Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication [Archive] - Page 2

UntoHim

01-08-2019, 11:36 AM

When someone asks most people, perhaps even the majority of those outside of any Judeo-Christian context, or even those outside of any faith at all: "What would you consider as the 'one publication' of the Christian faith"? I would guarantee you that the vast majority would answer "Why, the Bible of course". But the rubber really only meets the road when one ventures a follow up question: "So you only use the Bible?....you have no other supporting or supplemental publications?"

Different, yet similar, answers will come forth from a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, a member of Christian Science, a Seventh Day Adventist, and finally a Roman Catholic (I'll stop the list here for the sake of brevity!) The follow up answer from the Mormon would quickly be "The Book of Mormon". The follow up answer from a Jehovah's Witness would be "The Watchtower and Awake!" The follow up answer from the Christian Science person would be "Science and Health". The follow up from the Seventh Day Adventist would be "The Pillars of Adventism". The answer from the Roman Catholic would be "The authority and traditions of the Church". (Interestingly enough, a similar answer would come forth from any orthordox Jew - "We hold the Talmud as equal to the Torah".)

Now let's ask any good brother or sister in The Local Church: "What is the one publication of the Local Church(es)?". After giving you a stern mini-lecture about how "the Local Church is NOT our name...it is only a description of how we meet!"...most will set off into a world-class tirade of obfuscation, evading and avoiding (aka shucking and jiving) and just a general denial that they they have any other "one publication" besides the Bible.

Why the obfuscation? Why the evading and avoiding? Why the denials of what is the manifest and undeniable fact? Why do they not proudly proclaim that they have another one publication besides the Bible - like the Mormons do? Like the Jehovah's Witnesses do? Like the Christian Scientists and Seventh Day Adventists do? Like the Roman Catholics do?

Well, the answer is obvious to even the most casual of objective observers. The Local Church of Witness Lee, at least in recent history, wants to be considered as "orthodox, evangelical Christians". They have even joined previously condemned and mocked organizations such as the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. Ironically, if the Local Church/Living Stream had honestly presented their views, beliefs and understandings regarding the personal ministry of Witness Lee, they would have been soundly rejected for membership in the ECPA. Why? For the same reasons as the ECPA rejects the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Roman Catholics - They have another "one publication" besides the Holy Bible.
-

Drake

01-08-2019, 05:25 PM

When someone asks most people, perhaps even the majority of those outside of any Judeo-Christian context, or even those outside of any faith at all: "What would you consider as the 'one publication' of the Christian faith"? I would guarantee you that the vast majority would answer "Why, the Bible of course". But the rubber really only meets the road when one ventures a follow up question: "So you only use the Bible?....you have no other supporting or supplemental publications?"

....
They have another "one publication" besides the Holy Bible.
-

UntoHim,

Your argument against supplemental publications is weak.

I am staring at a 37 Volume Church Fathers Set as I type this response... the earliest written almost 1900 years ago. Should those have not been written and published?

Even those who claim to only use the Bible are beneficiaries of the many writings of faithful brothers and sisters who wrote volumes about the Bible. It sounds really spiritual to say one only reads the Bible but in reality there are very few who do or will derive a lot from it for the simple reason that the Lord speaks through the many members and the gifted ones.

Now if you are such a person who reads one publication and only one, that is the Bible, then good for you. You and the Bible got your own thing going. Yet, if the truths that the Lord has released through many faithful servants were not captured in print then those truths would have been lost. Bible Truth Publishers printed early Brethren writings, Loizeaux printed some also, more recently Conley & Schoettle bring us Govett, Pember, Panton, .. well, I think each of these publishers and others did the church a great service by publishing writings that are interpretations of the Bible. The printing press brought good and bad but at least those ideas are not just relying on word of mouth to pass on the ideas.

Look, you might be a really smart and spiritual person and just by reading the Bible you might have seen everything the Lord showed those faithful servants..... but most of us are not like that. I for one am very happy that those teachings and explanations were captured in print. Now I can read for myself what the Lord showed them and have new conversations with the Lord about those too. They will never replace the Bible and the Holy Spirit but it is a false argument to argue that printed supplemental messages and articles should not be printed. I'm not naive enough to think that what the Lord will reveal to me is everything He only revealed to me directly.

... and a happy new year to you too.

Drake

ZNPaaneah

01-08-2019, 06:40 PM

well, I think each of these publishers and others did the church a great service by publishing writings that are interpretations of the Bible. The printing press brought good and bad but at least those ideas are not just relying on word of mouth to pass on the ideas...
They will never replace the Bible and the Holy Spirit but it is a false argument to argue that printed supplemental messages and articles should not be printed. I'm not naive enough to think that what the Lord will reveal to me is everything He only revealed to me directly.

... and a happy new year to you too.

Drake

Yes. As I already quoted Paul has come down on this argument in a very strong way already. Different publishers have different agendas, but as long as Jesus is proclaimed we can all rejoice.

15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

The Bible is very clear that everyone should proclaim Christ, regardless of whether or not you are an apostle commissioned with "completing the word of God" or not.

I have no issue with LSM exercising editorial oversight. Nor is there anything unscriptural about reading spiritual books, it is all part of "the mind set on the Spirit".

The only concern I would have would be the alarm Paul raised in Galatians: 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

The perversion of the gospel is astonishingly common. It seems everyone does it. WN and WL complained of many examples of the gospel being perverted in Christianity. This forum is examining the doctrines of WL to see if they also "desert the one who called us to live in the grace of Christ".

WL emphasized repeatedly that his message was "different" from Christianity. The question many of us have is was his message different from the gospel?

Also, these Judaizers insist on circumcision because they are afraid of being persecuted by other Jewish religious leaders. It's one thing to agree that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but to teach that circumcision is not necessary will paint a target on their backs. Paul knew that from hard experience! So they take the easy way out and do both. Paul has taught clearly that the two cannot go together (Galatians 5:4).

It seems to me that the perversion of the gospel takes place when people choose the easy way out. King Saul did this when he did not obey. Abraham did not do this when he offered up Isaac. WL took the easy way out when he covered up WN's sin, he did it again with the Sister's rebellion, and he did it again in the 80s with JI, etal.

Ohio

01-08-2019, 09:05 PM

I am staring at a 37 Volume Church Fathers Set as I type this response... the earliest written almost 1900 years ago. Should those have not been written and published?

Drake,

LSM used their One Publication policy to excommunicate numerous ministers and divide dozens of churches. When has another book publisher ever done that in the course of church history?

It's good that you have the 37 volume Church Fathers set. Which denomination has ever demanded that their member churches read only from that set? When did the Publisher of that set decide to excommunicate ministers who did not teach from only that set?

I do wish you would be a little more straight forward and address the real concerns here, rather than going down rabbit holes like claiming other posters are demanding that ONLY the Bible be read.

Kevin

01-08-2019, 11:20 PM

It's good that you have the 37 volume Church Fathers set. Which denomination has ever demanded that their member churches read only from that set? When did the Publisher of that set decide to excommunicate ministers who did not teach from only that set?.

Good for Drake that his local elders are okay with that, but not so with others. I have bought a few books with different Christian authors. But when the elder saw that I had a Christian book that isn't published by LSM, he demanded me to read Lee's books only!

Drake

01-09-2019, 10:38 AM

Good for Drake that his local elders are okay with that, but not so with others. I have bought a few books with different Christian authors. But when the elder saw that I had a Christian book that isn't published by LSM, he demanded me to read Lee's books only!

Well, I believe you Kevin but I've never encountered that and I have observed many authors on the shelves of private libraries of brothers including leading ones. Furthermore, I bought most of my Govett, Pember, Panton, etc. from Conley and Schoettle publishers who had a table at an LSM sponsored conference. Additionally, LSM publishes the works of Watchman Nee that within also references and publishes those other authors works (Jessie Penn Lewis, S.D Gordon, and others) in the Collected Works.

I can't speak to your experience and why the elder demanded that you read only Brother Lee's books. It really baffles me because I have never seen an elder or a leading one exhibit that attitude or behavior in my four decades + about what anyone can read. It's a ridiculous demand and expectation because it goes contrary to the observation above and even if an elder were predisposed to controlling others in that way it is impossible to enforce.

Anyway, here's the thing. The "One Publication" is not about what one can read... it is about what LSM will publish under the banner of the ministry they are entrusted with. Every publisher reserves the right to publish what they feel responsible to the Lord for. I don't see any demands in the One Publication that forbids anyone from reading and owning whatever they like.

And finally, in UntoHim's argument he borrowed the "One Publication" term to make a different point, that being that the ONLY publication we as Christians should have is the Bible. So for you my friend, better get all Fahrenheit 451 with those John Piper books you treasure. :wow:

Drake

Ohio

01-09-2019, 11:13 AM

Anyway, here's the thing. The "One Publication" is not about what one can read... it is about what LSM will publish under the banner of the ministry they are entrusted with. Every publisher reserves the right to publish what they feel responsible to the Lord for. I don't see any demands in the One Publication that forbids anyone from reading and owning whatever they like.

Once again, I must speak up to correct your inaccuracies here. Either you don't know LSM history or you are purposely deceptive to the forum readers. After witnessing your habits over an extended period of time, I tend to believe the latter.

No one has ever said that LSM cannot pick and choose what they publish! They are a business. They can print whatever they want to. Everyone acknowledges this. This has never been a point of contention. This is a manufactured crisis! . Or, as you love to say, a "straw man" argument.

On the contrary, the "One Publication" decree which LSM initiated back in the early 2000's, had the motive to bring ministers like Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lan under subjection to LSM -- or else! The motives behind this decree were no different than the Papal Bulls of the Dark Ages -- bringing supposed "heretics" under subjection.

UntoHim

01-09-2019, 02:44 PM

I can't speak to your experience and why the elder demanded that you read only Brother Lee's books. It really baffles me because I have never seen an elder or a leading one exhibit that attitude or behavior in my four decades + about what anyone can read.
You haven't? Then you have clearly not been in the same Local Church of Witness Lee that we are talking about on this forum. Don't know any other way to understand how you could say something so diametrically opposed to the truth. I don't care how long you claim to have been an astronomer, even if it's for 40+ years...you cannot tell us the Moon is made of green cheese. It just ain't so. Care to restate?

Anyway, here's the thing. The "One Publication" is not about what one can read... it is about what LSM will publish under the banner of the ministry they are entrusted with.
Wow, more green cheese, eh? It's starting to smell around here bro. Let me try to go about this another way. Maybe you could tell us about the relationship that the Living Stream has with all the "local churches?" (of course I mean all the local churches associated with LSM) The Living Stream is a publisher. Got it! Cool! They publish the works of Lee and Nee. Check! No problem! What's the relationship between these "local churches" and the Living Stream Ministry? After 40+ years I think you might be able to give us a rather comprehensive description. Leave out the cheese, please!
And finally, in UntoHim's argument he borrowed the "One Publication" term to make a different point, that being that the ONLY publication we as Christians should have is the Bible.
Dude, are you actually reading what I post? I mean, it's like I'm writing in lower Slobovian or something. For God's sake, my man, the very title of this thread is ONE PUBLICATION. I didn't make this term up - it comes directly from the headquarters of the sect/religion you are here defending! Who said the Bible is "the only publication we as Christians should have?" Not me Kemosabe! And nobody else here said anything like that either. Your arguments seem to be with the fellows over there on La Palma Ave in Anaheim, and not with any of us here. I can give you a phone number or email address if you need it. Just say the word...I'm here to help!
-

Drake

01-09-2019, 04:26 PM

You haven't? .....Care to restate?

No, I have spoken the truth as I see it. No need to restate it. Were I to say it differently I would not be truthful to myself or to the Lord. Not your experience? Fine. Don't believe me? Also fine. I answer to a higher power and authority, that is to the One who holds the seven Spirits and the seven stars in His right hand.

Yet, this thread is about the One Publication document so:

...please show us from the One Publication document where it says members have to read only Brother Lee...

.. ain't there...

Please show us from the One Publication document where it says members cannot own or read any other authors..

.. ain't there....

Please show us from the Bible were we are to only publish the Bible

..ain't there....

In case you are wondering why I am having these conversations then I suggest you read the basenote.... it is about the ONE PUBLICATION document.. it is not about what an elder said to you, it is not about what you want to believe about preferences in ministries in the local churches, it is not about what Mormons, Catholics, or JW's, publish.... those are completely irrelevant and a fallacy (it looks like this so it must be the same thing)... it is not about who was quarantined and the reasons for it...

....and ain't about green cheese.

Here the problem, the "One Publication" conversation in this forum is not about the One Publication document and its content.... rather, it is about the things you think are related to it..... it is similar to a Russians allegation.... no other explanation will even be considered because the Russians are involved... let's make everything about the One Publication and yet when you actually read the One Publication document it says none of the things you say it means. Now why is that? Why is it that you, rather than demonstrate from the content of the document itself derive all these evil things from it? Why, can't you stop yourself from doing that?

Now, perhaps you can cease and desist with all the generalizations and show me FROM THE ONE PUBLICATION DOCUMENT where it says what you say it does.

If not, then you are merely engaging in Russian like conversations.... effective perhaps at generating some heat... but no light.

Drake

Kevin

01-09-2019, 04:34 PM

Well, I believe you Kevin but I've never encountered that and I have observed many authors on the shelves of private libraries of brothers including leading ones. Furthermore, I bought most of my Govett, Pember, Panton, etc. from Conley and Schoettle publishers who had a table at an LSM sponsored conference. Additionally, LSM publishes the works of Watchman Nee that within also references and publishes those other authors works (Jessie Penn Lewis, S.D Gordon, and others) in the Collected Works.
Those people you've mentioned are in the line of the Lord's recovery. Of course they are recommended to be read because their theologies are aligned with the LC teachings. But aren't you missing this: "The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology, not to mention error in many cases. We are not part of organized Christianity." (The Ministry, March 2005)

I can't speak to your experience and why the elder demanded that you read only Brother Lee's books. It really baffles me because I have never seen an elder or a leading one exhibit that attitude or behavior in my four decades + about what anyone can read. It's a ridiculous demand and expectation because it goes contrary to the observation above and even if an elder were predisposed to controlling others in that way it is impossible to enforce.

I don't see any demands in the One Publication that forbids anyone from reading and owning whatever they like.
Here's the deal, let every LCer during the prophesying meeting have the opportunity to share the books they've read.

So for you my friend, better get all Fahrenheit 451 with those John Piper books you treasure. :wow:
And John Bunyan, R. C. Sproul, D. A. Carson, James R. White, Matt Chandler, David Platt, Jerry Bridges, Steve Lawson, Paul Washer, J. I. Packer, John MacArthur, J. C. Ryle, Paul E. Miller, Mark Jones, John Jerfferson Davis, Pat Springle, Elliot Nesch, Marcus Rainsford, Tim Keller, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Michael Horton, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Letham, Martyn Llyod Jones, and the grand finale Logos 8 platinum shared to me by mentor. How's that?

Drake

01-09-2019, 05:04 PM

Those people you've mentioned are in the line of the Lord's recovery. Of course they are recommended to be read because their theologies are aligned with the LC teachings. But aren't you missing this: "The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology, not to mention error in many cases. We are not part of organized Christianity." (The Ministry, March 2005)

Okay... but still it negates the idea that believers in the Lord's recovery must only read Brother Lee. Furthermore, I don't disagree with the bold statement and you probably agree also if you think about because you make a conscious decision about what authors to include in your library.

Here's the deal, let every LCer during the prophesying meeting have the opportunity to share the books they've read.

Ah, now that is a different discussion and a legitimate one. But it has nothing to do with the One Publication document.

And John Bunyan, R. C. Sproul, D. A. Carson, James R. White, Matt Chandler, David Platt, Jerry Bridges, Steve Lawson, Paul Washer, J. I. Packer, John MacArthur, J. C. Ryle, Paul E. Miller, Mark Jones, John Jerfferson Davis, Pat Springle, Elliot Nesch, Marcus Rainsford, Tim Keller, Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Michael Horton, Sinclair Ferguson, Robert Letham, Martyn Llyod Jones, and the grand finale Logos 8 platinum shared to me by mentor. How's that?

That is an impressive list and our libraries overlap on some of them. Good for us. And I am certain you and I would agree that none of them will ever take the place of the Bible and the Holy Spirit's direct speaking to us.

Drake

Kevin

01-09-2019, 05:04 PM

Please show us from the One Publication document where it says members cannot own or read any other authors..

.. ain't there....

From https://thebereans.net/lords-recovery/

2. Writings of Witness Lee — Although pretending to allow Local Church members to read other Christian materials, the truth still surface that he wanted each members to be familiar and grounded first in the Local Church theology.

“I do not feel burdened to charge the saints to go home and study beyond what is in the truth lessons, but all the elders should promote the reading of the Recovery Version (the Local Church New Testament), the gold bar, in the homes plus all the Life-studies (Bible commentaries) and other publications by the Living Stream Ministry. These will be their library books. Besides attending the meetings to learn the truth, they should read these spiritual publications every day.” [10]“My burden is that we must take good care of the young ones among us. Do not bring them into peril so that they will be occupied with the wrong things. We have a pure system of publications which comprise all the main things of the divine, spiritual, and heavenly things. These publications are very adequate for all the young saints among us to have a good foundation laid and a strong standing established. Then they could go on, not to learn more things from the old books, but to check the old books and get themselves confirmed. For us to bring the young ones into the old books without consideration is a peril and a risk. It is not safe. What you young ones can use as reference books, however, are the dictionaries, lexicons, and concordances ….These are the only things which I would recommend for you young ones to use-the lexicons, the dictionaries of languages, and the concordances of the Bible.”[11]
“We do not need to control the saints, and even more we do not need to stop them from reading what they want. As leaders in the Lord’s recovery, however, we should conduct the saints the right way….The publications which can help and serve the Lord’s recovery in carrying out His New Testament economy for the fulfillment of His heart’s desire, I still would say, are the Life-studies and the Recovery Version with the notes. Since this is the case, why would we not wisely conduct the church toward this way? For example, if someone asks us the best way to drive to Phoenix, we should conduct him to the straightest way.” [12]
How long are we gonna finish all his books?:furtive: First indoctrination before other books.

Drake

01-09-2019, 05:18 PM

-1

“We do not need to control the saints, and even more we do not need to stop them from reading what they want."

Kevin,

Thanks for the posting.

Not sure how much clearer this above statement can be. Anyone with pure intentions can see that there is no desire to control what saints read.

As to the rest, it provides insight as to why the LSM publishes what it publishes and it also shows shepherding in the truth for young ones. It would be irresponsible to just tell young ones to go out there and read anything they fancy as if it were all about the same. It's not.

Drake

Drake

01-09-2019, 07:59 PM

I hope you haven't forgotten my post!

Hi Trapped,

Actually I missed your latest post so thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I answered the apparent contradiction statement in post 222.

Let’s pick it up from there.

Drake

Trapped

01-09-2019, 08:42 PM

Drake,

Ah, I see, I did not realize that post 222 was an attempt to explain the (apparent) contradiction detailed in 206.

After reading it again, it seems like 222 is really more an attempt to explain what the phrase "one publication work in the Lord's recovery" means, rather than to clearly explain the opposing statements of "I am not talking about the Lord's recovery, but the Lord's ministry" vs the frequent reference to "....in the Lord's recovery" in the One Publication as described in 206. Can you speak more to the reconciliation of these contradictory thoughts that permeate the document?

My response to your 222 also involved a number of questions concerning prior publications and principles related to those publications in earlier eras of the Lord's recovery; you labelled those questions as "relevant" but did not say anything specific concerning those particular questions. I'm interested in your answers to those questions too.

