First Post kumbaya

[Steel]

I prefer the truth.[/url]

1 Corinthians 13:9... "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;..."

Knowing only in part, although you may think you prefer "...the truth..." . . . Truth is, none of us, including yourself, know "...the truth...", much less ourselves, therefore to bold claim "...I prefer the truth..." is just vanity. Even Paul said as much regarding himself. What we can know is the grace of God so that we can experience a measure of Him who is truth. And even folks in academia can experience God's grace... And even speak according to God's grace.

[Evangelical]

I could be wrong, but I don't think you should expect most of the audience here to much appreciate quotes from academia, unless you are referring to the FTTA trainees that may be lurking here.

You're contradicting yourself now. You said people might listen if I had a doctorate. But then admitted that people on here do not appreciate academia, and I guess you provided an example of that by quoting focus on the family, which I do not agree 100% with.

I think a fact is a statement which is supported to be true.

[Unregistered]

You're contradicting yourself now. You said people might listen if I had a doctorate. But then admitted that people on here do not appreciate academia, and I guess you provided an example of that by quoting focus on the family, which I do not agree 100% with.

I think a fact is a statement which is supported to be true.

You kept getting away from the Daystar truth. There's absolutely no shame to admit mistakes or failures. What really annoys me is that you guys deny the history. The more you defense the wrongness, the less grace is in you.

I'm still in the church life, the only reason I stay is becasue the saints surrounding me are genuine Christians. Not LSM.

[kumbaya]

You kept getting away from the Daystar truth. There's absolutely no shame to admit mistakes or failures. What really annoys me is that you guys deny the history. The more you defense the wrongness, the less grace is in you.

I'm still in the church life, the only reason I stay is becasue the saints surrounding me are genuine Christians. Not LSM.

I can somewhat understand this. Although at this point, I've done too much research into the unhealthy practices that any member is automatically subjected too- to be comfortable being close to them. Yes, genuine Christians. But unhealthy practices are causing these genuine Christians to identify their relationship with the Lord and their place in the body of Christ, to being the same thing as a member of the Lord's Recovery.

I feel for you because I can somewhat understand your mindset. But I would just ask you to think about what you're a part of- as a whole. If my locality was separate from LSM- I would probably go back.

I believe you're around genuine Christians. You have to look outside your locality and look to the people your localities monthly standing book orders and tithes go to every month.... LSM.

LSM board of directors include the "Blended Brothers" who exercise authority over the local churches. Make no mistake, the Blended Brothers decisions are the authority.

They are using tithe money for their agenda (that's a whole different conversation). I think they are self-delusioned, many leaders in this type of situation are.

I would encourage you to read about healthy vs. unhealthy practices in churches on authority and leadership/recruiting/accountability/proper dealings with accusations against leaders- and ask yourself if it's worth being around that group of genuine Christians under LSM, as opposed to another.

I'm still realizing the vast numbers of genuine believers the Lord led out of the local churches. Its such a refreshing idea and makes me realize how backwards I was for believing they were "opposers" or "ambitious"

Just pray about it...I've been where you are, it's a hard place to be.

This article comes to mind- it might be of some help to you! www.assemblylife.com

[clever sister]

10% tithing is not taught - the tithe was an old testament concept and one of legality. If any are giving 10% in a legalistic way, that's their business really, and even some might give in the hope of getting a double fold triple special blessing seed, I don't know.

I have been in the same room as Paul Hon while he strongly stated that we needed to give at a minimum 10% of whatever income we had.

On the matter of photocopies of ministry (Or Xerox as Drake has been calling it), yes my locality did sometimes make photocopies, but it was nearly always for new ones. Once you were more established in the LC you were expected to buy your own copies of the HWfMR.

At conferences we were always strongly encouraged to buy ministry books.

And I don't know how many ministry books I had to buy when I went to FTTH. We weren't allowed to just use the online versions (I doubt they were all available online anyway).

And a lot of saints have invested a lot of time and money to support the giving away of the Recovery Version NT Bible for free. My parents included. If I remember correctly the cost is about $10 per bible (may not a bit cheaper in $US). Who gets that $10?

[Evangelical]

I have been in the same room as Paul Hon while he strongly stated that we needed to give at a minimum 10% of whatever income we had.

On the matter of photocopies of ministry (Or Xerox as Drake has been calling it), yes my locality did sometimes make photocopies, but it was nearly always for new ones. Once you were more established in the LC you were expected to buy your own copies of the HWfMR.

At conferences we were always strongly encouraged to buy ministry books.

And I don't know how many ministry books I had to buy when I went to FTTH. We weren't allowed to just use the online versions (I doubt they were all available online anyway).

And a lot of saints have invested a lot of time and money to support the giving away of the Recovery Version NT Bible for free. My parents included. If I remember correctly the cost is about $10 per bible (may not a bit cheaper in $US). Who gets that $10?


A devotional book goes for about 6-8 weeks. That's no more than 10 books a year. At $10 each that's only $100 per year. Hardly a burden for most. Anyway, I always buy the online version, it's only about $5. So yes, if you are new, or forgetful, a copy may be done, but I think it's right to pay for them eventually.

[Ohio]

I have been in the same room as Paul Hon while he strongly stated that we needed to give at a minimum 10% of whatever income we had.
Forget about 10%, the Blendeds have even commented that the entire LC offerings belongs to LSM.

In context, they mentioned how W. Nee had all the saints "hand over" everything they owned to his ministry.

Pretty scary. Pretty arrogant. Pretty deceptive.

[clever sister]

A devotional book goes for about 6-8 weeks. That's no more than 10 books a year. At $10 each that's only $100 per year. Hardly a burden for most. Anyway, I always buy the online version, it's only about $5. So yes, if you are new, or forgetful, a copy may be done, but I think it's right to pay for them eventually.

