typical LC established? They send a group of pro-LSM people to a city and start a church there. There is nothing "local" about doing that. Things like migration really serve to show what the ground of locality teaching is at heart.

Migration is also where a lot of the LC statistics get skewed. A few years back the LC started some websites showing all the cities they would be migrating to in order to start churches. It all sounded exciting (as it was meant to), because supposedly all these new cities would be taken. Well, there was only one problem. This was all to be done through having people migrate to these cities. This was pure propaganda, because it was meant to create the illusion of "the Recovery" spreading all over the U.S., when in essence, people were just relocating to different cities. The end result might be a bunch of new LC's, but they for the most part they are just members from other larger LC's.

[Freedom]

That's the LSM spin-zone. A way of trying to explain a lack. I'm sure when they were filling up that stadium in Taiwan, they were probably saying "look at us". Look at the quantity.
As for quality, we all fall short of God's glory. To suggest in the local churches "we have quality" to rationalize for a lack of quantity is a type of boasting, but really it's relative to ones preferences.

There is a double standard. They boast about the ongoing successes in Taiwan and then turn around and rationalize the lack of relevancy in the U.S. as being because the LCM taking the "narrow way". They can't seem to make up their minds which one they want. They can't have it both ways.

[ZNPaaneah]

I’m starting this thread to discuss a topic that has been raised in a different thread. That is the question of the extent to which you should evaluate someone (and the teachings/practices they introduce) by their fruit alone.

There is a disturbing pattern I have seen as I read concerning a wide variety of false prophets. They all have a conflict of interest. This conflict violates laws, rules, and norms which they then must discredit, fabricate a story to get around, emphasize their "creativity" over people who are too focused on rules, and ultimately attack, slander, and undermine those that bring up this conflict. You will see obfuscation which eventually becomes a bald faced lie when they are pushed into a corner. But the underlying issue was the conflict of interests. Balaam had it, Judas had it, Madoff, Fastow, and all these doctors prescribing opioids had it. The entire mortgage meltdown was due to this. No doubt it explains WL sacrificing everything to keep PL running LSM. It is so prevalent that I think the definition of a "false prophet" should include the prophet having "a conflict of interest".