Thanks,

Trapped

Drake

01-09-2019, 09:22 PM

Not sure what to add for either Trapped.... in 222 I explained how a statement could apply to a ministry (1st paragraph) and the Lords recovery (rest of document). I further illustrated that my opinion might very well represent the majority of believers in the local churches and so in stating my view I could also state it in the plural. However, if the statements read contradictory and are unclear then it would have been better to clarify them. Yet, I think how the statements are taken depends on how one is predisposed. I see no problem.

In 243 1st paragraph I stated Gods truths are His and so anyone can publish. Anyone is anyone. As I later stated to Untohim, LSM are not obligated to publish anyone’s teachings. Many say that they agree with that but then swing the conversation right back to irrelevant points concerning the One Publication. So, I assume people truly misunderstand what the One Publication is about.

Look, I think the One Publication document is being leveraged to launch points of attack on the Lords recovery that have nothing to do with the One Publication. I’ll give you credit for a detailed examination but you realize the dynamic that goes on in this forum right? We could have a conversation but the dynamic doesn’t really lend itself to that. But, maybe if I’m not still clear on my answers to your questions we could shorten the Q&A between us.

Drake

Trapped

01-10-2019, 12:22 AM

Drake,

If you could still clarify the contradiction, it would help me. I genuinely do not see how post 222 addresses the contradiction in post 206.

I have read through the One Pub many times, both with a critical mind and my best attempt at an open mind. What jumps out at me in both types of approaches is the assertion that it is NOT talking about something in the Lord's recovery, and yet the document is heavily studded throughout with the phrase "in the Lord's recovery". In fact, "in the Lord's recovery" is repeated 21 times, and "Lord's recovery" and "His recovery" are there an additional 16 times in other various forms for a total of almost FORTY REFERENCES to the Lord's recovery in a proclamation that claims that its contents are not talking about something in the Lord's recovery.......

Drake, this is a critical point, which I will explain below, poorly I am sure, given that I have had a long day.

Towards the end of the One Pub itself (above the signatories, before the Ministry Portions section), there is a paragraph whose first sentence clearly links "the ministry" to "the one publication" (italics mine):

Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith but something related to the one ministry in the Lord’s recovery.

The entire One Publication also makes it clear that the "one publication" of LSM refers to brother Nee and brother Lee's messages. This is quite literally LSM's stated purpose, so this cannot be denied.

So: "the ministry" = "one publication" = "Nee and Lee's writings".

After equating the ministry with the one publication, the very next paragraph in the document says this:

Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry...

Given that "the ministry" was just equated to "the one publication" which is Nee and Lee's writings, this paragraph is saying that if a certain church does not take Nee or Lee's ministry, that fact does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. Great! The next sentence backs up that point by saying "see....look....we are just talking about the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry.....we're not talking about the one trumpet in the Lord's recovery!!!" In other words, since this message says "in the Lord's ministry" and not "in the Lord's recovery", the restriction being stated here (a church going along with one publication) does not determine whether a local church is genuine or not.

Except.....that's not true. It's not true 40 times over. The title of the One Publication DOES say "in the Lord's recovery". "The Lord's recovery" is the backdrop against which the One Publication is painted, it is the setting upon which is couched, it is the overarching theme from which it cannot be divorced. I am not making that claim in a vacuum.....the almost 40 references to the Lord's recovery within the document itself make that undeniable.

What this implies, using basic logic and human understanding, is that if the One Publication IS talking about something "in the Lord's recovery" then the first sentence of the paragraph would be rendered untrue.....in other words, if the One Publication IS talking about something "in the Lord's recovery", this would mean that a church's taking Nee or Lee's writings DOES determine whether that church is a genuine local church.

Since the One Pub IS forty-fold talking about something in the Lord's recovery, the unfortunate conclusion that this generates, is that if you do not take Nee or Lee........you are not a genuine local church.

It is not a stretch in any sense of the word to arrive at this conclusion based solely on what is presented. And guess what? I did it all by staying within the confines of the document itself and without bringing in any of the actual history of the local churches to support the conclusion or launch an attack. I guess you could say I was "restricted in One Publication"........:lol:

Trapped

awareness

01-10-2019, 09:44 AM

Then you have clearly not been in the same Local Church of Witness Lee that we are talking about on this forum.

I've pointed that out before too. Our brother Drake's local church, as depicted out here, isn't anything like the one I was in. It seems to be to me two different local churches. Because bro Drake fears some kind of retaliation he can't tell us about what localities he's been in, down thru the decades, so we're unable to understand why his LC is so different than ours. And I could be wrong, but bro Drake doesn't strike me as delusional.

As far as the controlling of the reading material in the LC I can only speak of my experience, and that of other brothers I was close to, even some of them condemned some of the books I was reading.

In the c. in Ft. Lauderdale, for example, some brothers held their fingers in the shape of a cross, like expelling the devil, because I was reading John Nelson Darby.

I was a big time reader when I came into the c. in Santa Cruz. At the time I was reading 5 books. About a month or so after coming in, and joining a service group, the elders sent a brother to tell me that reading those books wasn't allowed in the local church.

So from the time I joined to the time I left I was told what to read and what not to read.

By comparison, brother Drake's local church sounds great. But my experience, knowing the ways of the local church, tells me that it's prolly just a bait and switch sales pitch.

Drake

01-10-2019, 11:19 AM

By comparison, brother Drake's local church sounds great. But my experience, knowing the ways of the local church, tells me that it's prolly just a bait and switch sales pitch.

Sorry brother, you've read me wrong. I'm not trying to sell you anything. I love you, but I'm not trying to sell to you. What you hear is not a pitch, it's who I am.

Drake

Drake

01-10-2019, 10:00 PM

I have read through the One Pub many times, both with a critical mind and my best attempt at an open mind. What jumps out at me in both types of approaches is the assertion that it is NOT talking about something in the Lord's recovery, and yet the document is heavily studded throughout with the phrase "in the Lord's recovery". In fact, "in the Lord's recovery" is repeated 21 times, and "Lord's recovery" and "His recovery" are there an additional 16 times in other various forms for a total of almost FORTY REFERENCES to the Lord's recovery in a proclamation that claims that its contents are not talking about something in the Lord's recovery.......

The title of the One Publication DOES say "in the Lord's recovery". "The Lord's recovery" is the backdrop against which the One Publication is painted, it is the setting upon which is couched, it is the overarching theme from which it cannot be divorced. I am not making that claim in a vacuum.....the almost 40 references to the Lord's recovery within the document itself make that undeniable.

Hi Trapped. I commend you for restricting yourself to the One Publication. ;)

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

I’m not done but I’ll pause as I would if we were speaking face to face. Does the paragraph above make sense? Good so far?

Thx
Drake

Trapped

01-10-2019, 11:22 PM

Hi Trapped. I commend you for restricting yourself to the One Publication. ;)

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

I’m not done but I’ll pause as I would if we were speaking face to face. Does the paragraph above make sense? Good so far?

Thx
Drake

Drake,

I am so glad you brought up 1 Corinthians 14:8 because this has helped me so much to see even more how Biblical phrases are taken, twisted, and misapplied.

Those verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are about the measure of the profitability of speaking being contingent upon the clarity of that speaking. The example of a trumpet in battle, just like the preceding example of a flute or harp in a non-military setting, is simply to show that if what is expressed is not clear, people don't know what to do with it or how to respond.

The trumpet is the speaking (in tongues (?) or with a word "easy to understand" that accompanies the tongues) in a meeting. The emphasis in those verses also has absolutely nothing to do with a restriction on the number of musical instruments (i.e. the "one trumpet"), but rather, an exhortation concerning the clarity or the "certainness" of the sound produced. It is about the quality of the sound, not the number of the instruments.

Since the trumpet is the speaking, it is worthy to note that Paul says he desires that we ALL speak in tongues and prophesy (1 Cor. 14:5). This chapter would then seem to indicate that there can be many trumpets, as long as they are certain in sound and express themselves becomingly and in an orderly way (1 Cor. 14:40). He does NOT say that there should only be one speaking ("one trumpet"), just that there be an order to the speaking.

I disagree with your statement that the army is for the churches. The army IS the church.

I can be sufficiently on board with the rest where you differentiate between the Lord's recovery being all the churches versus the ministry being one part of it.

Trapped

Drake

01-11-2019, 05:56 AM

I can be sufficiently on board with the rest where you differentiate between the Lord's recovery being all the churches versus the ministry being one part of it.

Trapped

Good, Trapped, because that was a main point.

Understand that in trying to help answer your inquiry about two apparently contradictory statements in a single document I am conveying the authors (plural) thoughts in context. They are not contradictory in my understanding but they are in yours so this is a conversation to give my best shot at explaining how I see it and then you can do what you like with it.

So, to that end, besides the part you understand quoted above do you also understand how Brother Lee used the analogy of an trumpet to assemble an army with no uncertain sounding as the ministry (trumpet) with One Publication (as the uncertain component) and how that “sounding” is a call to the churches to assemble (as an army) for battle?

If so, from the base note last section do you also understand how Brother Lee made the distinction of an army in a country as being distinct in purpose and function from the civilians though both are part of the same country?

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the analogy. In this conversation between us it doesn’t even matter if you accept the application of I Corinthians 14:8 in the analogy. All that matters is if you understand how the author understood and explained it.

I’ll pause here for your confirmation before proceeding. So far, we have only discussed one of the contradictory statements but once we understand this one we will juxtapose with the other.

Drake

UntoHim

01-11-2019, 08:15 AM

It's not true 40 times over. The title of the One Publication DOES say "in the Lord's recovery". "The Lord's recovery" is the backdrop against which the One Publication is painted, it is the setting upon which is couched, it is the overarching theme from which it cannot be divorced. I am not making that claim in a vacuum.....the almost 40 references to the Lord's recovery within the document itself make that undeniable.
Excellent! Getting there...getting there...and...
I disagree with your statement that the army is for the churches. The army IS the church.
Bingo!

Our friend Drake wants us to believe The One Publication was produced in a vacuum. He also wants us to believe that it was written by some people who are merely employees of a publishing company. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Let us never forget what the true mandate of Living Stream Ministry really is. It is a California corporation whose sole purpose to be "brother Lee's continuation". The leadership of this California corporation is composed of men who have sworn total allegiance to the person and work of Witness Lee. They have dubbed themselves as "The Blended Brothers". These men function very much like the college of Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church (sans the funny hats!) These are the men who produced The One Publication.

Drake would also have us believe that the Living Stream Ministry is a separate entity from "the local churches". This is even farther from the truth than the myth of LSM simply being a publishing company. The leaders of LSM ARE THE LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH OF WITNESS LEE. These men dictate what will and will not be disseminated and "fellowshipped" in the various local churches. No local church is considered as "a genuine local church" without following the dictates from these Blended Brothers. Again, to be clear, these are the men who produced the One Publication.

Carry on Trapped, you're doing a great job. Just be careful of letting Drake take you down one of his bottomless rabbit holes.
-

Ohio

01-11-2019, 08:33 AM

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

Let me remind the readers, that when it comes to "uncertain sounds" from the "trumpet of the ministry," if is LSM which reeks of conflicts and uncertainty.

Let me provide some LC history: After Lee passed away in 1997, Titus Chu in Cleveland tried to work together with LSM according to W. Lee's own vision and direction. Titus Chu had every Midwest worker and elder read all of Lee's pertinent books related to crucial items concerning "the work, the workers, the ministry, etc." Reams of documents were produced and studied by Midwest leaders. Titus Chu looked up to W. Lee as his "spiritual father," and earnestly desired to continue in his footsteps. TC hand delivered these documents to leading Blendeds for further fellowship. To the best of their knowledge, everything was thrown into the garbage. The Blendeds had no desire to fellowship.

These documents of quotes taken from LSM's own books showed that Lee himself was all over the map concerning these topics. His own quotes one day could be extremely generous, and on another day extremely controlling. Take "Publications" for example. Sometimes Lee encouraged other brothers to write, other times he shut them all down. He fluctuated like the weather in Ohio -- "if you don't like it, just wait a minute, and it will change."

Talk about uncertain sounds of a trumpet! There was nothing certain when it came to the ministry and direction of Lee! He often ministered on whims, like riding the winds and waves of a tempest in the LC teacup. It's like he was speaking in tongues and only the Blendeds could "properly" interpret! Lee manufactured crises, and then manufactured teachings to explain his crises. The history of Lee is filled with these stories. The call for battle from Lee and LSM was never positive. Rather every call to battle signaled another round of excommunications!

That's why Drake has little credibility here. Posters like Trapped, leastofthese, ZNP, and UntoHim regularly dismantle his faulty logic built on sinking sand. Read his posts carefully and you will identify the deceptive mindsets that caused us all to flee that system of error.

Trapped

01-11-2019, 10:34 AM

Good, Trapped, because that was a main point.

Understand that in trying to help answer your inquiry about two apparently contradictory statements in a single document I am conveying the authors (plural) thoughts in context. They are not contradictory in my understanding but they are in yours so this is a conversation to give my best shot at explaining how I see it and then you can do what you like with it.

So, to that end, besides the part you understand quoted above do you also understand how Brother Lee used the analogy of an trumpet to assemble an army with no uncertain sounding as the ministry (trumpet) with One Publication (as the uncertain component) and how that “sounding” is a call to the churches to assemble (as an army) for battle?

If so, from the base note last section do you also understand how Brother Lee made the distinction of an army in a country as being distinct in purpose and function from the civilians though both are part of the same country?

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the analogy. In this conversation between us it doesn’t even matter if you accept the application of I Corinthians 14:8 in the analogy. All that matters is if you understand how the author understood and explained it.

I’ll pause here for your confirmation before proceeding. So far, we have only discussed one of the contradictory statements but once we understand this one we will juxtapose with the other.

Drake

Drake!

This is so fascinating. So, so fascinating!

Of course since my neurons and synapses fire similarly to everyone else's, I do understand mentally the analogy you describe. The problem is the analogy draws from something other than the One Publication: the Bible. And in reading the portion of the scriptures that it draws from, the analogy literally just isn't there. If the very foundation of the analogy falls apart at the outset (i.e. there is no such thing as "the one trumpet" based upon the very verses from which the trumpet motif is taken), what on earth is the point in trying to build anything upon it?!

If I took 1 Corinthians 14:7 and said "since there is a flute and a harp there must be an orchestra. We must have the one flute in the one orchestra for the one symphony in the Lord's recovery. Please note that if you do not play in this one orchestra, it does not mean you are not a musician, but who should ever listen to your music if you are not in the one orchestra? There is no benefit there and any sound you produce must be carefully discerned before listening." And the One Publication became a proclamation that the saints in the churches should only buy CDs and mp3s of the music put out by the "One Orchestra". What would you do?

I hope you would say, "Whoa, whoa......hold on. There is no "One Orchestra". The verses are not talking about having an orchestra! It's talking about speaking in an orderly way in the meetings. I'm not going to go buy a tuba and learn how to play the tuba because brother Lee misapplied or overapplied the analogy of the sound of a flute when Paul was comparing the sound it made to the sound of a believer's sharing in a meeting!"

Same concept for the army. If you wouldn't entertain the concept of a One Orchestra based on 1 Cor. 14:7, why entertain the concept of a one trumpet being the One Publication based on 1 Cor. 14:8?

Now I understand other posters' reference to the king without clothes. It's like......."psssst....but....they're not there! The clothes aren't there! The analogy, the inference, the extrapolation......it isn't there! Why is there a big gathering and parade and push to celebrate the king's clothes when there are no clothes? Why are we being "called" by brother Lee to gather around the extrapolation of an analogy that isn't there and that the Lord isn't calling us to?"

It is so fascinating. There are some people for whom all things must make logical sense in order to build upon it. There are others who can dismiss the logic and keep building. I am the former. I cannot do the latter.

Trapped

Drake

01-11-2019, 02:07 PM

I do understand mentally the analogy you describe. The problem is the analogy draws from something other than the One Publication: the Bible.

Trapped, its promising that you understand the analogy ... and we are discussing the One Publication and how the author used the analogy having drawn it from the Bible. Read the last section of that base note.

Same concept for the army. If you wouldn't entertain the concept of a One Orchestra based on 1 Cor. 14:7, why entertain the concept of a one trumpet being the One Publication based on 1 Cor. 14:8?

But here I need clarification. Do you want me to offer an explanation on what you perceive as two contradictory statements ... or do you prefer to abandon that in favor of debating the merits of the analogy.

Either way is okay by me.

thanks
Drake

byHismercy

01-11-2019, 02:20 PM

How about the One Publication is simply not scriptural?

1Cor. 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to edifying.

How can everybody bring an interpretation of scripture if it is 'preinterpreted' by Lee? I know this sounds crazy to the LCers but the interpretation the body requires for edification is of Gods' word, not the word of Witness Lee. And not holy scriptures deciphered for all by king lee.

Drake and LSM are trying to feed Gods' children a lie. The army, Gods' army, is composed of those who hear the trumpet call which lies within the domain of the one publication? What a load of horse apples. According to Drake there are they in the Lords Recovery who heed the call and enter into the Lords Army while the rest of the believers are the civilians!?! I tell you, anyone teaching this is going to fall on their face before the Lord Christ someday and repent for this.

The more I learn about the system I escaped, the more I pity those inside.

To Lee and LSM I say this,..........1Cor. 14:36 WHAT? CAME THE WORD OF GOD OUT FROM YOU? OR CAME IT TO YOU ONLY?

byHismercy

Trapped

01-11-2019, 07:13 PM

Trapped, its promising that you understand the analogy ... and we are discussing the One Publication and how the author used the analogy having drawn it from the Bible. Read the last section of that base note.

But here I need clarification. Do you want me to offer an explanation on what you perceive as two contradictory statements ... or do you prefer to abandon that in favor of debating the merits of the analogy.

Either way is okay by me.

thanks
Drake

Drake,

Continue in your explanation. The foundation of the analogy drawn is unsupported, but I will "suspend belief" in order to hear your explanation through to the end. We can get into the analogy, or other issues that come up, later.

Thanks,

Trapped

Ohio

01-12-2019, 06:08 AM

So, to that end, besides the part you understand quoted above do you also understand how Brother Lee used the analogy of an trumpet to assemble an army with no uncertain sounding as the ministry (trumpet) with One Publication (as the uncertain component) and how that “sounding” is a call to the churches to assemble (as an army) for battle?

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the analogy. In this conversation between us it doesn’t even matter if you accept the application of I Corinthians 14:8 in the analogy. All that matters is if you understand how the author understood and explained it.

Drake, we all full well understamd this misguided analogy.

If Lee wanted to effectively communicate with his "army" of certain saints inside all of the LC's, there are more effective means. Does the US military shut down all media outlets to communicate with their army? Of course not!

If Lee or the Blendeds wanted targeted communications to their "soldiers," there are all forms of communications which are far superior. Think special meetings, group emails, mass mailings, text messages, podcasts, video conferencing, etc.

Silencing other voices, on the contrary, are the tactics of totalitarian regimes. They demand control over all information. They become threatened by other voices, especially those which sound harmoniously and symphonically clear as compared to the oftentimes muddled and conflicted sounds from LSM.

Drake, you constantly claim that opposers to LSM take their words "out of context." Think about what Lee did to Apostle Paul's words here. The context was confusion in church gatherings resulting from tongues. Instead LSM has used this over the years to excommunicate their own people. How does that make sense?

ZNPaaneah

01-12-2019, 07:37 AM

Drake, you constantly claim that opposers to LSM take their words "out of context." Think about what Lee did to Apostle Paul's words here. The context was confusion in church gatherings resulting from tongues. Instead LSM has used this over the years to excommunicate their own people. How does that make sense?

Yes, I always associated 1Cor14 with "whenever you come together each one has" but this interpretation turns it on its head. Now it seems only "the apostle" has and everyone else needs to make sure they are being directed by him. I could understand if they were emphasizing to be directed by the Lord or the Holy Spirit, but why make some man the director?

Trapped

01-12-2019, 10:25 PM

Read the last section of that base note.