I wasn't talking about the HWfMR.

I was talking about the money (and time) my parents have poured into the "Free Bible" work the LSM promotes around the world. LSM prints the bibles themselves, yes, there would be some cost associated with that, but I doubt it is $10.

If they are really doing it to further the Word of God, wouldn't the provide the bibles at cost?

Maybe I am naive and under appreciate the cost of materials in actually producing the free Recovery Version bible.

[clever sister]

I wasn't talking about the HWfMR.

I was talking about the money (and time) my parents have poured into the "Free Bible" work the LSM promotes around the world. LSM prints the bibles themselves, yes, there would be some cost associated with that, but I doubt it is $10.

If they are really doing it to further the Word of God, wouldn't the provide the bibles at cost?

Maybe I am naive and under appreciate the cost of materials in actually producing the free Recovery Version bible.

Don't get me wrong, I know my parents gave to this cause voluntarily and they truly believed that these bibles would help get people saved.

But I just wonder at LSM's intentions at starting this work.

Was it for the Lord's work, or was it another way to get more money out of people like my parents who already had several RV versions, already had the entire Life study series and probably owned every ministry book published by LSM already?
Maybe they weren't happy only getting $100 a year from my parents via HWfMR (plus whatever my parents were giving to the local LC).

[Evangelical]

I wasn't talking about the HWfMR.

I was talking about the money (and time) my parents have poured into the "Free Bible" work the LSM promotes around the world. LSM prints the bibles themselves, yes, there would be some cost associated with that, but I doubt it is $10.

If they are really doing it to further the Word of God, wouldn't the provide the bibles at cost?

Maybe I am naive and under appreciate the cost of materials in actually producing the free Recovery Version bible.

Why doesn't Zondervan do that as well?

[kumbaya]

Why doesn't Zondervan do that as well?

Not the point. I’m sure there are others that are exploitive as well.

[Evangelical]

Not the point. I’m sure there are others that are exploitive as well.

Let's put this another way.

Who else besides LSM gives out free bibles? Probably some organizations give out KJV's for free.
Now who gives out free study bibles with footnotes?

[Ohio]

Let's put this another way.

Who else besides LSM gives out free bibles? Probably some organizations give out KJV's for free.
Now who gives out free study bibles with footnotes?

Numerous agencies, like Gideon's, give away free Bibles.

The last free Bible I received, I really like. It is the WEB version, the World English Bible, an excellent translation, much better than the Recovery Version.

I wonder if LSM's BFA campaign is giving away free Bibles with footnotes, or free Footnotes with a Bible?

[Koinonia]

Let's put this another way.

Who else besides LSM gives out free bibles? Probably some organizations give out KJV's for free.
Now who gives out free study bibles with footnotes?

"Footnotes" are somebody's opinion. What's so special about a "study bible with footnotes."

[Drake]

"Footnotes" are somebody's opinion. What's so special about a "study bible with footnotes."

Footnotes, also known as “critical apparatus” among Bible scholars, aid the reader to understand the meaning of the text.

Of course, critical apparatus or footnotes, are the opinion of the writer of the footnotes. For that matter, even the New Testament we own today, even just the text by itself, is the opinion of the translator of a particular version we are reading.

Drake

[kumbaya]

"Footnotes" are somebody's opinion. What's so special about a "study bible with footnotes."

Exactly. Especially when the goal isn't to tell you everyone's interpretation of certain things- just the ones Witness Lee "borrowed" from the people he picked and chose to "stand on the shoulders of."

We'll just have to agree to disagree how great it is to hand out a Bible with the footnotes of WL. I personally believe just the Bible would be preferred by God.

We're all entitled to our own opinions though.

[kumbaya]

Forget about 10%, the Blendeds have even commented that the entire LC offerings belongs to LSM.

In context, they mentioned how W. Nee had all the saints "hand over" everything they owned to his ministry.

Pretty scary. Pretty arrogant. Pretty deceptive.

Pretty scary indeed! When did they say this? Is there a record of it?

[Ohio]

Pretty scary indeed! When did they say this? Is there a record of it?

During the so-called "New Way" movement in Taipei during the late 80's.

It was spoken by Blendeds, doubt if it is in a book.

[aron]

Why doesn't Zondervan do that as well?
Suppose Zondervan held to a "One Publication" policy, denying the validity of anyone else's published efforts. Then you'd start to get an idea of how bad the LSM and its disguised recruiting arms really are.

[Evangelical]

"Footnotes" are somebody's opinion. What's so special about a "study bible with footnotes."

Study bibles are expensive.

[Evangelical]

Exactly. Especially when the goal isn't to tell you everyone's interpretation of certain things- just the ones Witness Lee "borrowed" from the people he picked and chose to "stand on the shoulders of."

We'll just have to agree to disagree how great it is to hand out a Bible with the footnotes of WL. I personally believe just the Bible would be preferred by God.

We're all entitled to our own opinions though.

That's like saying "I believe just the Bible written in latin would be preferred by God" because, you know, of the opinions of the English translators.... yet Footnotes make it even more understandable.

[Ohio]

Study bibles are expensive.

Being "expensive" is not related to its "worth."

[Ohio]

That's like saying "I believe just the Bible written in latin would be preferred by God" because, you know, of the opinions of the English translators.... yet Footnotes make it even more understandable.

Textual footnotes are acceptable, but opinioned footnotes may not be.

[Drake]

Textual footnotes are acceptable, but opinioned footnotes may not be.

Text are opinions. Footnotes clarify the opinion. Study Bibles often incorporate both.

Here's one for KJV for those who prefer it.

https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=600341&actual_sku=600341&slide=2

Drake

[Drake]

That's like saying "I believe just the Bible written in latin would be preferred by God" because, you know, of the opinions of the English translators.... yet Footnotes make it even more understandable.