Drake, what is the base note?

UntoHim

01-13-2019, 08:32 AM

By "base note" I think he means the opening post, which is is the entire document Publication Work In The Lord's Recovery

To Drake or any current LC member: If this document is only related to what the Living Stream has restricted themselves in publishing, why does it say that
"all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted"?
(emphasis mine)

The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery.
-

awareness

01-13-2019, 10:10 AM

So LSM wants to be a monopoly ... every publisher wishes they were the only publisher in the world. That would then produce a captive market.

And that's what LSM has ... every publishers dream. Where's Anti-Trust laws when we need them?

Trapped

01-13-2019, 02:51 PM

To Drake or any current LC member: If this document is only related to what the Living Stream has restricted themselves in publishing, why does it say that
"all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted"?
(emphasis mine)

EXACTLY. This is why the entire document is peppered with phrases that dance around everything but never define anything or use specifics. This way they can use nebulous phrases like "one publication" and throw it in among different types of sentences to create the impression they want without saying it outright. Saying it outright would be admitting they are saying what they claim they are not saying, but are clearly, undeniably saying.

Again, the phrase "among us" is another telltale. "At times there may be writings among us that could be considered for publication as part of the one publication among us." Who on earth is "among us" if not the saints in the local churches? If this was about what LSM will publish, it would say "....as part of the one publication LSM PUTS OUT" not "...part of the one publication among us."

And "among us" is NOT the signatories (the blended co-workers), since later in that paragraph it says "those who wish to write in this way should bring their proposals TO the blended co-workers". So the "those" "among us" who wish to write should bring it TO the co-workers. "Among us" is the saints. This document is to restrict the saints.

In speaking of writings individual localities may produce, we get: "These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches." Sorry charlie, the "one publication" is not about what LSM will publish. It is about restricting all the churches to only LSM's publications.

:rollingeyesfrown:

UntoHim

01-18-2019, 08:40 AM

Ohio

01-18-2019, 09:06 AM

It now appears that , Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery (https://www.lsm.org/onepublication/), also referred to "The One Publication", has been taken down from all known Local Church/Living Stream websites,
Perhaps they have been listening to our good friend Drake, who has failed miserably at defending the scriptural legitimacy of the "Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery".
-

aron

01-18-2019, 11:13 AM

It now appears that , Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery (https://www.lsm.org/onepublication/), also referred to "The One Publication", has been taken down from all known Local Church/Living Stream websites.
-

Good thing you saved a copy of this document on the first post, because we might otherwise never know it existed!

I did a little exercise just now, and went back to the first post and re-read the first 5 or 6 paragraphs. After every sentence, I asked myself, "Is this something one of the authors of the New Testament would have written?" The answer was a continual and emphatic "no". It kept talking about "our long practice", nothing was supported by scripture. Even phrases like "one trumpet" had nothing to do with the original context, and everything to do with the culture that had usurped it.

Trapped

01-18-2019, 05:31 PM

When this thread picked up a few months ago I did a number of searches on the One Pub and the various criticisms and defenses of it. I had forgotten one point until now, which I'd like to bring Drake's attention.

afaithfulwitness.org is a DCP website. This page speaks of the One Publication specifically: https://www.afaithfulwitness.org/warnings/notes/note102/

On that page there is a section on Ezra Ma, with some brief points about falsehoods that he stated in a meeting in Brazil, and DCP's short correction of those falsehoods. The first correction states:

Ezra represents Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery as Living Stream Ministry's declaration. It is not. It was composed through much prayer and fellowship among the co-workers in the Lord's recovery from many parts of the earth. Under the co-workers' fellowship it was published by LSM.

DCP clearly and unequivocally states that the One Pub is NOT AN LSM DECLARATION.

PERIOD.

So we can stop this clearly nonsensical claim that the One Pub is simply LSM saying what LSM will publish.

Drake

01-19-2019, 09:40 AM

Hi Trapped. I commend you for restricting yourself to the One Publication. ;)

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

I’m not done but I’ll pause as I would if we were speaking face to face. Does the paragraph above make sense? Good so far?

Thx
Drake

I can see that Trapped is just "itchin" so in the modus and spirit of dialogue vs speeches.... and of the spirit of Bereans vs. Diotrephes let's continue here. Thanks for your patience.

To recap... my summary explanation above is based on the contents of the opening post, where in the last section, Brother Lee borrows the analogy of an army .. and a military trumpet wherein the sound or notes/tune conveys the specific call to action, in this case to battle. In this analogy the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, gospel outreach materials, ministry magazine etc. However, regardless of the two most prominent authors, or the other authors, or the variety of "target markets" they each address yet they all have the same "sound" that is, they all convey the same mission, beliefs, truths, and practices to which they have been entrusted by the Lord though their specific focus though emphasis will vary.

I believe Trapped that you will not dispute the point that they are of the same "sound" though in so saying, I'm also certain you don't agree with the analogy, the "sound", or its meaning. Yet again, for our discussion, you nor anyone else are requested to believe it.... rather, it is only relevant that you understand that is what the author (Brother Lee) meant to convey. If you don't think that is what the author meant to convey then explain and we can camp out here for a spell. Else we can probably move on to what you deem a "contradictory statement".

One more thing bears repeating because it is often misunderstood and misstated in this forum. Whether a local church accepts or rejects the ministry and its sounding and its mission does not determine whether it is a local church or not. Brother Lee made that perfectly clear as follows in the opening post:

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church............ The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry."

Drake

Drake

01-19-2019, 10:01 AM

It now appears that , Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery (https://www.lsm.org/onepublication/), also referred to "The One Publication", has been taken down from all known Local Church/Living Stream websites, It is not known exactly when it was removed, but it has been listed as "File or directory not found" for at least a couple of weeks now. Since this is one of the most important, and even foundational, documents/declarations produced by the Blended Brothers, it is doubtful that this is merely a technical glitch.

Are the brothers there on La Palma Ave in Anaheim reconsidering the contents of "Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery"? Are they considering a revamped, edited version to re-release to the local churches? Will they produce a watered down, softened version, which will be a bit more palatable to the saints within the Local Church, and even be presented as a more scriptural declaration to the Christian public at large?
-

UntoHim,

I think you are reading too much into it but in any case, no matter what happens I'm convinced that you will find fault with whatever is done. If left as is you will say they are in intransigent, if they clarify you will say they are softening, and if a brand new version is produced that is chocked full of scripture, biblical examples, and historical validation then you'd fault them for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Christian public.

Therefore, know this much my brother...whatever they do, you nor this forum will be its beneficiaries because nothing they can do will change the disposition of our brothers and sisters in this forum toward the Lord's recovery. Because we trust the One who knows the thoughts and intentions of the heart, He who shines, who convicts, and who draws and attracts seeking hearts to Himself to full salvation, in life, in living, and for the kingdom then it only matters that we obey the Masters voice.

Drake

Ohio

01-19-2019, 11:09 AM

To recap... my summary explanation above is based on the contents of the opening post, where in the last section, Brother Lee borrows the analogy of an army .. and a military trumpet wherein the sound or notes/tune conveys the specific call to action, in this case to battle. In this analogy the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, gospel outreach materials, ministry magazine etc.

However, regardless of the two most prominent authors, or the other authors, or the variety of "target markets" they each address yet they all have the same "sound" that is, they all convey the same mission, beliefs, truths, and practices to which they have been entrusted by the Lord though their specific focus though emphasis will vary.

I have continually protested with evidence Drake's and LSM's claim that there is the "same trumpet "sound" in their publications." Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does the early ministry of W. Nee contradict the later ministry of Nee, but the early ministry of W. Lee in the US contradicts the later ministry of Lee. The contradictions of those writings with today's Blendeds at LSM is also readily apparent.

Case in point: just read the Recovery's classic text on The Normal Christian Church Life. Before I left the LC in 2005, I carefully studied TNCCL and compared it detail for detail with Lee's leadership after the "New Way," and the Blended's leadership after Lee's death. Nothing matched. Let me repeat. LSM's leadership of the last 30-40 years is totally unrecognizable when compared to Nee's so-called "definitive" book TNCCL.

Perhaps that explains why seeking Christians avoid LSM, where one time they sought out Lee because he was with Nee.

Whatever LSM "has been entrusted by the Lord" can only be described as incoherent "noise" worse than the babble of strange tongues. Obviously the most senior commanders in Nee's army (Chen, Kaung, et. al.) could not understand these signals, since they all went in a direction different than Lee. And, during the so-called "new way," the most senior commanders in Lee's army (Ingalls, Mallon, Fung, So, et. al.) could not understand these signals either. In more recent times, the most senior commanders in the Blended army, (Chu, Dong, Tomes, et. al.) could not understand these signals either.

In conclusion, perhaps no human should ever be considered the commander-in-chief of the Lord's army. Only He has the real "trumpet." Usurp the Lord's rightful place, and He will scatter the troops.

Trapped

01-19-2019, 09:20 PM

I can see that Trapped is just "itchin" so in the modus and spirit of dialogue vs speeches.... and of the spirit of Bereans vs. Diotrephes let's continue here. Thanks for your patience.

To recap... my summary explanation above is based on the contents of the opening post, where in the last section, Brother Lee borrows the analogy of an army .. and a military trumpet wherein the sound or notes/tune conveys the specific call to action, in this case to battle. In this analogy the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, gospel outreach materials, ministry magazine etc. However, regardless of the two most prominent authors, or the other authors, or the variety of "target markets" they each address yet they all have the same "sound" that is, they all convey the same mission, beliefs, truths, and practices to which they have been entrusted by the Lord though their specific focus though emphasis will vary.

I believe Trapped that you will not dispute the point that they are of the same "sound" though in so saying, I'm also certain you don't agree with the analogy, the "sound", or its meaning. Yet again, for our discussion, you nor anyone else are requested to believe it.... rather, it is only relevant that you understand that is what the author (Brother Lee) meant to convey. If you don't think that is what the author meant to convey then explain and we can camp out here for a spell. Else we can probably move on to what you deem a "contradictory statement".

One more thing bears repeating because it is often misunderstood and misstated in this forum. Whether a local church accepts or rejects the ministry and its sounding and its mission does not determine whether it is a local church or not. Brother Lee made that perfectly clear as follows in the opening post:

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church............ The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry."

Drake

The trumpet is not about having the SAME sound. It is about having a CERTAIN (as opposed to uncertain) sound. Whatever sound you put out, whether flute, or harp, or trumpet, it needs to be certain.

That's a cute quote but the ellipses is telling. It also doesn't mean much to have a few sentences with an accepting tone of generality that are surrounded by paragraphs upon paragraphs of the dead opposite.

This is what is missing:

The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that.

We have already gone over the claim that the message does not refer to the Lord's recovery, which is a blatant lie 40 times over.

But what on earth does "..when you get into the army....you lose your right to say anything" mean? I can see why you skipped over that. Where in the flip is the Biblical basis for that? All this does is to make sure to shut up the saints who disagree with this ridiculous proclamation but are fearful to leave over it.

ANY ministry that is worth ANYTHING should be able to stand up to opinion and question. The Lord did not run from opinion or question. LSM/Lee/BB's are actually stating the truth when they say "the ministry has no capacity for that [opinion]". Yes, the ministry genuinely and truly has no capacity for anything but blind, unquestioning, unthinking obeisance. It truly has no capacity to handle anything but it's own echo chamber.

Continue on with your explanation. Thanks.

Trapped

Trapped

01-19-2019, 09:23 PM

I have continually protested with evidence Drake's and LSM's claim that there is the "same trumpet "sound" in their publications." Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does the early ministry of W. Nee contradict the later ministry of Nee, but the early ministry of W. Lee in the US contradicts the later ministry of Lee. The contradictions of those writings with today's Blendeds at LSM is also readily apparent.

That's amazing - even if you suspend belief and close your eyes to the analogy that doesn't hold up, and pretend "it doesn't matter" if you agree with the analogy, even if you go with the program, it STILL doesn't pan out even based on the structure of it's own analogy!! Fantastic.

Drake

01-20-2019, 09:19 AM

The trumpet is not about having the SAME sound. It is about having a CERTAIN (as opposed to uncertain) sound. Whatever sound you put out, whether flute, or harp, or trumpet, it needs to be certain.

That's a cute quote but the ellipses is telling. It also doesn't mean much to have a few sentences with an accepting tone of generality that are surrounded by paragraphs upon paragraphs of the dead opposite.

This is what is missing:

The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that.

We have already gone over the claim that the message does not refer to the Lord's recovery, which is a blatant lie 40 times over.

But what on earth does "..when you get into the army....you lose your right to say anything" mean? I can see why you skipped over that. Where in the flip is the Biblical basis for that? All this does is to make sure to shut up the saints who disagree with this ridiculous proclamation but are fearful to leave over it.

ANY ministry that is worth ANYTHING should be able to stand up to opinion and question. The Lord did not run from opinion or question. LSM/Lee/BB's are actually stating the truth when they say "the ministry has no capacity for that [opinion]". Yes, the ministry genuinely and truly has no capacity for anything but blind, unquestioning, unthinking obeisance. It truly has no capacity to handle anything but it's own echo chamber.

Continue on with your explanation. Thanks.

Trapped

Trapped,

Before moving on we need to clarify what is meant by these comments.

I am not really sure we are disagreeing on the uncertain sound vs sound. It seems the same to me.... whether you are thinking about the trumpet of the tribes of Israel at say Jericho... a horn with a certain sound (a ram's horn)... or you are referring to modern military trumpet with a certain tune fit for purpose (e.g. charge, taps, wake up). What is the distinction you are making here? In either case, the sound or sounding of the trumpet in the example is the same.

On the second point, I don't see any "blatant lie 40 times over". Where in the authors explanation (Brother Lee's) of the trumpet, the sound, the ministry, the analogy of an army, is a blatant lie 40 times over? Point it out using the text of Brother Lee's words. That is what we are discussing at this time. Don't just make an accusation like that without substantiating it....we are having a conversation aren't we?.... we have his words in front of us so do the due diligence and show us exactly where. Just clip it and insert it and bold it. No need to accuse me of leaving out something like I’m trying to hide something. The full text or the relevant parts say exactly the same thing. If not, show me where it differs.

Drake

Trapped

01-20-2019, 10:57 AM

Trapped,

Before moving on we need to clarify what is meant by these comments.

I am not really sure we are disagreeing on the uncertain sound vs sound. It seems the same to me.... whether you are thinking about the trumpet of the tribes of Israel at say Jericho... a horn with a certain sound (a ram's horn)... or you are referring to modern military trumpet with a certain tune fit for purpose (e.g. charge, taps, wake up). What is the distinction you are making here? In either case, the sound or sounding of the trumpet in the example is the same.

The distinction I am making is on the emphasis. You (LSM/Lee/whoever) see's "trumpet" and hyperfocus on the fact that there is one and only one trumpet. Where from the verses does the focus on the attribute of singularity come from? Why not focus on what type of metal the trumpet may be made of? Why not focus on what note the trumpet probably played? The focus needs to be what is presented in the verses themselves.......the quality (certainness) of the sound. You can have a bunch of trumpets making the same uncertain sound.....it is all the same but it's all uncertain in the same way. The point is not the sameness as you described, it's the certainness. See my post #277.

I told you I would suspend belief on the analogy but on this point I stopped suspending belief about the analogy, so that's "my bad". You can respond to this point or not.

On the second point, I don't see any "blatant lie 40 times over". Where in the authors explanation (Brother Lee's) of the trumpet, the sound, the ministry, the analogy of an army, is a blatant lie 40 times over? Point it out using the text of Brother Lee's words. That is what we are discussing at this time. Don't just make an accusation like that without substantiating it....we are having a conversation aren't we?.... we have his words in front of us so do the due diligence and show us exactly where. Just clip it and insert it and bold it.

Drake

I did not say the trumpet, sound, ministry, army is a blatant lie 40 times over. I said the claim that what is being talked about does not involve the Lord's recovery is a lie 40 times over. I detailed this in post #273.

Trapped

Drake

01-20-2019, 02:06 PM

Trapped,

Three things to discuss based on your last few points. First, this one.

The distinction I am making is on the emphasis. You (LSM/Lee/whoever) see's "trumpet" and hyperfocus on the fact that there is one and only one trumpet. Where from the verses does the focus on the attribute of singularity come from? Why not focus on what type of metal the trumpet may be made of? Why not focus on what note the trumpet probably played

No, Brother Lee’s emphasis was very much on the “sounding”. My explanation of a rams horn or a modern military trumpet also focused on the sound, tone, or series of notes. I said more about the trumpet than Brother Lee did in the opening post but the analogy was never about type of metal or things you mentioned. By singularity you mean why can’t there be many trumpets... why just one.... using the analogy of an army on the field of battle having many trumpets blasting out different tunes and sounds would cause confusion and disarray.

Again, you may not agree with the analogy but that is plainly what Brother Lee said.

Drake

Trapped

01-20-2019, 07:04 PM

Trapped,

Three things to discuss based on your last few points. First, this one.

No, Brother Lee’s emphasis was very much on the “sounding”. My explanation of a rams horn or a modern military trumpet also focused on the sound, tone, or series of notes. I said more about the trumpet than Brother Lee did in the opening post but the analogy was never about type of metal or things you mentioned. By singularity you mean why can’t there be many trumpets... why just one.... using the analogy of an army on the field of battle having many trumpets blasting out different tunes and sounds would cause confusion and disarray.

Again, you may not agree with the analogy but that is plainly what Brother Lee said.

Drake

Drake,

Okay, I guess we'll get into the trumpet analogy then.

Have you ever attended an orchestra performance? At every one I've ever been to there is a moment before things get started where all the instruments come together into one certain mind-soothing note which silences the entire concert hall and tells everyone exactly what is going on. If you say there can be no certain sounding unless there is only one trumpet and one trumpet only, then you are focusing on the number. You are making the mistake that having more than one trumpet automatically means that there are different tunes and sounds causing confusion.

However, since that example is an orchestra rather than a battle, I'd like to point you to Joshua 6:8, 13, and 16, which do speak of battle:

6 Then when Joshua had spoken to the people, the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams' horns before Jehovah passed on and blew the trumpets...
13 And the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams' horns went before the Ark of Jehovah, continually blowing the trumpets; and the armed men went before them, and the rearguard went after the Ark of Jehovah, the trumpets continually blowing.
16 And at the seventh time the priests blew the trumpets, and Joshua said to the people, Shout! For Jehovah has given you the city.

Here there are seven priests blowing seven trumpets......why isn't the army confused by there being more than one trumpet? All I see is victory.

But we can go back to 1 Corinthians 14 if you want. Verse 8 starts out, "For also if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound..." Verse 10 says, "There are perhaps many kind of voices in the world, and not one is without significance."

Brother Lee's footnote on "voices" says, "In Greek the same as sound in vv. 7-8." Since Paul grants that there are many voices, all of which are significant, and "voices" in 10 is the same as "sound" in 8......then there are many sounds.

There is not just one sound. There is not just one trumpet. Each person speaking is a trumpet, and that speaking should be clear in its utterance. In the analogy, each person's individual speaking is the blowing of their own trumpet "to battle". There is not only one trumpet.

What is the sounding anyway? Is it Christ and Him crucified? Is it the gospel of the kingdom being preached? I hope so. The Bible doesn't speak of a publication or a recovery that needs to be sounded.

Trapped

P.S. It's not a matter of agreeing with the analogy. It is not like the analogy holds water and I just don't agree with it. The analogy holds water like a sieve so there's nothing to even begin to agree with.

Drake

01-21-2019, 09:42 AM

mHave you ever attended an orchestra performance?

However, since that example is an orchestra rather than a battle, I'd like to point you to Joshua 6:8, 13, and 16, which do speak of battle:

6 Then when Joshua had spoken to the people, the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams' horns before Jehovah passed on and blew the trumpets...
13 And the seven priests carrying the seven trumpets of rams' horns went before the Ark of Jehovah, continually blowing the trumpets; and the armed men went before them, and the rearguard went after the Ark of Jehovah, the trumpets continually blowing.
16 And at the seventh time the priests blew the trumpets, and Joshua said to the people, Shout! For Jehovah has given you the city.

Here there are seven priests blowing seven trumpets......why isn't the army confused by there being more than one trumpet? All I see is victory....

.....There is not just one sound. There is not just one trumpet. Each person speaking is a trumpet, and that speaking should be clear in its utterance. In the analogy, each person's individual speaking is the blowing of their own trumpet "to battle". There is not only one trumpet.

Okay Trapped. As long as we understand what the author (Brother Lee) actually said then our conversation is progressing to gain the clarity needed for the rest of the conversation.... if you want to debate the merits of the analogy that is fine too.... yet I don't want to argue but I'll offer my view on your points above.

An orchestra is a fine analogy.... for something else... not a call to battle. In a battle there are certain instruments used to mobilize the troops. Could be a trumpet as the US Calvary used, or a fife and drum as the early American troops used, and those sounds are rehearsed to insure when a soldier hears the sound especially in the heat of battle they know what it means, they know what to do, fight or retreat, assemble.... or take some specific battle action.... as occurred at Jericho....

....., when you say that there were 7 trumpets used at Jericho you are absolutely correct, there were 7 and yet that is a very good example of what multiple trumpets in battle should do... they all sounded out at the same moment and gave the same call for the army to shout in unison.They were not confused precisely because every trumpet issued the same sound, the same implied command (to shout), at the same moment, and as a result the children of Israel were victorious:

"... and when the people heard the trumpet sound, the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat..." Joshua 6:20

That wasn't an orchestra tuning up out there outside Jericho.... though I can imagine an orchestra as a fine analogy for something else but not for what Brother Lee was conveying concerning a call to arms, an enjoining in battle, etc.. Though there were 7 trumpets blowing at Jericho... they produced one sound... "the trumpet sound".... as underlined above, so there was no uncertain sound even though there were 7 trumpets. They all made the one trumpet sound. Not the sound of 6 trumpets and a harmonica.... or 5 trumpets and 2 maracas, or 4 trumpets with 3 others coming from street instruments by Willy and the Po Boys. The whole point of 7 ram's horns is that they were identical in form and function and sound in every way.

I'm not objecting to someone using the analogy of an orchestra... I probably used it myself somewhere along the way.... but that is not the analogy that Brother Lee used so if we want to understand what he meant then we need to explore what he actually said.

Drake

Ohio

01-21-2019, 10:22 AM

We should ask ourselves when does the New Testament ever suggest that one minister on earth possesses the right to call God's people to battle? On the contrary, Paul uses this example of battle trumpets (I Corin. 14.6-11) to expose the reckless practice of tongues in the gatherings of the Corinthian church. Remember this biblical principle: Context is crucial!

Is not this what the Popes have done for centuries, wrongly using Old Testament patterns? Protestant evangelicals have been protesting this false assumption of spiritual power since the Dark Ages. And is it not this false assumption of spiritual power by Rome which thrust the Western world into the Dark Ages.

Moses was never a pattern for a minister or an apostle of the NT church. The Bible clearly tells us that Moses was a notable type of Jesus Christ, our heavenly Prophet, Apostle, and Builder of God's house. (Deut 18.15-19; Acts 3.18-23; Hebrews 3.1-6) Please read the scriptures here!

Both Witness Lee, the Blendeds, and Drake have all erred here. They take a verse out of context and then use it to exalt their "commander-in-chief," bestowing on him certain powers far outside the boundaries of the New Testament. Not only has this practice continually divided the church, but has served to damage thousands of God's children. They have abused and misused this one verse, taken out of context, to exalt themselves, make up this One Publication Edict Bull, and damage thousands of God's people.

UntoHim

01-21-2019, 10:51 AM

..the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique

So Mary McDonough's writings are part of the One Publication? So Jessie Penn-Lewis' writings are part of the One Publication? So the writings of the contributors to Affirmation & Critique are part of the One Publication? Not exclusively Witness Lee and Watchman Nee? You need to inform the Blended Brothers of this new revelation! I'm sure our friend Drake is going to try to wiggle out of his faux pas by playing this newfangled "same genre" card, but this thread is not about publications "that are of the same genre"...no sir...the One Publication is the speakings and writings of Witness Lee (and a scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee). And even IF other writings were to be considered, they would have to be officially recognized by the Blended Brothers, and not some dude on an Internet forum.

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church............ The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry."

This is a mealy mouthed obfuscation of the stark reality in the Local Church of Witness Lee. Those local churches that do not fully imbibe, teach and practice the personal ministry of Witness Lee are hardly considered "a genuine local church". They are ostracized at the least, and most often "quarantined", which is really a de facto corporate excommunication. Just ask of the brothers and sisters who went through the Mid-West/Canadian fiasco of a dozen years ago. Ask them if they were treated like "genuine local churches". "They can express their opinions" Wow, how generous of the Acting god! Of course his generosity quickly disappears in the next breath - "but they may have nothing to do with this ministry". That's like saying "if you say that you're part of the family, and dare to look at dad cross-eyed, you can move out today...and don't forget to take your opinions with you!"
-

Ohio

01-21-2019, 12:26 PM

Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that. The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry.Since we now have the advantage of many years of LSM history, we can look at this quote by Witness Lee and see the deceptions.

What happened to both the LC's in Brazil and the Midwest a decade ago was the same. LSM Blendeds stepped in with their agents working for their DCP faction to determine that these LC's were not properly receiving "the ministry." They were not adequately attending LSM's sponsored events. They did not sufficiently purchase LSM's books and materials. They could not be brought under subjection.

LSM and DCP decided whether these LC's were "genuine" LC's, as only they can. Their operatives decided it was time to excommunicate their leaders and file lawsuits to steal their meeting halls and other church assets. They divided churches, families, loved ones. They could care less. Their "vision" of ministry provided them endless justifications for their ambitious ends to justify their non-biblical means.

Today I wouldn't trust an agent from LSM to walk my dog. Their system of loyalty demands them to shipwreck their conscience when it comes to brotherly love.

Drake

01-21-2019, 12:43 PM

So Mary McDonough's writings are part of the One Publication? So Jessie Penn-Lewis' writings are part of the One Publication? So the writings of the contributors to Affirmation & Critique are part of the One Publication? Not exclusively Witness Lee and Watchman Nee?

Why.....of course! That is why they PUBLISH those writings.

Isn't your objection that there is ONE Publication? If they publish Brother Nee, Brother Lee, Mary McDonough, some writings of Jessie Penn Lewis, other authors, the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, Jules Gross, the dozen or so speakers/writers in the periodical Ministry Magazine,etc. etc. then either:

1) There is ONE publication and it includes many authors/speakers/writers

or

2) There is not just ONE Publication but TWO, THREE, FOUR or more Publications... therefore several pubs for all the writers.

Sorry brother, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is ONE Publication with many authors or there are many Publications for many authors.

Drake

Trapped

01-21-2019, 11:27 PM

m

Okay Trapped. As long as we understand what the author (Brother Lee) actually said then our conversation is progressing to gain the clarity needed for the rest of the conversation.... if you want to debate the merits of the analogy that is fine too.... yet I don't want to argue but I'll offer my view on your points above.

An orchestra is a fine analogy.... for something else... not a call to battle. In a battle there are certain instruments used to mobilize the troops. Could be a trumpet as the US Calvary used, or a fife and drum as the early American troops used, and those sounds are rehearsed to insure when a soldier hears the sound especially in the heat of battle they know what it means, they know what to do, fight or retreat, assemble.... or take some specific battle action.... as occurred at Jericho....

....., when you say that there were 7 trumpets used at Jericho you are absolutely correct, there were 7 and yet that is a very good example of what multiple trumpets in battle should do... they all sounded out at the same moment and gave the same call for the army to shout in unison.They were not confused precisely because every trumpet issued the same sound, the same implied command (to shout), at the same moment, and as a result the children of Israel were victorious:

"... and when the people heard the trumpet sound, the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat..." Joshua 6:20

That wasn't an orchestra tuning up out there outside Jericho.... though I can imagine an orchestra as a fine analogy for something else but not for what Brother Lee was conveying concerning a call to arms, an enjoining in battle, etc.. Though there were 7 trumpets blowing at Jericho... they produced one sound... "the trumpet sound".... as underlined above, so there was no uncertain sound even though there were 7 trumpets. They all made the one trumpet sound. Not the sound of 6 trumpets and a harmonica.... or 5 trumpets and 2 maracas, or 4 trumpets with 3 others coming from street instruments by Willy and the Po Boys. The whole point of 7 ram's horns is that they were identical in form and function and sound in every way.

I'm not objecting to someone using the analogy of an orchestra... I probably used it myself somewhere along the way.... but that is not the analogy that Brother Lee used so if we want to understand what he meant then we need to explore what he actually said.

Drake

Drake,

I have always understood what brother Lee said. It is not unintelligible (I'm speaking mostly of the analogy here, not the entire document), and it is understandable in its construct. I thoroughly understand the point and the analogy as it is used in the One Pub. It just isn't correct. Nee/Lee's published ministry is not the sounding of the trumpet. It just isn't. That's a non-Biblical claim using a Biblical analogy. Readers are free to disagree. Many do. If it's not correct, it doesn't matter if it's understood because it negates the rest of it.

The orchestra commencement sound was just an illustration to show in an example that most people should have personal experience with (unless everyone here has actually been to battle!) that "many" does not necessarily mean "different" or "confusing". I am clear we are not discussing an orchestra.

Each believer speaking in a meeting is issuing a trumpet sound, according to Paul. He does not say each sound has to be the same or identical in form, function, and sound in every way. Each believer is issuing a trumpet sound. These sounds can come out differently one believer to another. What matters is that the sound is certain. Each believer is sounding. Not an entire entity issuing one sound for a whole affiliated group of believers.

Trapped

Trapped

01-22-2019, 12:45 AM

Why.....of course! That is why they PUBLISH those writings.

Isn't your objection that there is ONE Publication? If they publish Brother Nee, Brother Lee, Mary McDonough, some writings of Jessie Penn Lewis, other authors, the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, Jules Gross, the dozen or so speakers/writers in the periodical Ministry Magazine,etc. etc. then either:

1) There is ONE publication and it includes many authors/speakers/writers

or

2) There is not just ONE Publication but TWO, THREE, FOUR or more Publications... therefore several pubs for all the writers.

Sorry brother, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is ONE Publication with many authors or there are many Publications for many authors.

Drake

I'd love to agree with you on something (actually I do agree with some of your posts on other threads but just don't have much spare time to say so) but here I have to disagree on both points.

Option 1: One pub which includes many authors:

This DCP website (https://www.afaithfulword.org/contributions/DHo1/) states unequivocally that it is only Nee/Lee: One publication means the "publication of the ministry materials of [Watchman Nee and Witness Lee]" as well as the "ongoing ministry in the Lord's recovery as the extension of the ministry of these two brothers" ( Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery, p. 5).

If the "ongoing ministry" was anything other than refried Nee/Lee then we could talk about many authors, but it is not, it is just repackaged Nee/Lee.

Option 2: 2, 3, 4 publications:

See the two quotes below from the One Pub itself:

According to the practice established by Brother Nee in China, the one publication has always been trumpeted by one practical publication endeavor—in Brother Nee’s day by his Gospel Room, during Brother Lee’s years after he left mainland China by Taiwan Gospel Book Room, and during his years in the United States by Living Stream Ministry. Today we must be diligent to continue this practice of the trumpeting in the one publication in a practical way through the publication service of Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room. Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room publish both the past ministry that was delivered to us by Brother Nee and Brother Lee and the ongoing, up-to-date speaking that comes out of the fellowship of the blended co-workers and is based on the ministry materials of Brother Lee and Brother Nee. These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord’s recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today.

From the quote above it is clearly stated that one publication is that which is published by LSM.

As much as possible, Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room avoid venturing into other kinds of publications, but according to Brother Lee’s own example, occasionally there may be publications of these other kinds which Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room feel to publish either under their own names or under special imprints that serve particular publication needs. For example, Living Stream Books (as opposed to Living Stream Ministry) publishes God’s Plan of Redemption by Mary E. McDonough, and A&C Press publishes a translation from French of a scholarly study on deification in the early church.

These other authors are not published by LSM but by totally different entities! LSB and A&C Press. Obviously there is affiliation, but nevertheless they are not published by LSM. By definition this means they are not part of the one publication.

Note the phrase "other kinds of publications". Nowhere does this say that these other authors are part of the one publication.

So from the horse's mouth itself:

1. One publication means the ministry of Nee/Lee and extension thereof.
2. One publication is that which is published by LSM.
3. Other authors are not published by LSM but other entities.
4. Other authors are not part of the one publication but are "other publications".

While you may say, "See! Multiple publications! Not just one!" Welll.......the existence of 2, 3, 4 publications has no effect because the document says the saints should be restricted in "one publication". So even if these other authors (not part of 1Pub) or other publications (not part of 1Pub) exist......the churches are still instructed to restrict themselves to the one publication - i.e. Nee and Lee put out by LSM.

I'm just going by what is written.

Trapped

P.S. I will give credit to the fact that Mary E. McDonough's book is listed on ministrybooks.org, but it is like a drop in the ocean, come on.

aron

01-22-2019, 07:50 AM

P.S. I will give credit to the fact that Mary E. McDonough's book is listed on ministrybooks.org, but it is like a drop in the ocean, come on.

Why.....of course! That is why they PUBLISH those writings.

Isn't your objection that there is ONE Publication? If they publish Brother Nee, Brother Lee, Mary McDonough, some writings of Jessie Penn Lewis, other authors,

Sorry brother, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is ONE Publication with many authors or there are many Publications for many authors.

Not sure if this is on topic so freely ignore if so wished: but why publish McDonough and Penn-Lewis if women aren't allowed to teach? Sorry, brother, but you cannot have it both ways. Either women are not allowed to teach, or they are. It appears hypocritical if they are allowed when you can use them to prop yourself up, and dis-allowed otherwise.

Sorry for the intrusion. Please continue.

aron

01-22-2019, 07:52 AM

Ohio

01-22-2019, 08:46 AM

Not sure if this is on topic so freely ignore if so wished: but why publish McDonough and Penn-Lewis if women aren't allowed to teach? Sorry, brother, but you cannot have it both ways. Either women are not allowed to teach, or they are. It appears hypocritical if they are allowed when you can use them to prop yourself up, and dis-allowed otherwise.

Sorry for the intrusion. Please continue.
Dead women are allowed to teach.

Ohio

01-22-2019, 08:57 AM

Where does it say that one trumpet is required for one certain and clear sound? Why can't many trumpets make one sound? I think of "the sound of many waters" from Revelation 14:2. You have many waters, each making a sound, but they blend together to make one sound. John didn't seem to object to multiple sources for one sound. Why should we?

Conversely the externally derived, one-source-required-for-oneness notion seems a lot like the "oneness" of the Great Harlot, Mystery Babylon. There, they require that everyone have the one seal, else you can't buy and sell. Sounds a lot like a religious book publisher trying to prevent anyone else in the church from publishing. Or is that just a coincidence.
Having only one trumpet, one sound, one voice reminds me of Babel, where God said, "Behold they are one people, with one language, and this is what they begin to do . . ." (Gen. 11.6)

Ironically, it is totalitarian regimes which also demand one voice, one speaking, one opinion, one publication, etc. Freedom of thought and opinion is a threat to controlling leaders.

UntoHim

01-22-2019, 08:59 AM

Dead women are allowed to teach.
So are dead dudes who lived hundreds of years ago!:)
-

Ohio

01-22-2019, 09:00 AM

So are dead dudes who lived hundreds of years ago!:)
-
Who were then canonized by Lee as MOTA's.

Drake

01-22-2019, 09:04 AM

I'd love to agree with you on something

You should try it sometime but I'll give you fair warning... were you to make a habit out of it this forum will beat you back like a mangy dog. ;)

From the quote above it is clearly stated that one publication is that which is published by LSM.

As much as possible, Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room avoid venturing into other kinds of publications, but according to Brother Lee’s own example, occasionally there may be publications of these other kinds which Living Stream Ministry and Taiwan Gospel Book Room feel to publish either under their own names or under special imprints that serve particular publication needs. For example, Living Stream Books (as opposed to Living Stream Ministry) publishes God’s Plan of Redemption by Mary E. McDonough, and A&C Press publishes a translation from French of a scholarly study on deification in the early church.

These other authors are not published by LSM but by totally different entities! LSB and A&C Press. Obviously there is affiliation, but nevertheless they are not published by LSM. By definition this means they are not part of the one publication.

By saying the other authors are "not published by LSM" means you do not understand the the term "imprint" as relates to a publisher.

An imprint is a trade name of a publisher but its still published by the publisher.

"An imprint of a publisher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publisher) is a trade name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_name) under which it publishes a work. A single publishing company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing_company) may have multiple imprints, often using the different names as brands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand) to market (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing) works to various demographic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic) consumer segments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segment).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprint_(trade_name)#cite_note-1) Wikipedia

In this case Affirmation & Critique is an imprint of LSM. One cannot say LSM is not the publisher of its imprints. You could say that LSM segments the market and publishes under different imprints to reach said market.... that is, publications produced that are fit for purpose. But it cannot be said that a publisher that publishes its imprints is not the publisher of its imprints. That is not logical and is not based on fact and is a distinction without difference.

McDonough is published by LSM, Ministry Magazine is published by LSM, .... and not just print but video and audio are also produced by LSM. Not as some claim that "speakings and writings of Witness Lee (and a scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee)". As we speak I am staring at a 62 Volume Set by Watchman Nee published by LSM. Hardly "scant little" so the whole argument to cast LSM as exclusively publishing one author and imposing those writings on local churches is a misunderstanding at best.

Drake

Drake

01-22-2019, 09:11 AM

Not sure if this is on topic so freely ignore if so wished:

It's not. So ok.

thanks
Drake

aron

01-22-2019, 10:38 AM

Ironically, it is totalitarian regimes which also demand one voice, one speaking, one opinion, one publication, etc. Freedom of thought and opinion is a threat to controlling leaders.

This is the "oneness" of the heathen, which eventually finds its apogee in the Mystery Babylon; "brothers, it should not be so with you".

aron

01-22-2019, 10:57 AM

Who were then canonized by Lee as MOTA's.Reminds of Jesus' "You stone the prophets, then build them sepulchres" - none of these 'MOTAS' would be allowed to minister today in the local churches of Lee

Ohio

01-22-2019, 12:30 PM

Reminds of Jesus' "You stone the prophets, then build them sepulchres" - none of these 'MOTAS' would be allowed to minister today in the local churches of Lee
Martin Luther and the reformers fought for the right to write, print, and publish. They would be the first to go.

This to many ministers in history was worthy of martyrdom. Remember William Tyndale, who was influenced by Erasmus? Tyndale was betrayed and murdered that we might have the English Bible.

Ironically, and I have mentioned this before, the late Jim Reetzke of Chicago often protested LSM's One Publication Edict saying, "Christians have died for the right to publish." Many in the Midwest thought he was a vanguard of the faith.

Nearly a half millennia after the Reformers, LSM revoked this divine right. They then bribed Reetzke into trading his allegiance to the truths and freedoms of God for printing rights at LSM.

aron

01-22-2019, 03:21 PM

Martin Luther and the reformers fought for the right to write, print, and publish. They would be the first to go.

This to many ministers in history was worthy of martyrdom. Remember William Tyndale, who was influenced by Erasmus? Tyndale was betrayed and murdered that we might have the English Bible.