Right. Or, like those who say the KJV is the only legitimate translation because it is the text we have received.

:rolleyes:

[aron]

. . . yet Footnotes make it even more understandable.RecV footnotes show us WL's interpretations, some of which are questionable at best.

Scripture says, "All have sinned and fallen short", and the NT writers quoted this. But the NT writer didn't expect us to include Jesus Christ in the "all are sinners" metric, did they? Yet that is just what WL suggests when he rejects the prophetic utterance in the Psalms, writing that since the psalmist was a sinner, the words are vain.

Now, I would question such logic as ignoring Christ while the NT authors encourage us to fix our minds and hearts on Him.

[clever sister]

That's like saying "I believe just the Bible written in latin would be preferred by God" because, you know, of the opinions of the English translators.... yet Footnotes make it even more understandable.

Bibles in Latin are also translations. :D

[aron]

Right. Or, like those who say the KJV is the only legitimate translation because it is the text we have received.

Right. Or, like those who say there is One Publication Policy, because, well . . . to avoid confusion. . . you know.

I noted that in one place the RecV footnotes show the psalmist crushing the skull of his enemy, and dipping his feet in his blood, as being Christ in His victory over Satan. Yet elsewhere in psalm such sentiments are panned in footnotes as unchristian and not revelatory, but "fallen human concept."

When I pointed out the discrepancy, Evangelical replied, "Perhaps this is so" but the footnotes fo not say 'perhaps', nor do the Lords Recovery leaders allow members to question ministry assertions, no matter how contradictory they appear to be.

[Drake]

-1

“Right. Or, like those who say there is One Publication Policy, because, well . . . to avoid confusion. . . you know.”

aron,

You are confounding, as is typical, “one publication” with “one’s reading”. A ministry will publish what they believe is according to their ministry and readers will read whatever they want to. Both sides are free to make that choice in free societies.

Yet, I don’t believe you really give a hoot about the one publication you just use it as a hammer to drive pet peeve nails. Seriously, how many Titus Chu or Dong books are on your personal book shelf right now? Count them. Honestly, how many of either of those author’s books have you even read?

I suspect zero.... to avoid confusion... we’ll, you know.

Drake

[Ohio]

-1

“Right. Or, like those who say there is One Publication Policy, because, well . . . to avoid confusion. . . you know.”

aron,

You are confounding, as is typical, “one publication” with “one’s reading”. A ministry will publish what they believe is according to their ministry and readers will read whatever they want to. Both sides are free to make that choice in free societies.

Yet, I don’t believe you really give a hoot about the one publication you just use it as a hammer to drive pet peeve nails. Seriously, how many Titus Chu or Dong books are on your personal book shelf right now? Count them. Honestly, how many of either of those author’s books have you even read?

I suspect zero.... to avoid confusion... we’ll, you know.

Drake

Shall I also count how many Witness Lee books I have on my shelf?

[aron]

Shall I also count how many Witness Lee books I have on my shelf?
I don't have any Milton or Shakespeare either, but I object to any "Farenheit 451" dystopian regime telling me whether or not they can be on my shelves. You know, to avoid confusion. If people read the wrong books they might get ideas, and book sales might drop.

Yes, Drake has me pegged clean - it is a pet peeve of mine. I object to anyone dominating the flock, telling us what we can and can't think, what we can and can't publish, what we can and can't say in gatherings of the faithful.

And it's a peeve of mine just as "KJV only" is with Drake, and for the same reason - it's institutionalized stupidity. God gave us hearts and also brains.

Back to the RecV footnote issue - it's not just that they are apparently contradictory, and arguably questionable. It's that this "reading", as Drake calls it, is placed in these captive assemblies as if it were from God. It cannot be questioned, examined critically, or potentially be subject to correction. As soon as one does that with the ministry, and begins to treat it like the output of any other author, the whole house of cards might come tumbling down.

In that sense it is exactly like the 'KJV only' issue. God's oracle has spoken; how dare we mortals question?

[Ohio]

I don't have any Milton or Shakespeare either, but I object to any "Farenheit 451" dystopian regime telling me whether or not they can be on my shelves. You know, to avoid confusion. If people read the wrong books they might get ideas, and book sales might drop.

I'm here thinking about how far we should go without hijacking Kumbaya's thread, so I looked at her 1st two posts -- LSM selling books and LSM dominating everything -- and determined we are right on topic. So many recent posts on this forum are about LC oppression and bandage, whether it be what books can be read or who to marry and spend your life with.

The "good news" gospel of Jesus Christ is all about liberty, setting the prisoners free. We could summarize the chief complaint about the recovery is stealing that liberty and returning us to bondage. As a young person back in the 70's, I was captivated by the liberty and joy of the Spirit. In Christ I had a liberty never before even thought of. How things have changed!

Paul rebuked Peter in Antipas (Gal 2.11) for returning to bondage. He concluded his rebuke saying, "For if I rebuild what I tore down, I make myself a transgressor." (2.18) Isn't this exactly what those in Anaheim have done? They rebuilt what they once tore down, and now we are here exposing their transgressions.

[Drake]

Yes, Drake has me pegged clean - it is a pet peeve of mine. I object to anyone dominating the flock, telling us what we can and can't think, what we can and can't publish, what we can and can't say in gatherings of the faithful.



Here the thing aron.

You can publish whatever pleases your pea-pickin heart. You just can't publish something and claim it is part of a ministry if that ministry determines it is not. That is the exclusive right of the ministry.

Just like if you wrote a song and published it as a "Lennon-McCartney" tune. You can't do that.