And LSM cites Watchman Nee's library of 3,000 "Christian classics" - where do you think these 3,000 Christian classics came from? Should we pretend that there were 300 sequential MOTAS over the past 2 millennia, each of whom put out 100 books, each with some "one trumpet" policy, either tacit or openly proscribed? What fatuous nonsense. The marvel of this group is how many of us get snookered by it.

ZNPaaneah

01-22-2019, 03:34 PM

You should try it sometime but I'll give you fair warning... were you to make a habit out of it this forum will beat you back like a mangy dog. ;)

Which is why many of us don't want to touch this thread with a ten foot pole.

Bottom line to me -- if the LC does not control what books you purchase and read who cares. They have the right to publish as many or as few authors as they wish. In this age with Amazon.com, the internet, audible, etc. how could an elder from a local church of a few hundred control what you read? So who cares? If they are otherwise minded from the NT the Lord will show them and adjust them. (now I guess I need to prepare to get whacked:eek:)

UntoHim

01-22-2019, 03:49 PM

McDonough is published by LSM, Ministry Magazine is published by LSM, .... and not just print but video and audio are also produced by LSM. Not as some claim that "speakings and writings of Witness Lee (and a scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee)". As we speak I am staring at a 62 Volume Set by Watchman Nee published by LSM. Hardly "scant little" so the whole argument to cast LSM as exclusively publishing one author and imposing those writings on local churches is a misunderstanding at best.
Well thank you for promoting me up to the exalted elevation of "some"! Check is in the mail.:)

"and not just print but video and audio"....yeah, video and audio of WHAT? I'll tell you what...90-95% regurgitation, either literal reading of a footnote or outline or quote/close paraphrase from a published book or message, directly from the mouth of Witness Lee, and ONLY WITNESS LEE...that's what. Drake can jump up and down, and deny the facts all he wants...all the way until the moo cows come home. Does anyone really think quoting from lsm.org is giving anybody the real picture of what is going on during the Local Church meetings? You see, THIS is what Trapped and the rest of us all talking about. Again, most of us know very well that what is stated from the Headquarters over on La Palma Ave in Anaheim, and what is actually taught and practiced on a daily/weekly basis in the local churches, can actually be two totally different things. You see, the dear brothers over at LSM are quite aware of the reputation of the Local Church of Witness Lee with most Christian teachers, apologists, and even the general Christian public - that the words of Witness Lee are often treated on equal plane with the Word of God (and in the case of the epistle of James and some of the Psalms - ABOVE the Word of God) and they try to hide this fact on the publicly available websites.

In regards to the publication of the speakings/writings of Watchman Nee, they are not treated with anywhere near the reverence that is afforded to 李常受; Lǐ Chángshòu; - and they never have been in the West since Witness Lee absconded to our fair shores. So Drake can have a 62 thousand volume set of Nee and it don't mean jack. I would challenge him, or anyone, to bring one of these volumes of Nee to the "prophesying meeting", stand up and read about the part where Nee clearly states that the ministry should be for the church(es) and not the other way around (like it is in the Local Church of Witness Lee). See where that gets him. Most places that would get him a loud rebuke of a sickening monotonic chorus of "ooooooohhhhhhh Llllllloooooorrrrrddddd Jeeeeeeeesuuuuus" from the faithful. Then they would tell him to put down that volume and pick up the outline from "The Ministry", and pray-read point 1) a) v) 6) II) - - "the proclamation of the dispensation of the intrinsic expression of the triune God as the six-fold intensification of the life-giving Spirit (deep breath) in the human spirit of the tripartite man for the building up and expression of the one new man as the living organism (one more breath...almost done!) which becomes the ultimate expression of the corporate God-men consummating in the New Jerusalem". (due to bandwidth limits, and the distinct possibility of contracting carpal tunnel syndrome, I have given the shortened version)
-

Drake

01-22-2019, 06:25 PM

UntoHim

01-22-2019, 07:46 PM

Hey Drake...I have a feeling your pole is not quite as long as Mr. Z's. (apparently his pole is not so long as to not come and grace us with one of his hit and run, playing devil's advocate, off-topic posts...but hey...that's how the man rolls!)
Care to actually address the topic at hand? No need to actually address what I posted...you never do anyhow. How bout you take a crack at Trapped's last round of posts? Trapped is better than me on his worst day anywho. Go get em champ!
-

Trapped

01-22-2019, 10:25 PM

Which is why many of us don't want to touch this thread with a ten foot pole.

Bottom line to me -- if the LC does not control what books you purchase and read who cares. They have the right to publish as many or as few authors as they wish. In this age with Amazon.com, the internet, audible, etc. how could an elder from a local church of a few hundred control what you read? So who cares? If they are otherwise minded from the NT the Lord will show them and adjust them. (now I guess I need to prepare to get whacked:eek:)

Hi ZNP,

I've spent some time reading through a lot of posts on this forum and have noticed you sometimes respond similarly ("who cares") in other threads.

I'll start by saying that I don't really disagree with you. I think in most cases, no the LC does not control what books most saints purchase or read, although I have heard cases of what could arguably be labelled the opposite.

On the other hand, there are indisputable cases of saints having their own books or personal blogs or anything that might be labelled "publication" in ANY way shut down by "brothers-in-power that be". This happens. It is a fact. It is wrong.

The Lord will adjust them, either now or at the end, but it doesn't also mean that we agree with or let slide things that are wrong in this age. Although there is a wide spectrum of oppression, LSM definitely dabbles in it, and the Lord was all about freeing those oppressed.

Are you a church kid (either born one or come into the LCs at a young age)? Or did your time there occur as an adult? I believe this makes a difference.

I know someone who touched the church as an adult, went to some meetings and listened to some training messages, and said "I don't agree with enough things they say, goodbye", and left. He came in as an adult, as a young person he was allowed to think critically and make decisions based on what he clearly saw, and knew from life experience that this WASN'T "the center of God's move on the earth" and he was therefore free to leave. So he did. A blip in his life.

This seemingly normal freedom of thought is a foreign thing for me and the type of normal psychological life that I was cheated of, envy very much, and am working hard to attain even as I have very few models around me to pattern after.

I recall one time as a kid I really liked a certain band. Very innocuous music, some unique and varied skills within the group, focused on the technical aspects and tight singing abilities, not sinful lyrics, etc. (Think, like, someone who plays a stringed instrument liking Yo Yo Ma's music). I got it in my head one day to see if I could get the band to play at a concert hall in my city. I got really pumped about the idea and was excited about something for the first time in a long time. I made the mistake of telling one of my parents my idea, thinking they'd share my excitement and support me. Wrong. What I received was a tight-lipped, "Trapped.....do you think the Lord would have you promote this band?"

I was crushed. I mean, crushed. I mean, internally obliterated. Searing shame. The excitement and light in my eyes that hadn't been there in so long anyway went out in a cold wind, and because the Lord was invoked I felt like I was such an evil and sinful person for just wanting to make a few phone calls to some venues to suggest this cool group. This greatly affected my view of God for years and years and years. Along with all the other subtle and overt messages in the church I received that God didn't like to see me smile, this cemented it.

As an adult, I relayed the story to a saint who did not grow up in the church, and their response was, "Pffff, I would have just said to my parents, 'whatever, I don't like your answer, I'm doing it'." I realized they didn't and couldn't understand why I was crushed as a kid. Seeing the situation as it clearly is and vocalizing your disagreement was not an option growing up in the church.

As an adult, I realize my parent's response wasn't a good one. They should have realized it was an innocuous thing, not sinful, not a "promotion" of an evil group, and supported their excited kid in the effort. Now I can see they made a mistake and can forgive them. But it literally took 15 years for me to be able to think critically about the situation.

Anyway that's a poor example to try to show that those who grow up in the church probably literally have their brains wired differently than those who don't, and it is a monumental effort to actually look at something for yourself and decide whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, accurate or inaccurate, from the Lord or not.

If you have the oracle of God, the one man releasing God's up-to-date speaking on the earth, this gem of a difficult to understand old wise Chinese man that for some reason only our little group sees as the minister of the age and the rest of the millions of Christians don't which must mean we are special and chosen and really in the center of the great wheel while everyone else in dark Christianity is flying off the spokes as we crush them.......telling you "truthfully that there is no light in other books", and you are a young impressionable kid who has grown up being conditioned in every way that you must believe the indisputable truth that is being spoken to you from God's lips through a Chinese accent to your ears......there is a problem. And it's a problem that requires that some people speak up.

No LSM doesn't overtly communist Russia control what people read, but they have a deep and far-reaching effect on those who can't think for themselves, and there is a system built up to prevent and discourage anyone in it from thinking for themselves. I received my first non-Nee/Lee Christian book from a dear believer in my early 30s and I was so "Trapped" in my conditioning that I couldn't even open it up and I shelved it on my bookcase immediately quite literally almost wondering if I would be bothered by idols that night as I slept because I dared to have a non-ministry Christian book in my possession. I didn't read it for a year. This was as a FULL BLOWN ADULT IN MY THIRTIES. This is not overt control, but it is deep-seated fear based conditioning.

Getting into the trumpet analogy with Drake and seeing the erroneous application from 1 Cor. 14:8 explains so much of the struggle in my life. For decades I have had my round head hammered into the square peg holes of Lee’s writings, rather than into the round peg holes of what the Bible says. No wonder I am bruised and bewildered.

I've been strong-armed my whole life into having to pretend what I am reading and hearing in the ministry matches up with what the Bible says and I see so clearly now that the source of the confusion is not me.

I'd love to say "who cares" like you but because I've lost so much from my youth and young adult years because of crooked speaking and claims like what is in the One Publication, I can't keep quiet anymore.

No one is disputing LSM's right to publish what they want or who they want or restrict themselves to what they want. No one here has any issue with that. The issue is with restricting the saints in the churches to only Nee and Lee. That's all. Having one small paragraph in between many others quietly saying (you are still a local church if you don't take this way) does not allow that the opposite speaking from the rest of the document be let off scott-free. I think you can agree that that restriction is not of the Lord (unless a saint actually feels led from the Lord in that way, then who am I to say, but it actually has to be the actual Lord's leading). LSM does not control the churches. They have no business restricting the saints or the churches to anything, or issuing a statement to that effect. They know the effect they have on people.

Trapped

Trapped

01-22-2019, 10:27 PM

Dead women are allowed to teach.

This slayed me :hysterical:

Trapped

01-22-2019, 11:37 PM

You should try it sometime but I'll give you fair warning... were you to make a habit out of it this forum will beat you back like a mangy dog. ;)

By saying the other authors are "not published by LSM" means you do not understand the the term "imprint" as relates to a publisher.

An imprint is a trade name of a publisher but its still published by the publisher.

"An imprint of a publisher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publisher) is a trade name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_name) under which it publishes a work. A single publishing company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishing_company) may have multiple imprints, often using the different names as brands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand) to market (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing) works to various demographic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic) consumer segments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segment).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprint_(trade_name)#cite_note-1) Wikipedia

In this case Affirmation & Critique is an imprint of LSM. One cannot say LSM is not the publisher of its imprints. You could say that LSM segments the market and publishes under different imprints to reach said market.... that is, publications produced that are fit for purpose. But it cannot be said that a publisher that publishes its imprints is not the publisher of its imprints. That is not logical and is not based on fact and is a distinction without difference.

McDonough is published by LSM, Ministry Magazine is published by LSM, .... and not just print but video and audio are also produced by LSM. Not as some claim that "speakings and writings of Witness Lee (and a scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee)". As we speak I am staring at a 62 Volume Set by Watchman Nee published by LSM. Hardly "scant little" so the whole argument to cast LSM as exclusively publishing one author and imposing those writings on local churches is a misunderstanding at best.

Drake

Ah, sorry, I must have skipped over the portion in the Bible that talks about imprints and it's relevance to........oh, nothing.

Drake, the recent Collected Works of Witness Lee alone is 136 volumes. If we assume each volume is 1 inch wide, that is over 11 LINEAR FEET and I believe it's actually quite a bit more than that. Add in all of the rest of Lee's books (and throw in Nee's, too, he's got Lee standing on his shoulders so they are inseparable as far as I'm concerned), and you have the multiple BOOKCASES worth (100? 120? 150 linear feet? I think that is conservative) of Nee/Lee's repertoire found in many saints' homes. Tell me how significant the, shall we be generous, 8 inches (? willing to be corrected here) of McDonough or JPL or Aff Crit are in comparison. They are not a talking point here, sorry. How many HWMR have quotes from McDonough in them? Have you ever heard someone refer to passages from "the ministry" and you turn around and see they actually have a JPL book in their hand?

Your option 1 "trumpeting" these insignificant number of other authors as a percentage of LSM's publication just isn't relevant. They are a sneeze, an afterthought, a tiny sliver and are not part of the "practical expression" (to borrow another meaningless phrase) of the one publication that is absolutely dominated by Nee/Lee.

Your option 2 suggesting there are 2, 3, 4 publication works is not supported by "the One Publication" itself and doesn't go anywhere.

aron

01-23-2019, 03:51 AM

LSM doesn't overtly communist Russia control what people read, but they have a deep and far-reaching effect on those who can't think for themselves, and there is a system built up to prevent and discourage anyone in it from thinking for themselves.

Oh but they do - my experience has been they do overtly control what people read. Just try to read something other than "the latest speaking" and wait 'till Anaheim hears.

I'll never forget the confused and discouraged look on the elder's face in my 'locality' after he had the temerity to try to hold a week-end conference for our church using one of WL's earlier books, which he felt was a gem and should be gone over again, and he received the reply, "Re-speak the latest conference".

He was still using the approved publisher, LSM, but tried to use the "wrong book"! He just stared at the floor, crestfallen. He'd followed Witness Lee for decades. Now some pipsqueeks in Anaheim were telling him what LSM materials he could read or not read in the church.

Had he done so quietly on the down low, he might've gotten away with it. But he tried to buy a bunch of copies of this book, invite members of neighbour local churches, etc, and the Blendeds got wind of his plans.

It's a soul-crushing system. And if someone asks "Who cares?", I reply that God cares. So I speak out.

ZNPaaneah

01-23-2019, 05:59 AM

Hi ZNP, I've spent some time reading through a lot of posts on this forum and have noticed you sometimes respond similarly ("who cares") in other threads.

I have posted 6,000 times. I would be surprised if there are 6 posts of mine with this expression.

I'll start by saying that I don't really disagree with you. I think in most cases, no the LC does not control what books most saints purchase or read, although I have heard cases of what could arguably be labelled the opposite.

Yes, I am one such case. I was pressured to buy a WL book rather than a WN book, and refused to do so. In reflecting on my own testimony I have come to believe this was one of the "strikes" against me that the elders referred to when they dragged me into the elder's room. However, no one was willing to say this clearly.

On the other hand, there are indisputable cases of saints having their own books or personal blogs or anything that might be labelled "publication" in ANY way shut down by "brothers-in-power that be". This happens. It is a fact. It is wrong.

Again, I have many experiences of this. While in Houston I saw Ray Graver research and write his book about pray reading the word. He would come to the library at Rice University and I would see him there. He would also share some of his finds during meetings. It was a wonderful confirmation that "pray reading" has been with the church for thousands of years and that all of the most respected spiritual brothers had this practice. LSM did not publish the book. He wrote this when it would have been very valuable to disprove the attacks in the law court concerning God Men and Mind Benders. Why wouldn't LSM publish? I think it reveals a lot. So what, he published with another publisher, I have the book, and I enjoyed the entire process. At this time I was also sharing a lot about the precious stones. This was passed up the chain to WL and he asked for me to write something. I sent him 20 pages and he concluded that "it wasn't ready". Many saints were upset, not me. First, I addressed his pet doctrine that Jasper was green. I could have not said anything. Instead I chose to be diplomatic, but accurate and honest. I am glad that I did. A year later LSM was printing the "rainbow booklets" they wanted them to be the colors of the precious stones, they asked Kerry Robicheaux to get them the colors but the brother in charge of printing didn't like the colors because "they were ugly and they had black in them". So they asked me, I spent a day, came back with the colors, they loved them, and those were the colors they used for the "rainbow booklets". Again, very revealing. Just like the song said "all he could do the foe, was just release the flow". Again, that song was written by a brother in Houston. Why were these songs not made part of our official hymnal? There was a time when lots of saints were writing songs, we were encouraged to do this after the Ephesians training. But LSM didn't publish, why? Again, to my impression very revealing. While in Taipei in the Full time training I wrote and published a book "Glory to the Coming King" again not with LSM though I would have.

The Lord will adjust them, either now or at the end, but it doesn't also mean that we agree with or let slide things that are wrong in this age. Although there is a wide spectrum of oppression, LSM definitely dabbles in it, and the Lord was all about freeing those oppressed.

I disagree. We are responsible to say something, but once we do we are free to move on. I love chrysolite, chalcedony and sardonyx most of all. Few saints know anything about these stones. They have helped me in my spiritual walk. I love RG's book on pray reading, that also has helped me tremendously, again a hidden gem that few saints know anything about. I loved the songs that we wrote much more than the ones WL did. I loved writing the book. After the first draft I realized I had quoted almost every book in the Bible, so I did an index, found the books that were not quoted and that helped me round out my book. The outline of the book is Wesley's hymn "Hark the Herald Angels sing". It was a great experience, LSM not publishing did not in the slightest damage that. The Lord says that you will know a tree by its fruit, I feel that the fruit of LSM reveals the tree that it is. That revelation is a blessing. If you feel it is a corrupt tree then simply steer clear of it.

Are you a church kid (either born one or come into the LCs at a young age)? Or did your time there occur as an adult? I believe this makes a difference.

I reshared my experience, UntoHim moved it to my blog, and there I deleted it because I didn't want it there.

I know someone who touched the church as an adult, went to some meetings and listened to some training messages, and said "I don't agree with enough things they say, goodbye", and left. He came in as an adult, as a young person he was allowed to think critically and make decisions based on what he clearly saw, and knew from life experience that this WASN'T "the center of God's move on the earth" and he was therefore free to leave. So he did. A blip in his life..

Not my experience. I was in the LC for 20 years, served in Irving for 18 months building the hall, served in FTTT for 8 years. Church in Houston and Church in NYC.

This seemingly normal freedom of thought is a foreign thing for me and the type of normal psychological life that I was cheated of, envy very much, and am working hard to attain even as I have very few models around me to pattern after.

Not my experience. I never gave up my freedom of thought and the persecution was probably due to that but no one would speak openly.

If you have the oracle of God, the one man releasing God's up-to-date speaking on the earth, this gem of a difficult to understand old wise Chinese man that for some reason only our little group sees as the minister of the age and the rest of the millions of Christians don't which must mean we are special and chosen and really in the center of the great wheel while everyone else in dark Christianity is flying off the spokes as we crush them.......telling you "truthfully that there is no light in other books", and you are a young impressionable kid who has grown up being conditioned in every way that you must believe the indisputable truth that is being spoken to you from God's lips through a Chinese accent to your ears......there is a problem. And it's a problem that requires that some people speak up.

Again, not my experience. From the time I was 12 I wanted to know what the Bible said and felt the book was locked up and secret. I didn't care about "WL being the oracle" or "the prophet". All I wanted was to be able to open the Bible to any page and read it.

If you have been wronged you have to deal with it, but dealing with it includes saying "all things work together for good to those that love God and are called according to purpose". I have fulfilled my responsibility to point out your sins and am now moving on with my life in the full assurance that Jesus is Lord.

Ohio

01-23-2019, 08:28 AM

If you have been wronged you have to deal with it, but dealing with it includes saying "all things work together for good to those that love God and are called according to purpose". I have fulfilled my responsibility to point out your sins and am now moving on with my life in the full assurance that Jesus is Lord.
Brother ZNP, on another thread you recently scolded me for seemingly going off topic, and here in answering Trapped, this post has gone far off topic.