The Living Stream Ministry is not obligated to publish anyone's writings nor are they bound to let authors publish under their banner. You may not like it but it doesn't really matter if you do or not because it is not your area of responsibility. You can go to Zondervan and ask them to publish your writings.... good luck with that. Or you can go to Titus Chu and ask him to publish your writings under his banner... good luck that too.

As for control, who is controlling you? Besides, given full liberty to read the authors who LSM determined not to publish you have not read a single one of them even though they have published their own books. Why not? Were they not worthy to you? If LSM had published the writings of Chu and Dong you certainly would not have contributed to the effort by buying their books else you would have already bought them. You haven't bought even one so why do you expect LSM to print a ready supply? That is why I say you don't really care about this "one publication" issue, it is just a convenient narrative hammer... if it wasn't this it would be something else because you have other issues.

Drake

[Ohio]

Here the thing aron.

You can publish whatever pleases your pea-pickin heart. You just can't publish something and claim it is part of a ministry if that ministry determines it is not. That is the exclusive right of the ministry.

Just like if you wrote a song and published it as a "Lennon-McCartney" tune. You can't do that.

The Living Stream Ministry is not obligated to publish anyone's writings nor are they bound to let authors publish under their banner. You may not like it but it doesn't really matter if you do or not because it is not your area of responsibility. You can go to Zondervan and ask them to publish your writings.... good luck with that. Or you can go to Titus Chu and ask him to publish your writings under his banner... good luck that too.

As for control, who is controlling you? Besides, given full liberty to read the authors who LSM determined not to publish you have not read a single one of them even though they have published their own books. Why not? Were they not worthy to you? If LSM had published the writings of Chu and Dong you certainly would not have contributed to the effort by buying their books else you would have already bought them. You haven't bought even one so why do you expect LSM to make a ready supply? That is why I say you don't really care about this "one publication" issue, it is just a convenient narrative hammer... if it wasn't this it would be something else because you have other issues.

Drake
So Titus Chu and others were only quarantined because they wanted LSM to publish their books? :scratchhead:

I don't think so. :rollingeyesfrown:

[Koinonia]

So Titus Chu and others were only quarantined because they wanted LSM to publish their books? :scratchhead:

I don't think so. :rollingeyesfrown:

And a major issue for me is that LC leaders discourage members from even reading other books. That is control.

[TLFisher]

And a major issue for me is that LC leaders discourage members from even reading other books. That is control.
For me it's making LSM publications the basis of fellowship.

[aron]

So Titus Chu and others were only quarantined because they wanted LSM to publish their books?
The Living Stream Ministry of Witness Lee is about control, at the core of its DNA. Just like Watchman Nee couldn't brook any peers (e.g., Leland Wang), neither could Witness Lee (T. Austin Sparks). Lackeys, sycophants and yes-men only could apply.

It goes to publishing, relations, and everything else that matters. My LC elder tried to hold a regional conference on one of Witness Lee's books. He was told, "Re-speak the latest conference". Someone flew out from Anaheim to 'help'.

Btw I've read books by both Chu, and Dong, as well as Nee and Lee. But that's a different topic, isn't it.

Lee was so good at controlling people, he could say the sky was blue, then two weeks later say it was purple and nobody would point out the discrepancy. I mean, purple is sorta blue. . . as one sister remarked brightly after the latest 'flow' from Anaheim was announced, and sat heavily upon us in the room, "Well, it's the church!"

But Drake has never noticed any of that control. All he's experienced is the 'oneness'.

[Ohio]

Lee was so good at controlling people, he could say the sky was blue, then two weeks later say it was purple and nobody would point out the discrepancy. I mean, purple is sorta blue. . . as one sister remarked brightly after the latest 'flow' from Anaheim was announced, and sat heavily upon us in the room, "Well, it's the church!"

But Drake has never noticed any of that control. All he's experienced is the 'oneness'.
Lee famously said, "Who did I control, I can't even control a mosquito!"

The comment is totally deceptive, as if the inability to control biting insects translates to human minions and lackeys.

Reminds me of those Farmers Insurance commercials. They claim to cover all of the outrageous and the freakish, like being attacked by mountain lions, thus assuring you of their boundless protection. What they are not telling you is that they are not covering the #1 source of home damage -- external ground water. Any insurance company will gladly cover a falling piano or alien invasion; what are the chances of that?

[kumbaya]

Here the thing aron.

You can publish whatever pleases your pea-pickin heart. You just can't publish something and claim it is part of a ministry if that ministry determines it is not. That is the exclusive right of the ministry.

Just like if you wrote a song and published it as a "Lennon-McCartney" tune. You can't do that.

The Living Stream Ministry is not obligated to publish anyone's writings nor are they bound to let authors publish under their banner. You may not like it but it doesn't really matter if you do or not because it is not your area of responsibility. You can go to Zondervan and ask them to publish your writings.... good luck with that. Or you can go to Titus Chu and ask him to publish your writings under his banner... good luck that too.

As for control, who is controlling you? Besides, given full liberty to read the authors who LSM determined not to publish you have not read a single one of them even though they have published their own books. Why not? Were they not worthy to you? If LSM had published the writings of Chu and Dong you certainly would not have contributed to the effort by buying their books else you would have already bought them. You haven't bought even one so why do you expect LSM to print a ready supply? That is why I say you don't really care about this "one publication" issue, it is just a convenient narrative hammer... if it wasn't this it would be something else because you have other issues.

Drake

I understand what you're saying, but I also think you're missing a main point that Chu and Dong, and whoever else cared to write something, would be discouraged to by LSM even if they found their own publisher. I don't think it's biblical to have an elder that is prohibited from publishing their own work outside of a certain publishing company (LSM.)

Many people think they've take things too far by limiting other elders or members in that way.