This topic "One Publication" could be stretched to include LSM's control and suppression of all information in the LC's, but do try to abide by UntoHim's requests. It's hard on me too. ;)

Ohio

01-23-2019, 08:30 AM

I recall one time as a kid I really liked a certain band. Very innocuous music, some unique and varied skills within the group, focused on the technical aspects and tight singing abilities, not sinful lyrics, etc. (Think, like, someone who plays a stringed instrument liking Yo Yo Ma's music). I got it in my head one day to see if I could get the band to play at a concert hall in my city. I got really pumped about the idea and was excited about something for the first time in a long time. I made the mistake of telling one of my parents my idea, thinking they'd share my excitement and support me. Wrong. What I received was a tight-lipped, "Trapped.....do you think the Lord would have you promote this band?"

I was crushed. I mean, crushed. I mean, internally obliterated. Searing shame. The excitement and light in my eyes that hadn't been there in so long anyway went out in a cold wind, and because the Lord was invoked I felt like I was such an evil and sinful person for just wanting to make a few phone calls to some venues to suggest this cool group. This greatly affected my view of God for years and years and years. Along with all the other subtle and overt messages in the church I received that God didn't like to see me smile, this cemented it.

Trapped, thanks much for sharing your testimony here. (Perhaps on the Intro threads it would be more visible to help others like yourself.)

Your story also has tremendous value to help others like myself understand what happened to our children, the lost 2nd generation, who seemed to only receive endless laws and legalism, rather than a living faith, trust, and love towards our heavenly Father.

aron

01-23-2019, 08:37 AM

This topic "One Publication" could be stretched to include LSM's control and suppression of all information in the LC's, but do try to abide by UntoHim's requests. It's hard on me too. ;)

I felt ZNP was spot-on, in that the exception proves the rule. He read what he wanted to, and was open about his opinions about the reading material that was being presented in church, and was ostracized for it. The One Pub Bull was the formalization of long-standing practice. As much as they try to "spin" it as a publisher saying what it would and wouldn't practice, it's all about tight operational control, including what people read, think, and say, and ZNP is Exhibit A.

Trapped, your story also has tremendous value to help others like myself understand what happened to our children..
Amen from this corner. We don't want to make one person the voice of a generation, but hearing a testimony from a quiet generation helps us so much! It's like the Father is saying, Hey, pay attention to these people... the LSM system makes people invisible - repeat the ministry, or be silent. But we know that the Father sees, and hears, every one - your voice is priceless. Peculiarities and all, it's from God, and may it encourage others to speak/write as well. The only way you learn how to use your voice is by exercising your voice.

I've said this before - when you are young (6 - 8 years old) you get fed and clothed by behaving, by doing what you are told. Sit in the chair assigned to you. Don't speak until it's your turn. You eat what they put in front of you. But at some point, you should begin to venture forth, to be able to try new things. The LSM system keeps people in perpetual infancy. Your ability to think, to problem-solve, to have an opinion, and to modify it, are all sharply curtailed. Just so a book publisher can sell more copies. It's simply wrong.

Drake

01-23-2019, 11:30 AM

Ah, sorry, I must have skipped over the portion in the Bible that talks about imprints and it's relevance to........oh, nothing.

Trapped,

Of course it is relevant to this discussion. You made an erroneous assertion that A&C was not published by LSM so it didn't count as being part of the One Publication. LSM publishes A&C.... it just doesn't fit your narrative around the "One Publication".

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Drake, the recent Collected Works of Witness Lee alone is 136 volumes. If we assume each volume is 1 inch wide, that is over 11 LINEAR FEET and I believe it's actually quite a bit more than that. Add in all of the rest of Lee's books (and throw in Nee's, too, he's got Lee standing on his shoulders so they are inseparable as far as I'm concerned), and you have the multiple BOOKCASES worth (100? 120? 150 linear feet? I think that is conservative) of Nee/Lee's repertoire found in many saints' homes. Tell me how significant the, shall we be generous, 8 inches (? willing to be corrected here) of McDonough or JPL or Aff Crit are in comparison. They are not a talking point here, sorry. How many HWMR have quotes from McDonough in them? Have you ever heard someone refer to passages from "the ministry" and you turn around and see they actually have a JPL book in their hand?

You're estimates of 100 to 150 linear feet are way off... try 20 linear feet of Brother Lee and Brother Nee.... and so if your point is that LSM publishes primarily the works of those two brothers vs. others then the answer is ... OF COURSE! No one claims any different... why I conveyed that very idea in an earlier post. I even went a little further than that... I said LSM published a "genre" meaning the body of work published by LSM was of the same character and train of thought. Oh, but "genre" was untenable.. no, the argument from "some" went that the One Publication was exclusively about one author, Witness Lee, with a smattering of supporting documents from Watchman Nee. A utterly erroneous assertion. Therefore, if your criticism is that then we have nothing more to discuss... we are done... case closed...mission accomplished. Trapped and Drake agree totally that LSM publishes primarily the works of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and others of that "genre".

Your option 1 "trumpeting" these insignificant number of other authors as a percentage of LSM's publication just isn't relevant. They are a sneeze, an afterthought, a tiny sliver and are not part of the "practical expression" (to borrow another meaningless phrase) of the one publication that is absolutely dominated by Nee/Lee.

Your option 2 suggesting there are 2, 3, 4 publication works is not supported by "the One Publication" itself and doesn't go anywhere.

But were not done. The sum total of those other LSM publications on my shelf are about 5 linear feet. But I probably do not have everything... in fact, I'm sure I do not. And to refute an earlier allegation that members of the local churches in good standing must not have other authors except those published by LSM I have another 20 linear feet of non-LSM authors. I am not alone either.

Therefore, the answer is Option 1. There is one publication, primarily of two authors by volume, but includes many other authors of the same genre. No one is forced to only read LSM publications, no one is forced to buy LSM publications, and no church must buy LSM publications to be considered a local church. A local church's standing is not based on whether they read the ministry or not. Brothers and sisters can choose to go to LSM sponsored conferences and trainings or not.

This is a volunteer army.

I understand this does not fit the narrative of this forum nor your concepts ......but the facts are there along with Brother Lee's teaching on it. Read the base note again and his statements on this.

Now you will argue... but there are contradictory statements... so we'll discuss those and see how contradictory they really are.

Drake

Drake

01-23-2019, 12:42 PM

In regards to the publication of the speakings/writings of Watchman Nee, they are not treated with anywhere near the reverence that is afforded to 李常受; Lǐ Chángshòu; - and they never have been in the West since Witness Lee absconded to our fair shores.

....I would challenge him, or anyone, to bring one of these volumes of Nee to the prophesying meeting", stand up and read about the part where Nee clearly states that the ministry should be for the church(es) and not the other way around (like it is in the Local Church of Witness Lee). -

Yep.....and there it is... right on schedule.... the ever waiting in the wings brother UntoHim argument .... " uneducated man from China, without a Divinity degree coming over here to our fair Western shores, thinks he is smarter then the rest of us, and forcing us to buy his books.... "

Now, I know that this will come as some surprise to you brother, but I have and frequently do just what you say.... I research and include Watchman Nee statements in my messages and prophesying.

Look brother, you are constantly trying create daylight between Brother Lee where there is none so you ignore the facts, distort the facts, introduce your own "facts" like you did in this thread. Like:

You claim LSM exclusively publishes one author.

False. The facts are that there are many.

You claim that LSM only publishes "scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee".

False. The collected works of Watchman Nee are 62 volumes.. hardly "scant little".

You claim Brother Nee said the ministry is for the churches but Brother Lee did not.

False. Brother Lee in the base note "Paul never tried to force all the churches to follow him in his ministry, but Paul surely had a ministry for the churches."

You claim we believers in the local churches are forced to read only one author, Witness Lee.

False.

... and yet, you just keep racking them up and when confronted with the facts rather than restate based on those facts, you turn to the "uneducated China man" argument. :rollingeyesfrown:

What possesses you to do that?

Drake

UntoHim

01-23-2019, 02:38 PM

Yep.....and there it is... right on schedule.... the ever waiting in the wings brother UntoHim argument .... " uneducated man from China, without a Divinity degree coming over here to our fair Western shores, thinks he is smarter then the rest of us, and forcing us to buy his books.... "
And there it is...right on schedule...Drake flying off the handle and making wild accusations and putting quotation marks as if I ever said such a thing. "Uneducated man from China"? Why does this FACT offend you so much? I think your conscience is stinging a little from the Witness Wednesday quote on the forum. You know who called Witness Lee "an uneducated man from China" more than anyone? WITNESS LEE did! If you really were in the Local Church in the 70s and 80s you would know this. And Lee was, in fact, without any formal education in theology, history or any of the biblical languages. But that didn't stop him from claiming he was THE ONLY PERSON ON EARTH SPEAKING AS GOD'S ORACLE. And it hasn't stopped his followers from claiming the same thing. Sorry if this makes you see red. :mad:

You claim LSM exclusively publishes one author.
FALSE! You need to retract.

You claim that LSM only publishes "scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee".
Stand by this 100% This is what is actually practiced in the Local Church. This is why the sect is known as "The Local Church of Witness Lee" and NOT "The Local Church of Nee and Lee".

You claim Brother Nee said the ministry is for the churches but Brother Lee did not.
Witness Lee said a lot of things. He also did a lot of saying one thing and practicing another. The One Publication is the very poster child of Witness Lee's hypocrisy. Trapped has already exposed it for the nonsensical, unbiblical rambling that it is. Stay tuned for more.

You claim we believers in the local churches are forced to read only one author, Witness Lee.
False. Never said any such thing. You need to take a trip to your local optometrist bro. You keep claiming that this is all about what the LC members read at home. That is NOT what the One Publication is all about and you know it. Trapped and some others have already exposed this red herring big time. The One Publication is all about what is fellowshipped in the meetings of the various local churches and also at "the seven feasts" and various conferences. (I am mainly speaking about North America, but since the One Publication edict was put out by the Blended Brothers (the official leadership of the Local Church of Witness Lee) then I believe it applies world-wide.

... and yet, you just keep racking them up and when confronted with the facts rather than restate based on those facts, you turn to the "uneducated China man" argument. What possesses you to do that?
Why do you continue with falsehoods? What possesses you to do that?
-

Ohio

01-23-2019, 03:13 PM

The One Publication is all about what is fellowshipped in the meetings of the various local churches and also at "the seven feasts" and various conferences. (I am mainly speaking about North America, but since the One Publication edict was put out by the Blended Brothers (the official leadership of the Local Church of Witness Lee) then I believe it applies world-wide.

We should note that the official printing of the One Publication article on afaithfulword dot com (now removed) in the early 2000's laid some of the preliminary groundwork for the subsequent excommunication of Midwest and Brazil co-workers.

In effect, it was a "trumpet" call, and built a border "wall," sending out the unmistakable "signal" that all workers, elders, and LC's must eventually choose sides. This was definitely how all the Midwest brothers interpreted it. Subsequent letters and pamphlets from LSM proved our initial conclusions.

Hence this One Publication edict was extremely divisive, erecting extra-biblical barriers between the saints, and forcing all the saints to choose sides for the nasty fight which was to come.

This One Publication edict had nothing to do with LSM's mission statement to publish certain books. All of Drake's posts on this topic are thus disingenuous, providing misleading information on this form.

Kevin

01-23-2019, 03:43 PM

Does anyone has an audio copy where Lee said this below?

I invented this term, enjoying Christ. I invented this term, experiencing Christ, exhibiting Christ. "The all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" Who made such a title. Webster? That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me.

Trapped

01-23-2019, 08:46 PM

Of course it is relevant to this discussion. You made an erroneous assertion that A&C was not published by LSM so it didn't count as being part of the One Publication. LSM publishes A&C.... it just doesn't fit your narrative around the "One Publication".

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

This is my fault; I meant to imply by the rest of my post that even if LSM is the publisher of these other works (and I am happy to grant that via imprint), it still doesn't change the outcome. I re-address that in the maroon quote further down this post. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

You're estimates of 100 to 150 linear feet are way off... try 20 linear feet of Brother Lee and Brother Nee.... and so if your point is that LSM publishes primarily the works of those two brothers vs. others then the answer is ... OF COURSE! No one claims any different... why I conveyed that very idea in an earlier post. I even went a little further than that... I said LSM published a "genre" meaning the body of work published by LSM was of the same character and train of thought. Oh, but "genre" was untenable.. no, the argument from "some" went that the One Publication was exclusively about one author, Witness Lee, with a smattering of supporting documents from Watchman Nee. A utterly erroneous assertion. Therefore, if your criticism is that then we have nothing more to discuss... we are done... case closed...mission accomplished. Trapped and Drake agree totally that LSM publishes primarily the works of Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and others of that "genre".

Nah, it's not way off. I am quite literally thinking of my own home growing up and the 4 floor-to-ceiling bookshelves approximately 4 feet wide each with 8 shelves each. These were the Nee and Lee bookshelves. They were organized by title, and as a kid I made the joke to my family asking why we didn't organize by author. 4 bookshelves x 8 shelves each x 4 feet wide = 128. I granted that in the calculation maybe we had a few duplicates or maybe we didn't have absolutely every Nee/Lee publication out there, so I gave a range of 100-150 feet. I saw those bookshelves with my own eyes for decades, sorry not sorry.

Although I don't have time to scroll through to source it, I am not the one who argued that it was only Lee exclusively.

But we're not done. The sum total of those other LSM publications on my shelf are about 5 linear feet. But I probably do not have everything... in fact, I'm sure I do not. And to refute an earlier allegation that members of the local churches in good standing must not have other authors except those published by LSM I have another 20 linear feet of non-LSM authors. I am not alone either.

I am fine to grant the 5 linear feet; I did say I was happy to be corrected because I much prefer to deal with the facts. But 5/100 or 5/150 is 3-5%. And I have NEVER seen those 3-5% show up in any conference, training, sharing, HWMR, outline, message, anything. In the church life usage and vernacular they are not considered part of "the ministry". As I stated before, they are insignificant to the point of irrelevance and their tiny existence doesn't negate or undo the rest of the points in this thread, or the point I make using the maroon quote below.

Therefore, the answer is Option 1. There is one publication, primarily of two authors by volume, but includes many other authors of the same genre.

As I quoted from DCP in a previous post: One publication means the "publication of the ministry materials of [Watchman Nee and Witness Lee]" as well as the "ongoing ministry in the Lord's recovery as the extension of the ministry of these two brothers" ( Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery, p. 5).

My point in quoting that is this: even if there are other authors, even if there are other pubs, "one publication" = Nee/Lee. That is the explicitly stated definition. It is NOT "anything that LSM publishes". It is Nee and Lee. The "ongoing ministry" is regurgitated Nee/Lee, so there is no thread to chase there. The phrase used to describe other authors is "other kinds of publications". They aren't part of the one publication.

If the churches are to be restricted to the "one publication" (Nee/Lee), then the other authors and pubs aren't relevant. They don't exist because they are quite literally not part of the one publication to which the churches are restricted.

No one is forced to only read LSM publications, no one is forced to buy LSM publications, and no church must buy LSM publications to be considered a local church. A local church's standing is not based on whether they read the ministry or not. Brothers and sisters can choose to go to LSM sponsored conferences and trainings or not.

This is a volunteer army.

This does not bear out in real life. I will leave that to the others who have already proven this repeatedly by the telling of their own experience.

This is not a volunteer army. The church is the army. The bride is the army. If you are saved, you are part of the church, the bride, and you are thus part of the army. If you have a Nee/Lee splintering within the Lord's army, well.......yikes. I'll leave it at that.

Trapped

UntoHim

01-23-2019, 09:05 PM

Does anyone has an audio copy where Lee said this below?

Sorry Kevin, it is my understanding that there is an audio copy of this meeting but it is in the possession of the Living Stream Ministry...that is if they have not already destroyed it.

John Ingalls gives a rather detailed account of what Witness Lee said in this meeting in Speaking the Truth in Love (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=99) Brother John, if nothing else, was known to have an excellent memory. I have zero doubt that he related exactly what Witness Lee said in that meeting. Furthermore, the accuracy of what he related to us has been confirmed by a number of brothers who were in that meeting, including at least two who are members of this forum.
-

Drake

01-23-2019, 09:43 PM

Drake>You claim LSM exclusively publishes one author.

UntoHim> FALSE! You need to retract.

Drake> Let's see..... in this thread alone we have:[/COLOR]

UntoHim> "either literal reading of a footnote or outline or quote/close paraphrase from a published book or message, directly from the mouth of Witness Lee, and ONLY WITNESS LEE...that's what."

UntoHim> "the One Publication is the speakings and writings of Witness Lee (and a scant little of Nee where it proof texts and confirms Lee)"

UntoHim> "The leaders of LSM ARE THE LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH OF WITNESS LEE"

UntoHim> "What is published by Living Stream is what is to be read by the members - both at home and in the meetings. NO OTHER PUBLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. PERIOD.Those only publish, disseminate, promote and read the teachings of Witness Lee. (and a minute amount of the teachings of Watchman Nee)"

Brother, it is clear what you said, it is clear what impression you mean to convey, and it is clear that your narrative is absolutely false.

What you cannot tolerate brother are facts. Rather than deal with the facts you bring out this uneducated China man narrative. Its the canned speech you use when the facts are not on your side, so you go dig that one out of the cellar. You cannot refute the facts I have presented so instead you retreat to the tried and true forum pleasing tactic of personal slander toward a servant of the Lord and toward servants of the Lord. Then you berate and belittle those who hold a different point of view from yours... you mock those with a different experience than you... you rail against those whom you say are intolerant and should anyone offer a moderate viewpoint you and your pals will start after them. ZNP gave you good feedback so why didn't you ask for more clarity?... it might actually save you. By your behavior in this forum you are the least tolerant of anyone I have ever met in or outside the local churches!

Yet, please don't misunderstand.... I do not intend to include myself in the list of servants mentioned above and neither am I asking for any greater tolerance from you toward me. I consider it a privilege to get railed at by an internet bully such as yourself...

But just to be clear...... I'm not the moderator of this forum but the conversation I am having is concerning the statements made in the One Publication document at the behest of another poster in what appears to him to be contradictory statements WITHIN the document. Yet, if I were the moderator of the forum I would advise you to follow and then contribute to the dialogue, be civil, or go start another topic about uneducated China men lacking Divinity degrees absconding to our fair shores or some other such nonsensical off topic subject.

Or I might advise you to go get your Divinity degree, go to China, learn their language, and do a work of God, and raise up churches rather than run an internet blog that berates and mocks servants of God who answered their call from the Lord.

Drake

01-23-2019, 10:03 PM

Nah, it's not way off. I am quite literally thinking of my own home growing up....

Wait.... I actually measured it with a tape measure when you said 100 to 150 feet. Its 20 linear feet.

I'll come back to the rest of your post shortly..... being called away.

Thanks,
Drake

Ohio

01-23-2019, 10:11 PM

Drake, you challenge the forum moderator to go to China and work, yet when Titus Chu does that, all the Blendeds rose up to condemn him. Did he not answer the call of God? Why don't you condemn the actions of the Blendeds?

It's there at his Kangaroo Court Quarantine Feast. It's repeated in all of the Blended's letters to him.

Little hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

And, btw, where is the mocking of Lee? Thou shalt not bear false witness!

Weighingin

01-23-2019, 11:15 PM

Sorry Kevin, it is my understanding that there is an audio copy of this meeting but it is in the possession of the Living Stream Ministry...that is if they have not already destroyed it.

John Ingalls gives a rather detailed account of what Witness Lee said in this meeting in Speaking the Truth in Love (http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=99) Brother John, if nothing else, was known to have an excellent memory. I have zero doubt that he related exactly what Witness Lee said in that meeting. Furthermore, the accuracy of what he related to us has been confirmed by a number of brothers who were in that meeting, including at least two who are members of this forum.
-

Recently, a brother told me he had inquired about that message soon after it was delivered and was told it wasn't available. And that was over 30 years ago, in late 1988! I also read here that Lee met with the elders during or after that conference.