[Drake]

I understand what you're saying, but I also think you're missing a main point that Chu and Dong, and whoever else cared to write something, would be discouraged to by LSM even if they found their own publisher. I don't think it's biblical to have an elder that is prohibited from publishing their own work outside of a certain publishing company (LSM.)

Many people think they've take things too far by limiting other elders or members in that way.

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake

[kumbaya]

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake

You believe the blended brothers took their control too far?

I'm not aware of whether or not those brothers wanted LSM to publish their work and I can understand if they did, and it was decided that it wasn't a representative of the ministry- how they could be denied that right. But, I also know there was a power struggle with real estate at hand, and can't help but think that was an issue in the decision as well.

But, if they wanted to publish their own work with another publisher, and still be an elder in a locality- that should have been fine, given they were writing sound Biblical teachings. There is nothing in the Bible that I'm aware of that would justify how far the BB's took the situation.

[Ohio]

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake
This is all hogwash!

Titus Chu ministered to LC's in greater Ohio area since the 1960's, long before many of the Blendeds came along. Then in ~2005 the Blendeds got to decide that TC "does not represent the ministry." Whose ministry is it anyways? Since when does LSM get to decide what "ministry" is representative?"

[kumbaya]

This is all hogwash!

Titus Chu ministered to LC's in greater Ohio area since the 1960's, long before many of the Blendeds came along. Then in ~2005 the Blendeds got to decide that TC "does not represent the ministry." Whose ministry is it anyways? Since when does LSM get to decide what "ministry" is representative?"

Yes- all the localities should have voted and agreed to accept the decided outcome with no fear of backlash. That’s the healthy way- right? There was probably blame on both sides but looking on- the blame on the BB’s is clear- they created division with their need to control. How “blended” are the brothers if they only represent one way of thinking? What they did to “quarantine” an entire church is an enormous offense. They try to justify it on “afaithfulword” but it doesn’t justify their actions IMO.

I wonder what would happen if they included a comment section on their faithfulword site? Ha!!

[Drake]

This is all hogwash!

Titus Chu ministered to LC's in greater Ohio area since the 1960's, long before many of the Blendeds came along. Then in ~2005 the Blendeds got to decide that TC "does not represent the ministry." Whose ministry is it anyways? Since when does LSM get to decide what "ministry" is representative?"

Time is irrelevant.

[Drake]

Yes- all the localities should have voted and agreed to accept the decided outcome with no fear of backlash. That’s the healthy way- right? There was probably blame on both sides but looking on- the blame on the BB’s is clear- they created division with their need to control. How “blended” are the brothers if they only represent one way of thinking? What they did to “quarantine” an entire church is an enormous offense. They try to justify it on “afaithfulword” but it doesn’t justify their actions IMO.

I wonder what would happen if they included a comment section on their faithfulword site? Ha!!

Church government is not a democracy. A ministry is not a democracy. Your opinion on what they should or should not do is irrelevant... and so is mine.

But, feel free to carry on.

Drake

[aron]

Sure, and they did.

The question here is not one of right to publish... the issue is representation. Does this or that represent the ministry. If the answer is yes, then all is well. If the answer is no and someone insists that they are representing the ministry and want to publish even elsewhere then things do not go as well. Usually.

Drake

I earlier mentioned that the RecV footnotes contradict each other. One says that the psalmist crushing his enemy's skull and bathing his feet in his enemy's blood is a picture of Christ defeating Satan, while another footnote says that the Christian sentiment is to forgive your enemy and therefore the psalmist's violent antagonism is merely vain concepts.

How is that representing the ministry? Can we critique the ministry and represent it?

[Ohio]

Church government is not a democracy. A ministry is not a democracy. Your opinion on what they should or should not do is irrelevant... and so is mine.

But, feel free to carry on.

Drake
Church government should be a republic, with their leaders approved by the Spirit and the saints, and not some self-assumed oligarchy run by unnamed Blendeds in Anaheim.

How does the President of a Publishing House in Anaheim get to excommunicate ministers and elders in Ohio and Ontario?

[Drake]

Church government should be a republic, with their leaders approved by the Spirit and the saints, and not some self-assumed oligarchy run by unnamed Blendeds in Anaheim.

I see no scriptural support for church government as a republic.

It is a theocracy with the Spirit at the top.

[Koinonia]

I see no scriptural support for church government as a republic.

It is a theocracy with the Spirit at the top.

Did the Spirit quarantine Titus Chu?

[aron]

I earlier mentioned that the RecV footnotes contradict each other. One says that the psalmist crushing his enemy's skull and bathing his feet in his enemy's blood is a picture of Christ defeating Satan, while another footnote says that the Christian sentiment is to forgive your enemy and therefore the psalmist's violent antagonism is merely vain concepts.

How is that representing the ministry? Can we critique the ministry and represent it?

Maybe we can represent the ministry in a special edition of "Affirmation & Critique".

One article: "Women's roles: 1915 versus 2015". Ask what roles Jessie Penn- Lewis, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee and ME Barber might have in the modern 'church life'.

And another on contradictory RecV footnotes in the Psalms, and a comparison of WL's reception of the Psalms compared to the reception in the NT.

I think we might begin to give an contemporary representation of the ministry today.

[Ohio]

I see no scriptural support for church government as a republic. It is a theocracy with the Spirit at the top.

Sounds like a caliphate with an imam on the top.

[Ohio]

Church government is not a democracy. A ministry is not a democracy. Your opinion on what they should or should not do is irrelevant... and so is mine.

If the church was a theocracy as you say, then why should Paul instruct both Timothy and Titus on who was qualified for leadership positions.

Witness Lee said the LC's were a theocracy. but take away the Theos (God) and we were all left with autocracy. Lee had little concern for the actual qualifications of those elders he appointed. Why should he? His only concern was loyalty.

Real shepherds who love the Lord and the church of God need not apply.

[kumbaya]

Church government is not a democracy. A ministry is not a democracy. Your opinion on what they should or should not do is irrelevant... and so is mine.
But, feel free to carry on.

I don't agree. There is no "government"- just the body. The feeling of the Body of Christ should be listened to and seriously considered in most, if not every, situation. We're all members of the Body- so why are we following a few men's decisions instead of Christ in us? What is the harm at all in taking a vote? If anything, I feel if you gave people a chance the pray about it- the majority decision would be an even clearer one- right?

[kumbaya]

Church government is not a democracy. A ministry is not a democracy. Your opinion on what they should or should not do is irrelevant... and so is mine.
But, feel free to carry on.

As a member of the Body of Christ, as someone with access to the Holy Spirit- I strongly disagree.

That being said, your opinion is unfortunately valued too ;)

Kidding....

[Ohio]

I don't agree. There is no "government"- just the body. The feeling of the Body of Christ should be listened to and seriously considered in most, if not every, situation. We're all members of the Body- so why are we following a few men's decisions instead of Christ in us? What is the harm at all in taking a vote? If anything, I feel if you gave people a chance the pray about it- the majority decision would be an even clearer one- right?
There is an administration in the church by a plurality of elders/shepherds and deacons. Never is one man exalted above the others, except for Jesus Christ.

[kumbaya]

There is an administration in the church by a plurality of elders/shepherds and deacons. Never is one man exalted above the others, except for Jesus Christ.

I understand- I would just think they would take the members feelings into consideration when making decisions. :)

[Ohio]

I understand- I would just think they would take the members feelings into consideration when making decisions. :)
I thought so too. Little testimony from my last days in the LC back in 2005. I was a deacon working with the elders for years. A new "leader" had been sent to town from our Cleveland headquarters, and he soon wanted to completely shake up the meeting structure. I pushed back on these changes citing feedback I had from the saints directly. He over-ruled my concerns while the other elders remained silent.

Later on I privately talked to him. At that point I had already stopped meeting with the elders, so he was somewhat at ease with me. In a statement I will never forget, he told me, "sometimes we need to shock the saints." I felt by then that some of the saints had frankly been electrocuted.

His attitude was callous, and something I had become familiar with for many years -- leaders in the LC never take the members' feelings into consideration when making decisions. The only feelings they take into consideration are those of their boss at headquarters.

[Unregistered]

Maybe we can represent the ministry in a special edition of "Affirmation & Critique".

One article: "Women's roles: 1915 versus 2015". Ask what roles Jessie Penn- Lewis, Peace Wang, Dora Yu, Ruth Lee and ME Barber might have in the modern 'church life'.

Here is a recent notice.

There will be a sisters' blending conference for the Northeast churches*on Saturday, April 21, from 9am to 6pm at the Jamaica Estates hall of the church in NYC. In April of last year, over 450 sisters attended. In November there was another such gathering and over 380 attended. A light breakfast will be provided beginning at 8:15am, as well as lunch and dinner. Child care will also be provided but* sisters who are bringing children should expect to participate in the child care service on a rotating basis in coordination with the local sisters. May the Lord bless all the churches in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic through this gathering.*

Would ME Barber be allowed as a speaker at this blending conference?

[TLFisher]

The only feelings they take into consideration are those of their boss at headquarters.
If we were playing Jeopardy my response would be "What is the feeling of the Body?"

[kumbaya]

If we were playing Jeopardy my response would be "What is the feeling of the Body?"

Yes, haha! On the afaithfulword site they kept saying "the feeling of the body" when justifying quarantine (which is the 2nd topic on their page). Who exactly have they conferred with to get this feeling? Just those blended brothers who coincidentally also run LSM? Got it! Give me a break!

[Evangelical]

I don't agree. There is no "government"- just the body. The feeling of the Body of Christ should be listened to and seriously considered in most, if not every, situation. We're all members of the Body- so why are we following a few men's decisions instead of Christ in us? What is the harm at all in taking a vote? If anything, I feel if you gave people a chance the pray about it- the majority decision would be an even clearer one- right?

I believe you are correct as well as Drake, because the flow of the Spirit is likened to blood flowing in the body. There is a thing called the "feeling of the Body". For example our head makes the decisions but it values the "input" from the little toe when it gets hurt. Drake is also correct I believe for the simple reason that God is God and our opinions are sometimes more of a distraction or hindrance, and there should be some limits and controls on who can contribute to the decision making process.

Democracy is a funny thing. There is "true democracy" and there are variants of it, ranging from dictatorship-like democracy to almost anarchy. In a successful democracy there must be a limit on who can have a say and who cannot. In Roman democracy for example, a successful democracy for hundreds of years, only people of a certain class and gender could have a say. This is often both practical and necessary.

In the life of Christ, I imagine his closest 12 had the most influence over his decisions (if any). Since a larger group of disciples accompanied them beyond the 12, and then further, the crowds who were devoted to him (for his miracles or otherwise), clearly not everyone in his "church", had the ability to contribute their opinion. Christ did not, gather His disciples around and say "okay guys, I don't know what we should do tomorrow, let's take a vote". But the disciples clearly had a "vote" such as when they told Christ to send the crowds away so they could buy food. His response was "why don't you guys feed them?". This in itself is a lesson - if we contribute our opinion, be prepared to take responsibility for it. Many people in the church like to give their opinion but do not like being burdened with the responsibility of it. Maybe those who don't like what the elders are doing would like to become elders themselves and show everyone how it should be done?

[aron]

If we were playing Jeopardy my response would be "What is the feeling of the Body?"

That's what happens when you turn you life over to a book publisher.