Trapped

01-24-2019, 12:09 AM

Wait.... I actually measured it with a tape measure when you said 100 to 150 feet. Its 20 linear feet.

I'll come back to the rest of your post shortly..... being called away.

Thanks,
Drake

The Collected Works of Witness Lee that just came out (https://www.livingstream.com/cwwl/) are alone themselves a little over approximately 20 linear feet, or so I hear. I am not talking about that collection alone. I am talking about all the publications with Nee or Lee's name on them. I understand there is overlap (content in CWWL is found in other books) but I am talking about all the publications. All the repeated "new" versions of old versions that just have a new cover with ambiguous colors and blurry objects rather than the monotone cover of the past. All the HWMR that are pulled from the other books. All the hymnals. All the Bibles. All the various sets. Truth Lessons, Life Lessons, Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Twelve Baskets Full, Life-studies, Crystallization-Studies, Collected Works, New Believers' Series, Conclusions of the NT, Elders' Trainings, and all the individual books in between, etc.... i.e. all the publications.

Bookcases worth. I see it repeatedly in the saints' homes. It's way more than a combined 20 linear feet.

By the way, we are quite far away from the original line of why does the One Pub repeatedly say "in the Lord's recovery" if it is not about the Lord's recovery.

Ohio

01-24-2019, 06:05 AM

Recently, a brother told me he had inquired about that message soon after it was delivered and was told it wasn't available. And that was over 30 years ago, in late 1988! I also read here that Lee met with the elders during or after that conference.

That was spoken in Rosemead. There are also written accounts by elders in Rosemead who discuss what Lee did to that church.

Ohio

01-24-2019, 06:18 AM

The Collected Works of Witness Lee that just came out (https://www.livingstream.com/cwwl/) are alone themselves a little over approximately 20 linear feet, or so I hear. I am not talking about that collection alone. I am talking about all the publications with Nee or Lee's name on them. I understand there is overlap (content in CWWL is found in other books) but I am talking about all the publications. All the repeated "new" versions of old versions that just have a new cover with ambiguous colors and blurry objects rather than the monotone cover of the past. All the HWMR that are pulled from the other books. All the hymnals. All the Bibles. All the various sets. Truth Lessons, Life Lessons, Twelve Baskets Full, Life-studies, Crystallization-Studies, Collected Works, New Believers' Series, Conclusions of the NT, Elders' Trainings, and all the individual books in between, etc.... i.e. all the publications.

Bookcases worth. I see it repeatedly in the saints' homes. It's way more than a combined 20 linear feet.

Many messages were firstly outlines, then meeting notes and handouts, then loose Life Study form, then soft bound Life Study, then hardbound Green Volume Life Study. Multiply that by two when some members married. Old-timers, those loyal ones who could afford the "Standing Order," literally had 4 or more sets of printed messages from the same spoken message. Add to that the way LSM editors could expand each spoken message into 2 or more printed messages by adding in footnotes etc., and you get lots of fluff.

When my sewers backed up after a monster storm in 2007, it was my boxes of Ministry books on the basement floor that took the brunt of it. Was that sovereign of the Lord?

aron

01-24-2019, 07:15 AM

When my sewers backed up after a monster storm in 2007, it was my boxes of Ministry books on the basement floor that took the brunt of it. Was that sovereign of the Lord?

In the local church meeting hall near where I lived, in a back room, there were boxes and boxes of "rainbow booklets" left over from some long-abandoned "flow from Anaheim".

Notice that the "flow" was not local. It didn't arise as local demand but as alien imposition.

Ohio

01-24-2019, 08:41 AM

In the local church meeting hall near where I lived, in a back room, there were boxes and boxes of "rainbow booklets" left over from some long-abandoned "flow from Anaheim".

Notice that the "flow" was not local. It didn't arise as local demand but as alien imposition.
I remember this topic being addressed in a "brothers meeting."

The Cleveland Book Service complained about all the materials stacking up, the saints cancelling their standing orders, and the books just could not be sold. Philip Lee at LSM refused to let the church in Cleveland reduce the quota number of books they received almost weekly.

Yet initially Witness Lee promised that each church would "make money" to cover their expenses, by only charging them 90% of the saints' retail costs. As a miniature book-selling "business," this book service was eventually broke and declaring bankruptcy. Consequently LSM was upset and owed huge back payments for books the church never asked for, and the saints were not buying.

Titus Chu basically "gulped" and instructed the church to send LSM some more money.

aron

01-24-2019, 10:43 AM

The Cleveland Book Service complained about all the materials stacking up, the saints cancelling their standing orders, and the books just could not be sold. Philip Lee at LSM refused to let the church in Cleveland reduce the quota number of books they received almost weekly.

Yet initially Witness Lee promised that each church would "make money" to cover their expenses, by only charging them 90% of the saints' retail costs. As a miniature book-selling "business," this book service was eventually broke and declaring bankruptcy. Consequently LSM was upset and owed huge back payments for books the church never asked for, and the saints were not buying.

Titus Chu basically "gulped" and instructed the church to send LSM some more money.
LSM didn't force you to read the materials, just to buy them! Quit complaining!

Ohio

01-24-2019, 11:08 AM

LSM didn't force you to read the materials, just to buy them! Quit complaining!
:hysterical: Too funny! :hysterical:

There was a time, back in the 90's when LSM started shaming us for letting all those books "collect dust" on our shelves. Kind of irked me since I never asked for all of those books in the first place, and I had to buy extra bookshelves to hold them. So I cancelled my standing order.

TLFisher

01-24-2019, 02:47 PM

:hysterical: Too funny! :hysterical:

There was a time, back in the 90's when LSM started shaming us for letting all those books "collect dust" on our shelves. Kind of irked me since I never asked for all of those books in the first place, and I had to buy extra bookshelves to hold them. So I cancelled my standing order.

In the 90's I was a twenty-something young adult. I recall thinking who has the time much less the money for all these books?
It was insane there were new books weekly and there was a weekly sales promotion of the standing order. Living paycheck to paycheck just purchasing HWFMR stretched my finances.

Ohio

01-24-2019, 08:28 PM

In the 90's I was a twenty-something young adult. I recall thinking who has the time much less the money for all these books?
It was insane there were new books weekly and there was a weekly sales promotion of the standing order. Living paycheck to paycheck just purchasing HWFMR stretched my finances.
It's truly amazing how many times they can reprint the exact same teachings into so many different books. And they wonder why the ministry is so tasteless.

Drake

01-24-2019, 10:15 PM

The Collected Works of Witness Lee that just came out (https://www.livingstream.com/cwwl/) are alone themselves a little over approximately 20 linear feet, or so I hear. I am not talking about that collection alone. I am talking about all the publications with Nee or Lee's name on them. I understand there is overlap (content in CWWL is found in other books) but I am talking about all the publications. All the repeated "new" versions of old versions that just have a new cover with ambiguous colors and blurry objects rather than the monotone cover of the past. All the HWMR that are pulled from the other books. All the hymnals. All the Bibles. All the various sets. Truth Lessons, Life Lessons, Collected Works of Watchman Nee, Twelve Baskets Full, Life-studies, Crystallization-Studies, Collected Works, New Believers' Series, Conclusions of the NT, Elders' Trainings, and all the individual books in between, etc.... i.e. all the publications.
....
Bookcases worth. I see it repeatedly in the saints' homes. It's way more than a combined 20 linear feet.

Trapped,

The collected works of Brother Lee are about 10 linear feet. I have them and measured them. Those include almost every thing you remember as stand alone books. Then there are the life studies and crystallization studies and the conclusion messages. The collected works of watchman Nee are almost 5 linear ft.

Net net 20 linear feet. Those are the unique writings... I have several copies of the big red bomb (Christ vs Religion) but do not count each one... but anything that is now in the collected works I do not count because that would be double or triple counting. Married couples often brought same books ....

But look, it doesn’t really matter if it 5, 10, 20, 100, or 150 does it? Your point does not change at 20 feet and neither will mine if it is 150. So believe it, remember it, anyway it sets well with you. I gave you the actual measurements according to a tape measure.

Drake

UntoHim

01-25-2019, 09:17 AM

Let’s take a little break from linear feet, imprints, genres, tape measures, book shelves and the like. I dug back and found this post by Koinonia way back in December of 2016 (where ya been bro, your insightful and spot on topic posts are greatly missed!)

There are several facets to this One Publication declaration. First and foremost, as it always is when it comes to the person and work of Witness Lee, it is a matter of control and censorship. Again, the control and censorship is exercised upon the members at the most practical level possible – that is at the meetings of the local churches, at the bi-annual trainings and various regional conferences, and at the most intimate level, the little publications meant for daily “devotional” readings for Morning Watch. Does anyone really think that the average Local Churcher is pray-reading Mary McDonough or Jessie Penn Lewis?

Then there is the matter of keeping the Living Stream coffers topped off. This poses a little bit of a dilemma for the powers that be over on La Palma Ave in Anaheim. After all, these guys are supposed to be dispensing the “Up-To-Date-Speaking” of God himself. The problem is that the only person on earth (since 1945 anyway) who did the up-to-date speaking has been dead and buried over there at Grace Gardens for over 20 years now. What to do? What to do? I know! We'll just keep reprinting the same stuff over and over and over again. Of course we'll have to spend a few shekels on different colors, booklet sizes and formats...but a publisher's gotta do what a publisher's gotta do!

LSM is adept at repackaging the same things over and over again in various formats. But really the whole enterprise is running out of steam. A flyer has recently been circulated among LC members that is titled "Announcing the Completion of the Collected Works of Witness Lee" (scheduled: 2018). Here (https://www.livingstream.com/cwwl/about-cwwl.php) is a corresponding website. It is difficult for me to understand how people can get excited about this...

The LSM online bookstore is currently featuring a softbound copy of the Recovery Version of the Ezekiel (the upcoming Winter Training will begin the Crystallization-study of Ezekiel). Of course, the Recovery Version of Ezekiel has already been published in other formats for years. But diehards will buy multiple copies of the single volume, I'm sure. In recent years, LSM has also experimented with gimmicky things like pocket versions of various Life-studies ("Dwarsligger (http://www.dwarsligger.com)" format), in an apparent attempt at providing tired (and younger) members with new materials.

The dilemma for LSM is that they have no good ways to grow (or even maintain) book sales figures. They are mostly limited to a captive audience of current LC members. Once they really do put out the Collected Works of Witness Lee, they will have no new material--other than new editions of periodical publications like Holy Word for Morning Revival and Ministry Magazine. So, they will be stuck pushing members to buy copies of the same books to give away to other people, as well as coming up with newly packaged formats of the same existing publications. You can already see this happening.
-

aron

01-25-2019, 02:44 PM

.. anything that is now in the collected works I do not count because that would be double or triple counting...

But Trapped is measuring the double- and triple-counted books. That's the point, no? They are repeatedly repackaging the same material, and re-selling it to the same folks that bought it the first time. And there's still room for a "High Peaks" collection? How about an "On Marriage" tome? Maybe someone hasn't yet heard of the "little grinders". Get another bookshelf!

Trapped

01-25-2019, 11:22 PM

aron, exactly. If it was published, it counts. Those bookcases aren't an illusion.

Drake, that is fine if the CWWL are 10 linear feet. I heard the 20 through the typically trustworthy grapevine and just passed that along. But as you well noted, the measurement doesn't change my point. And you didn't address my main point: that if "1pub" is defined by DCP as Nee/Lee, the other authors or the other pubs don't matter at all since the directive is to be "restricted to 1pub"....i.e. restricted to Nee/Lee.

Koinonia's point, brought to us by UntoHim, is a great one - what do you do when the only person through whom God speaks (apparently :rollingeyesfrown:) and the source of the only material you can produce......dies? AND your tiny market is saturated?! Whoops!!

This would not be a problem to anyone but the employees of that hapless entity EXCEPT that this publisher is the source of God's "up-to-date move on the earth". This means that God can only move within the confines of a dead man's works, and the poor saints who follow that move as if it is the only move of God end up following something rotten rather than living. And people pay the price with the years of their lives.

To pass off that "restricted to one publication" is healthy or of God just makes me mad.

Trapped

Ohio

01-26-2019, 03:09 AM

This would not be a problem to anyone but the employees of that hapless entity EXCEPT that this publisher is the source of God's "up-to-date move on the earth". This means that God can only move within the confines of a dead man's works, and the poor saints who follow that move as if it is the only move of God end up following something rotten rather than living. And people pay the price with the years of their lives.

To pass off that "restricted to one publication" is healthy or of God just makes me mad.

Given that the Recovery can only publish the books of Nee/Lee...

What made me mad was that certain students of Lee (ie the Super Blendeds) took it upon themselves to become the true and legitimate Re-speakers and Re-printers of Lee, and took it upon themselves to chastise (quarantine /excommunicate) the other students of Lee (ie Chu, Dong, etc.) whom they declared illegitimate.

Should not the actual members of the LC be given the right to choose who more accurately and spiritually ministered these "recovery" truths from the Bible?

Did Apostle Paul go to Corinth and excommunicate Peter and Apollos? Did Apostle Paul determine that only his ministry was the legitimate "re-speaking" of the teachings of Jesus? Did Apostle Paul teach that only his books could be published and read in all the churches?

Drake

01-31-2019, 12:05 PM

aron, exactly. If it was published, it counts. Those bookcases aren't an illusion.

Er... if I have 10 bibles in my library it does not mean that there are 660 books in the Bible!

Here's another thing. To a boy those bookshelves look one way and to a grown man those same bookshelves look different years later. When I visit my childhood places what seemed like a mile away was much closer than I remembered and the house is smaller than I remembered as is the yard. So, in a sense it was an illusion... or rather a relative perception. You saw lots of shelf space looking up and across and transferred those boyhood perceptions to something modern you are not looking at directly (the Collected Works of Witness Lee). Also, loose leaf messages and individual bound books and duplicates take up more space. That is why I went through the steps of actually measuring with a Tape measure the linear footage of CWWL and to provide that new information to you. Rather than concede the point based on the facts you fought to hold on to the proverbial bone with all your might for several posts.

That my friend is instructive and provides a clue why a dialogue such as ours must enter into a labor over every statement. If you insist to hold onto an erroneous view about the linear footage of the CWWL though presented with the actual measured footage of someone who is staring at them then how do we as brothers in the Lord ever hope to find agreement or agreement to disagree on the weightier matters?

Drake, that is fine if the CWWL are 10 linear feet. I heard the 20 through the typically trustworthy grapevine and just passed that along. But as you well noted, the measurement doesn't change my point. And you didn't address my main point: that if "1pub" is defined by DCP as Nee/Lee, the other authors or the other pubs don't matter at all since the directive is to be "restricted to 1pub"....i.e. restricted to Nee/Lee.

And so, here again. Let's look at the facts. First, I have provided you with a list of authors besides Brothers Nee and Lee that are published by LSM and under their imprints. Therefore, we know that those writings are included in the publication mission of the ministry else they would not publish them. A strict interpretation of the DCP statement as you are doing would say that 1) DCP/LSM has violated its own mandate by publishing other authors or 2) LSM made an error in publishing other authors (and should cease and desist immediately) , or 3) those other authors are included in the "genre" of writings based on the writings of Nee and Lee. Or if you prefer, it would be accurate to say that the other authors in the genre reinforce, reiterate, or apply the writings of the two primary authors.

There is only one logical answer and that is 3. Your argument that they don't matter is not logical.... else why publish them if they don't matter? It cost money, time, and effort to publish anything. Since when has LSM published anything that they don't think THEY should publish? In fact, that is one of the objections that forum members level against LSM!

The bottom line Trapped is this. Forum members often fall into the fallacy trap of subjective validation. Example of this may be seen in the secular: You believe Russians swung the election for a candidate and so you see Russian bear claws in every thing related to that candidate after that. That is subjective validation. If it is not subjection validation then it is purposeful and willful deceit of oneself and others and though I believe that is often the case in politics I do not readily accept it as the motivation when conversing with brothers such as you. Rather I am convinced that you have a fearful respect for the judgment Christ will assess toward His own for things said and done after they became a Christian as I do also.... in other words, we can expect that our posts will be assessed and a judgement rendered by Him at His coming.

Drake

Drake

01-31-2019, 02:32 PM

Then there is the matter of keeping the Living Stream coffers topped off.

Brother, there comes a point in time when it is probably wiser to let willful ignorance go unchallenged. But I'm not the wiser yet so I will say this much.

For years this profit/monetary motivation idea has been bantered about in this forum under your management. And yet if profit/money were the motive then LSM would not offer its publications for free at no cost at LSM.ORG. That breaks the business model you allege ... or is that not obvious? The charge that LSM wants to top off coffers is undermined by the easy availability of its publications on the internet for free. So your profit/monetary motivation is not even logical.

Therefore, what could be a possible motivation for a ministry to make their publications available for free? Hmmmm, let's think a moment..... how about .... Mission.

Now if I have misunderstood your belief then please clarify.

Thanks
Drake

aron

01-31-2019, 03:21 PM

Therefore, what could be a possible motivation for a ministry to make their publications available for free? Hmmmm, let's think a moment..... how about .... Mission.

And crack dealers who give away free samples must be nice guys, right? Giving away addictive drugs for free, wow. So selfless.

It's Retailing 101. In trade jargon it's known as a "lost leader". But since LSM is a spiritual enterprise, they wouldn't succumb to earthly means, now would they? It's just a coincidence is all.

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, furiously pulling the levers.

UntoHim

01-31-2019, 03:31 PM

"My burden is to produce groceries. The churches and the saints are free either to use them or to disregard them. But if the saints cast away the nourishment found in these messages, I wonder what they will feed on". - Witness Lee

So I guess everyone is still free to use them....but not for free! (https://www.livingstream.com/cwwl/cwwl-subscriptions.php)

Full Payment
35% Discount*
$16.25 per volume
$2,210 all volumes

Monthly Payments
30% Discount*
$17.50 per volume
$2,380 all volumes

Pretty steep price for a bunch of stuff you already paid for (in some cases people paid over and over again over the past 40+ years.) I don't think there is one jot or tittle in this "collected work" that has not already been merchandised by Lee & Company already. Where is the "Up-To-Date" speaking? Where are the fresh "groceries"?
-

Drake

01-31-2019, 04:36 PM

And crack dealers who give away free samples must be nice guys, right? ......

............It's Retailing 101. In trade jargon it's known as a "lost leader".

Seriously aron... crack dealers? :rollingeyesfrown:

Well let's explore your slanderous comparison for a moment. If a crack dealer gave away as much as you wanted for free and did not charge you a nickel ever for it then what would make you think that the crack dealer was out to make money?

and in Retailing 101 it is called LOSS Leader.... not LOST Leader.... but nevertheless, the business strategy of LOSS Leader does not apply when its all available for free.

The reason your logic is flailing around on this, aron, is because you are trying to fit the facts into your own concepts. They don't fit because your concept on motivation is off the mark. But you are a thoughtful and intelligent man so I'm hopeful that once the real motivation becomes clear to you then you will rebound and make some compelling arguments. At least then we can agree and disagree with rationale based on facts and logic.

Drake

Drake

01-31-2019, 04:43 PM

So I guess everyone is still free to use them....but not for free! (https://www.livingstream.com/cwwl/cwwl-subscriptions.php)

-

Stop. Not true.

Just go to LSM.ORG and READ FOR FREE.

Here is the link.

www.lsm.org (http://www.lsm.org)

Enjoy.

Drake

Ohio

01-31-2019, 05:08 PM

And crack dealers who give away free samples must be nice guys, right? Giving away addictive drugs for free, wow. So selfless.