[Indiana]

Witness Lee – We have to know that today in the church we don’t exercise autocracy, a dictatorship; or democracy, according to people’s opinion; but we like to honor God’s authority as our government, and this is what we call theocracy, Gods government.

[A little brother]

I believe you are correct as well as Drake, because the flow of the Spirit is likened to blood flowing in the body. There is a thing called the "feeling of the Body". For example our head makes the decisions but it values the "input" from the little toe when it gets hurt. Drake is also correct I believe for the simple reason that God is God and our opinions are sometimes more of a distraction or hindrance, and there should be some limits and controls on who can contribute to the decision making process.

May be it's time to update the LC teaching on Nicolaitans - It's wrong to have hierarchy in the fallen Christianity, it's perfectly fine for the LC because only it is the true body of Christ.

This in itself is a lesson - if we contribute our opinion, be prepared to take responsibility for it. Many people in the church like to give their opinion but do not like being burdened with the responsibility of it. Maybe those who don't like what the elders are doing would like to become elders themselves and show everyone how it should be done?

I am afraid this willingness to take burden is called "ambition" by WL.

There are so many double standards in the LC teachings that the "authority" can simply pick whichever to its own advantage.

[Ohio]

Yes, haha! On the afaithfulword site they kept saying "the feeling of the body" when justifying quarantine (which is the 2nd topic on their page). Who exactly have they conferred with to get this feeling? Just those blended brothers who coincidentally also run LSM? Got it! Give me a break!
I watched them at LSM for years "seed" the congregation with their bias against ones like Titus Chu, supposedly for being "ambitious" and "having his own ministry."

Was not Paul and the other apostles all ambitious to serve the Lord? Was not Paul and the other apostles all desirous of being faithful to the ministry the Lord gave them?

This is one way how they "know" the feeling of the body.

[clever sister]

I watched them at LSM for years "seed" the congregation with their bias against ones like Titus Chu, supposedly for being "ambitious" and "having his own ministry."

Was not Paul and the other apostles all ambitious to serve the Lord? Was not Paul and the other apostles all desirous of being faithful to the ministry the Lord gave them?

This is one way how they "know" the feeling of the body.

Rebelliours ones were "ambitious", anyone else who left was "offended"

[aron]

Witness Lee – We have to know that today in the church we . . .like to honor God’s authority as our government, and this is what we call theocracy, Gods government.

Witness Lee said this but his imposition of his 'unspiritual' son Philip as office manager at LSM proves otherwise.

I recently read a website encomium lauding Dong Yu Lan as God's chosen vessel of grace, God's recent 'man of the hour' to bring the riches of heaven to earth. It noted that DYL had ''raised up 900 churches around the world, and this proves that'' yada-yada.

It reminded me how WL used that tactic all the time. He'd point out A and say how it proved B. But if you live by the sword you'll die by it. Philip and Timothy prove that papa Witness wasn't fit to be elder in a local assembly, much less MOTA (assuming such exists).

Witness Lee's practice showed honor to family ties above God's authority.

[ACuriousFellow]

The preeminence of Lee’s writings and, subsequently, the current owner and publisher of his writings (Living Stream Ministry) is certainly one of the most concerning aspects of The Lord’s Recovery that I have taken note of. As far as I’ve experienced myself and seen in the testimonies of prominent figures like John Ingalls and Steve Isitt (and the multitude of saints of no particular prominence), there is simply no room or leeway for questioning Lee’s teachings, revising mistakes in doctrine/delivery, or pointing out discrepancies between his works and the scriptures. It was disheartening to see that these weren’t simply the actions of a few overzealous saints, but the overall attitude of the leaders of The Lord’s Recovery, all the way up to Witness Lee himself.

At the end of the summer training in 1995, we celebrated the completion of the life-study of the Bible through Brother Lee’s speaking and the burden of the interpreted word, not merely the written Word. The word that we need to keep is not only the written Word that we study, read, and pray-read but also the proper interpretation of the Word. We boldly declare that this interpretation is to be found in the footnotes and the outlines of the Recovery Version and the Life-study messages. If we do not pay proper attention to the interpreted Word as the opener of the written Word, we will lose everything eventually.

(The Ministry of the Word, Vol. 16, No. 12, page 97, December 2012. The Overcomers. Published by Living Stream Ministry)

Lee’s writings were put on the same level of scriptures, being seen as the one true and proper interpretation of the scriptures, so naturally they adopted an attitude which saw any questioning of Lee’s words as a questioning of the truth of the scriptures. To take issue with the ministry of Lee and The Lord’s Recovery is to take issue with the Lord himself. I have found that many members of this denomination are unable to divorce Lee’s writings from the truth of the scriptures, seeing them as one and the same, which would perfectly explain their extreme apprehension in engaging in such conversations that could potentially point out either minor or major errors in this “Ministry of the Age.” Just as well, Lee seemed to have taken issue with those who would publish their own works, even if such works were inspired by what he taught them. There was simply no room for such things as Lee himself had covered nearly every bit of “life” and “light” there was to reveal or prepare from the scriptures.

It bothers me that some brothers among us still put out publications. According to my truthful observation, there is no new light or life supply there. They may contain some biblical doctrines, but any point of life or light has been adopted from the publications of Living Stream Ministry. There is nearly no item of life or light that has not been covered by our publications. Based upon this fact, what is the need for these brothers to put out their publications? Because all the publications are mine, it is hard for me to speak such a word. But I am forced to tell the truth. By putting out your own publication, you waste your time and money. You waste the money given by the saints, and you waste their time in reading what you publish. Where is the food, the life supply, and the real enlightenment in the other publications among us? Be assured that there is definitely at least one major revelation in every Living Stream Ministry publication. I was burdened to publish the Life-study messages to stress the matter of life because this matter has been neglected, missed, and even lost to the uttermost in today’s Christianity. In most of the commentaries and expositions there is not much life.

(Elders’ Training, Book 8: The Life Pulse of The Lord’s Present Move, from The Collected Works of Witness Lee, 1986, Volume 1, Chapter 11, pp. 307-308, section 2 on ministrybooks.org, Published by Living Stream Ministry)

Such lofty ideas of one’s own self and teachings is disheartening to say the least, but it also gave an apt explanation as to why I saw what I saw within The Local Churches (a.k.a. “The Lord’s Recovery”).

[awareness]

The preeminence of Lee’s writings and, subsequently, the current owner and publisher of his writings (Living Stream Ministry) is certainly one of the most concerning aspects of The Lord’s Recovery that I have taken note of. As far as I’ve experienced myself and seen in the testimonies of prominent figures like John Ingalls and Steve Isitt (and the multitude of saints of no particular prominence), there is simply no room or leeway for questioning Lee’s teachings, revising mistakes in doctrine/delivery, or pointing out discrepancies between his works and the scriptures. It was disheartening to see that these weren’t simply the actions of a few overzealous saints, but the overall attitude of the leaders of The Lord’s Recovery, all the way up to Witness Lee himself.
The question mark is a serpent,

[Unregistered]

I was nervous about reading this and I admit, I wrote too much to read this morning. I’ve just skimmed my comments and fully read others. Still, it’s been interesting to see my thought process 6-7 years ago. This was all so fresh and understandably traumatic at the time. I had just realized the Lords Recovery met too many of the requirements of being a destructive cult. I was fascinated with learning cult psychology and using the BITE model to examine my experiences. I’ve grown so much but I still have love for this earnest hurting woman I was when I basically journaled my every thought on here. Thank you for the community. Looking back, I can see how important this was to my healing. Just to be validated after decades of gas-lighting is so affirming. If you’re newly out, be gentle on yourself. It takes time and tears- as my favorite therapist Diane Langberg has said.

[aron]

I was nervous about reading this and I admit, I wrote too much to read this morning. I’ve just skimmed my comments and fully read others. Still, it’s been interesting to see my thought process 6-7 years ago. This was all so fresh and understandably traumatic at the time.kumbaya, thank you for having the courage to look at yourself. You have given courage to many. ~aron

[kumbaya]

I’m here to share what I’ve been through bc I know I’m not the only one. We were absolutely spiritually abused and told it was for our own good. It wasn’t ok then and it’s not ok that they’re still doing it. I’m old enough to see the pain and consequences of unhealthy practices doled out on us. High control groups are bad. High control groups that influence children’s development are dangerous and deadly. I know they can’t see it but we know what’s healthy and unhealthy. We were indoctrinated into fear, silence, and blind submission. I have to say it’s wrong for the sake of my own conscience.

[aron]

I know they can’t see it but we know what’s healthy and unhealthy. We were indoctrinated into fear, silence, and blind submission. I have to say it’s wrong for the sake of my own conscience.

It's an intimidating environment, where you listen to so many get condemned for not being with the program. I heard some pretty harsh things said from the podium both by WL and blended minions. Everyone looked straight ahead & said nothing. Nobody protested - "Hey, this is not right." Just a few soft murmured, "Oh, Lord Jesus". Then, silence.

But at some point your conscience says, "Speak up." So you write something, not to win an argument, not to look good, or convince someone of a perspective or truth. But conscience demands that someone speak up.

(When I say, 'you', I like to write in the third person, which may or may not be relevant to others)

[Jay]

The preeminence of Lee’s writings and, subsequently, the current owner and publisher of his writings (Living Stream Ministry) Just as well, Lee seemed to have taken issue with those who would publish their own works, even if such works were inspired by what he taught them. There was simply no room for such things as Lee himself had covered nearly every bit of “life” and “light” there was to reveal or prepare from the scriptures

While I'm not disagreeing that he and the blended bros had this attitude. I have heard and I think read him saying that if someone takes his ideas that he wishes they would at least give him credit. But that's all I've loosely heard about that. I don't recall ever reading him saying that no one could lift his ideas or take from his ministry. But I'm also not saying he never held that attitude either. I don't know for sure

I do know that LSM takes issue with their works being recreated in a legal sense I think. They have copyrights and claim that people can't just reproduce or use their material without their consent. But maybe that's normal for LLC businesses?

[ACuriousFellow]

While I'm not disagreeing that he and the blended bros had this attitude. I have heard and I think read him saying that if someone takes his ideas that he wishes they would at least give him credit. But that's all I've loosely heard about that. I don't recall ever reading him saying that no one could lift his ideas or take from his ministry. But I'm also not saying he never held that attitude either. I don't know for sure

I do know that LSM takes issue with their works being recreated in a legal sense I think. They have copyrights and claim that people can't just reproduce or use their material without their consent. But maybe that's normal for LLC businesses?

Devil's advocate, huh? I can respect that.

[Jay]

Devil's advocate, huh? I can respect that.

I just like to be fair. I'm sure there's a lot of stuff that I didn't hear about, witness, or was privy to in my time growing up in the LC. I know what I have read and heard since goin to the world in my early teens and then later on coming back into the recovery in a serious way in my twenties. That was twenty years ago and I voraciously started reading Nee and Lee in my personal spiritual pursuit and walk. There are things over the years that have seemed odd and some things I read and didn't think anything of at the time, but now that I'm older and have more perspective and hear others speaking from different angles, I'm able to see differently

Plenty of covering up from the blending brothers, when at the time I just figured they were trying to protect us from dissent and rebellion. But now that I look back on it after hearing a lot of testimonies from former members it kind of makes sense why they would say things like "never listen to the rebels. don't read what they write." Which is pretty damning when you realize the serious allegations they are trying to cover up