It's Retailing 101. In trade jargon it's known as a "lost leader". But since LSM is a spiritual enterprise, they wouldn't succumb to earthly means, now would they? It's just a coincidence is all.

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, furiously pulling the levers.
That would be "loss leader" in marketing, and "lost leader" in the Recovery. :rollingeyesfrown:

aron

01-31-2019, 05:19 PM

Well let's explore your slanderous comparison for a moment. If a crack dealer gave away as much as you wanted for free and did not charge you a nickel ever for it then what would make you think that the crack dealer was out to make money?...the business strategy of LOSS Leader does not apply when its all available for free.

Oh, they're giving away the "Collected Works" for free? Okay, I'm willing to reconsider my 'slander'.

And yes I know it's called a "loss leader". I didn't do the spell check, so you did it for me. Thanks for paying attention.

I was in a meeting once in the mid-'90s, and one of the soon-to-be-blendeds told us with some evident satisfaction how much of his disposable income the LSM was taking, from buying books (many to give away to "contacts" and "new ones") to "the Lord's move to Europe" to his local assembly. He was quite specific with the percentages, and clearly was holding himself forth as "a pattern to be followed in the church".

Those few free tracts are supposed to pave the way to a lifetime of voluntary servitude. If you thought the crack dealer adage was too much, how about the JW's - they stand there, next to their cardboard kiosks, handing out their version of the One Publication. So selfless of them! Take a Watch Tower for free.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/h/r1/lp-e (Quote: "For publication downloads, please visit 'jw.org'.")

So free tracts and ministry excerpts are supposed to signal enlightened beneficence? How completely clueless do you suppose the general public is, out there? It's not 1971 anymore. Sorry.

Drake

01-31-2019, 05:48 PM

Oh, they're giving away the "Collected Works" for free? Okay, I'm willing to reconsider my 'slander'.

aron,

Why the circular conversation?

You and others already said that the content of the Collected Works are just repeats and repackaging of already published material. That material has been available for free for years at lsm.org. So yes, the messages are available for free as they have been for years.

Drake

aron

01-31-2019, 05:50 PM

aron,

Why the circular conversation?

You and others already said that the content of the Collected Works are just repeats and repackaging of already published material. That material has been available for free for years at lsm.org. So yes, the messages are available for free as they have been for years.

Drake
You forgot the word 'resold'. They are just repeats and repackaging and reselling of already published and sold material. Don't forget there's money changing hands, here. Again.

Drake

01-31-2019, 06:07 PM

You forgot the word 'resold'. They are just repeats and repackaging and reselling of already published and sold material. Don't forget there's money changing hands, here. Again.

aron... brother ... please....

The content of Collected Works is on the lsm.org site for FREE. No money changes hands when you read them there. The online publications are not sold. They are free. Not just few tracts or a few books. Do the due diligence on this and then consider WHY this ministry gives away its publications for free. Once that is understood then you will have a different objection and argument but at least it will be based on facts.

Drake

aron

01-31-2019, 06:41 PM

consider WHY this ministry gives away its publications for free. Once that is understood then you will have a different objection and argument but at least it will be based on facts.

Drake

You can't say there's no money in being a modern prophet, a self-styled 'oracle of God'. First off, you can charge a fee, for folks to come listen to you speak. These "training fees" then can be used to repay the interest-free loans you got from them to support the kiddo's business. See the phone conversation transcript between W Lee and S Benoit. There, Lee says that just one of his 'local churches' loaned him $100K. We have no idea how much in total all the various assembies ponied up for Junior's business, Daystar. But Lee admitted that one church = $100K. That's serious cash flow, folks... early-'70s money, when 100 large could buy you something. (and we have no idea how many 'localities' got their $$ back and how many "considered it a donation" [after it had initially been pitched to them as an investment]).

Then, after the talk series or "conference" is over, you can edit and print the message series, collate them, bind them into a book, and sell them back to the audience. Later, you can again sell the the same folks re-packaged material as "HWFMR" and "Collected Works". Yes we know Works are dead ...e.g., "Dead Works" ...but they can be collected and sold, anyway.

Trapped

01-31-2019, 08:19 PM

Er... if I have 10 bibles in my library it does not mean that there are 660 books in the Bible!

Here's another thing. To a boy those bookshelves look one way and to a grown man those same bookshelves look different years later. When I visit my childhood places what seemed like a mile away was much closer than I remembered and the house is smaller than I remembered as is the yard. So, in a sense it was an illusion... or rather a relative perception. You saw lots of shelf space looking up and across and transferred those boyhood perceptions to something modern you are not looking at directly (the Collected Works of Witness Lee). Also, loose leaf messages and individual bound books and duplicates take up more space. That is why I went through the steps of actually measuring with a Tape measure the linear footage of CWWL and to provide that new information to you. Rather than concede the point based on the facts you fought to hold on to the proverbial bone with all your might for several posts.

That my friend is instructive and provides a clue why a dialogue such as ours must enter into a labor over every statement. If you insist to hold onto an erroneous view about the linear footage of the CWWL though presented with the actual measured footage of someone who is staring at them then how do we as brothers in the Lord ever hope to find agreement or agreement to disagree on the weightier matters?

Having 10 Bibles means there are 10 separately published works on the shelf. Correct me if I'm wrong, but each new version/edition/repackaged book of LSM's has a new ISBN, no?

I fully understand the phenomenon you describe about boyhood perspective, in fact, I experienced that very thing just recently in visiting my former junior high school. I felt like Gulliver and wondered if the surrounding neighborhood had encroached on the school grounds shrinking it down smaller than I recalled. Kind of surreal actually.

But luckily for me, my parents did not kick me out at 8 years old, or 12, or 15, or 18. I did return home as an adult and have adult memories of the bookcases in question. Standard residential 8-foot floor-to-ceiling heights also do not change and these were floor-to-ceiling bookcases. There were also several of them, so my measurements are pretty accurate.

There was no point to concede - we were talking about different things. I was very clear I was not talking about CWWL alone but about all the publications of Nee and Lee (including different versions, updated editions, same content with new covers, etc) that LSM puts out. You keep pointing to CWWL only but I was talking about the entire publication output of LSM which causes many a shelf to sag across the saints' homes. Like I said in a previous post, I am happy to agree that CWWL is only 10 linear feet.

This is pointless but I've dealt with a number of saints recently who make wild unfounded claims and I'm just sick of it so I'll take the time to write this paragraph. Regarding my insistence on holding an erroneous view: I made a general statement about the entire publication work of LSM. You responded with a general statement about a portion of that body of work (CWWL). We discussed these two differing things for a few posts. My first concrete assertion about CWWL-specific footage was post #346. In your response (355) you stated you actually measured the CWWL. In my response (358) I said it is fine if CWWL are as you measured. No insistence on an erroneous view, sorry.

And so, here again. Let's look at the facts. First, I have provided you with a list of authors besides Brothers Nee and Lee that are published by LSM and under their imprints. Therefore, we know that those writings are included in the publication mission of the ministry else they would not publish them. A strict interpretation of the DCP statement as you are doing would say that 1) DCP/LSM has violated its own mandate by publishing other authors or 2) LSM made an error in publishing other authors (and should cease and desist immediately) , or 3) those other authors are included in the "genre" of writings based on the writings of Nee and Lee. Or if you prefer, it would be accurate to say that the other authors in the genre reinforce, reiterate, or apply the writings of the two primary authors.

There is only one logical answer and that is 3. Your argument that they don't matter is not logical.... else why publish them if they don't matter? It cost money, time, and effort to publish anything. Since when has LSM published anything that they don't think THEY should publish? In fact, that is one of the objections that forum members level against LSM!

The bottom line Trapped is this. Forum members often fall into the fallacy trap of subjective validation. Example of this may be seen in the secular: You believe Russians swung the election for a candidate and so you see Russian bear claws in every thing related to that candidate after that. That is subjective validation. If it is not subjection validation then it is purposeful and willful deceit of oneself and others and though I believe that is often the case in politics I do not readily accept it as the motivation when conversing with brothers such as you. Rather I am convinced that you have a fearful respect for the judgment Christ will assess toward His own for things said and done after they became a Christian as I do also.... in other words, we can expect that our posts will be assessed and a judgement rendered by Him at His coming.

Sigh....Drake......I don't know how I can make my point any clearer.

LSM can violate its own mandate and publish Joel Osteen and Rick Warren and my point would still stand.

LSM can make any error and publish other authors and my point would still stand.

The other authors can be in the same genre and my point will still stand.

LSM can publish 95% other authors and only 5% Nee and Lee, and my point will still stand!

My point:
1. There is a set of publications that LSM puts out - Nee, Lee, JPL, McDonough, AffCrit, blended brothers, whatever. Add any others you want. Tip the balance so Nee and Lee are a tiny percentage if you want.

2. Those books are all published by LSM, whether under the LSM name directly or under an imprint.

3. Within that set of publications described above is a subset defined as "one publication". As I've quoted before, "one publication" is defined as "publication of the ministry materials of [Watchman Nee and Witness Lee]"... This is not my definition but that of LSM/DCP, etc.

4. The One Publication document calls the churches to restrict themselves to that subset, to "one publication". I.e. to restrict themselves to and only read Nee and Lee. Whatever is in the original set in point 1 is completely irrelevant ("doesn't matter") because it is not in the subset in point 3. The subset is what the saints in the churches are to be restricted to.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Thanks for threatening the judgment of Christ at me. Classic LC saint move.

Trapped

Drake

01-31-2019, 09:38 PM

My point: The One Publication document calls the churches to restrict themselves to that subset, to "one publication". I.e. to restrict themselves to and only read Nee and Lee.

No, it doesn’t, Trapped. In saying that you are omitting Brothers Lee direct statement to the contrary. You are framing an argument without including all that was said in the One Publication document. You are selecting sentences and omitting the rest. We’ve already covered that.

In this discussion we have come full circle. We started here. I was content to let the misunderstanding stand but you urged me back in and I agreed under the assumption that the examination would be mutual... it would be Berean. It’s not happening brother.

Let’s each consider before the Lord how to proceed.

Drake

Drake

01-31-2019, 10:19 PM

. Later, you can again sell the the same folks re-packaged material as "HWFMR" and "Collected Works".

That’s right!

And if their motive was profit they could make those printed publications the only way to gain access to the messages....

.... but then, the whole fake (and frankly silly) fill the coffers argument crumbles when they offer the same content at LSM.org for free.

Not that you care brother but I’ll share why I own the CWWL. First, I don’t own them because someone told me I had to buy them. I don’t own them because there was a edict that said I can only read Witness Lee. I don’t own them because I am in the Lord’s recovery and we all are pressured to own them. None of that. In my 40 years enjoying this ministry I’ve never heard ridiculous rhetoric like that. Rather, I bought and own the CWWL because 1) I treasure the truths the Lord released through Brother Witness Lee, 2) I prefer the chronological organization of the set by year, indexes, etc. and 3) and foremost, I believe in the mission and motive of LSM and those of its imprints in its outreach to distribute these truths to the world and therefore am happy to support that monetarily. This is one way to do that.

I, like most of us, accumulated versions of these publications over decades. I had loose leaf, cassettes, paperback, hardback, partial sets, CDs, stapled sheets of paper, and they all served a useful purpose in time and place. The online FREE version is useful too and many just prefer that delivery mechanism. As for me, I couldn’t be more pleased to have this hard copy collection so labored on by faithful brothers and sisters and made available in a consolidated 10 linear feet and organized in such a professional format.

Drake

aron

02-01-2019, 01:33 AM

That’s right!
And if their motive was profit they could make those printed publications the only way to gain access to the messages....
.... but then, the whole fake (and frankly silly) fill the coffers argument crumbles when they offer the same content at LSM.org for free.

I'm glad we have your view, otherwise we might think they were strong-arming a captive market, and peddling the word of God for personal gain, and that the One Publication edict had some sinister edge.

..just listen to the president of the Living Stream Ministry, Mr Benson Phillips: “In any case, do not leave the Lord’s recovery. I can assure you that if you go away from the Lord’s recovery, you will have no way for the process of sanctification to go forward within you. Instead, you will just enter into a bankrupt situation. I know of no one who has left the Lord’s recovery and today is a great spiritual person on the earth. The sanctification process is carried out in the Lord’s recovery"
~The Ministry Magazine Vol. 8, No. 1 Page 189, first paragraph
Anyway it's too pat to say the motive was merely profit. I'd say it was more like to control people. Money is just one of many means to control, and one of the benefits of control. It has uses, clearly - how else to fund full-time campus recruiters and training centers? Money has been important in the Lord's recovery, a least since the days when Witness Lee was pushing cheap manufactured chairs on the captive assemblies. Positive cash flow has always been a theme at LSM.
to distribute these truths to the world and therefore am happy to support that monetarily. This is one way to do that.
What LSM distributes to the world is the idea that there's only one legitimate collective representation of Christ, which happens to be their captive flock, that there's one ministry carrying out sanctification and edification and building up, which happens to be theirs, and that they have the only printing press in town.

Look at Lee's use of the word "proper" some time - he used it a lot, and in his hands it was a self-serving, loaded, subjective and unverifiable term. This constant theme helped him a avoid competing in the free market of ideas. In fact, he said that if you read other ideas, you might get "poisoned". You might get "confused."

But, controlling? Nah. They're just "distributing truths".

Ohio

02-01-2019, 02:56 AM

And if their motive was profit they could make those printed publications the only way to gain access to the messages....
With so many satisfied customers like you, why do you think LSM would be compelled to issue this One Publication decree?

With such a loving attitude of kindness and generosity, why do you think LSM decided that it needed this One Publication decree to excommunicate life-long co-workers such as Titus Chu for printing his own books?

Trapped

02-03-2019, 12:53 AM

No, it doesn’t, Trapped. In saying that you are omitting Brothers Lee direct statement to the contrary. You are framing an argument without including all that was said in the One Publication document. You are selecting sentences and omitting the rest. We’ve already covered that.

In this discussion we have come full circle. We started here. I was content to let the misunderstanding stand but you urged me back in and I agreed under the assumption that the examination would be mutual... it would be Berean. It’s not happening brother.

Let’s each consider before the Lord how to proceed.

Drake

"all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Don't say it doesn't say that!

By all means, bring up the contrary statements. Include the parts I didn't include. Select the sentences I omitted. I can think of a few, although any contrary statements are so heavily dripping with cautionary language or totally contradicted by actual practice that they are next to worthless as any sort of balancing word.

But I can also understand that you may read my statement in my previous post as an overblown hyperbole, since after all, you can sit down in your comfy chair at home with any non-LSM Christian book of your choice, and no co-worker will come knocking down your door to prevent it......so I can surely see why you might balk at the sweeping nature of my assertion. I can do the same thing too, and have this very week! And no one stopped me from doing it.

So I might modify my conclusion to something more like this: "The only common and shared publication that all the saints and all the churches everywhere should be in is the one publication of Nee and Lee."

I think that describes the reality more accurately. It is not that individual saints cannot read whatever they like....because of course they can. It is that a widespread area of the local churches cannot "be in" whatever they like. By rephrasing my conclusion it allows for the small local publications mentioned in the One Pub that exist without issue (which are only songbooks and sheets according to the examples given.......no books even!) as long as they do not gain "larger geographical status", while still keeping the reality of the situation that there should be nothing but Nee/Lee for the local churches as a whole.

Is that a more accurate representation?

Regarding your note about mutuality and a Berean examination, can you give me some examples from our correspondence? Were there areas in our communications where my response was disingenuous? It is more than possible some punchiness bled through as I'm dealing with some other heavy frustrations in my non lcd.com life. I'm open to hear but need some specifics to help me in the future.

Thanks,

Trapped

Drake

02-04-2019, 02:46 PM

My point: The One Publication document calls the churches to restrict themselves to that subset, to "one publication". I.e. to restrict themselves to and only read Nee and Lee........

Drake> "No, it doesn't, Trapped"

"all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Don't say it doesn't say that!

By all means, bring up the contrary statements. Include the parts I didn't include. Select the sentences I omitted.

The One Publication document quoted in the base note does not say anything about what the churches are restricted in reading.

No sir.

Trapped, let's examine in detail the full paragraph you quoted from to see if there is anything in that paragraph that says that. In other words, let's put that sentence above in context:

"But being restricted in the one publication does not mean, and has never meant, that individual churches are not free to produce and distribute materials for their local needs. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Trapped, in this paragraph you cited as proof that the local churches are restricted in what they can read yet there is not one statement, or a shred of a statement, not a hint, not a suggestion, not an implication, nor an innuendo... that they are being asked or told to only read Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Rather, this paragraph, and the sentence that you lifted from this paragraph are speaking about restrictions in publication, producing a publication, disseminating publication, etc. and the reference to local churches is all about the publications they produce for local needs. That is why there is no contradiction with what Brother Lee said in the same document that whether one reads the ministry or not is up to them. That is why there is no contradiction when Brother Lee said whether one reads his writings or not does not determine whether they are a genuine local church. The One Publication document addresses publication, and it addresses the very real problem of some brothers claiming to be part of the ministry but driving their own agenda and publishing their teachings under the umbrella of the ministry. Those brothers have the right to publish their own stuff, but not under the banner of being a part of or the successor to the one ministry by their own self-ascribed determination. That would be an "uncertain sounding of the trumpet" just to close the loop on that bit.

Furthermore, you may compare in the same document what is meant by "the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China". Again, in that historical account there is nothing about what the churches in China were restricted in reading. No, it was about restriction in publication, that is, Brother Lee would not venture out on his own and publish something that Brother Nee did not review and approve of as part of that ministry. That is the example given as like for like.... that is, as it was in mainland China, where brothers could produce something as part of that ministry, at least one brother, Witness Lee, would not publish something on his own without consulting and gaining the approval of Brother Nee. As it was there, concerning how things were published so it will be here.

Hope that helps.

Drake

Ohio

02-04-2019, 05:24 PM

"But being restricted in the one publication does not mean, and has never meant, that individual churches are not free to produce and distribute materials for their local needs. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Drake's quote above from the "One Publication" has many troubling points:

Why should materials in one LC not be used outside of their locality?
Why should any LC not be permitted to use materials from another LC?
Who can stop local elders from using any material they deem fitting for their saints?
Why should emails or the internet not be used for fellowship between LC's?
Why should use of these technologies cause confusion?
Why would use of these technologies damage the one accord?

Is it not interesting indeed that LSM has regularly exploited all of these technologies, while demanding that LC elders do not. This raises a number of other issues:

What if LC elders instruct their saints not to use LSM materials?
What if LC elders of various LC's near to one another decide that they wish to share materials for their meetings?
What if the Lord raises up Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, etc in their region, are these LC's not free to share their gifts from the Lord?
What if LC elders decide that LSM's materials cause confusion?
What if LC elders decide that LSM's materials damage the one accord?

Brothers like Trapped and aron and others on this thread should begin to ask questions like these, otherwise Drake will continue dissembling and wordsmithing his responses.

ZNPaaneah

02-04-2019, 07:08 PM

Drake> No, it was about restriction in publication, that is, Brother Lee would not venture out on his own and publish something that Brother Nee did not review and approve of as part of that ministry. That is the example given as like for like.... that is, as it was in mainland China, where brothers could produce something as part of that ministry, at least one brother, Witness Lee, would not publish something on his own without consulting and gaining the approval of Brother Nee. As it was there, concerning [B]how things were published so it will be here.[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Hope that helps.

Drake

Yes, your post has certainly helped.

1. Surely the warning about publishing on the internet would apply to this forum. We have a copy of the letters from Steve Issitt which were vilified and railed against by Ron Kangas. We have links to the Thread of Gold which exposes sin in the Houston locality doing the bidding of WL. We have Speaking the Truth in Love, revealing John Ingalls view of what took place in the 80s. We reference Nigel Tomes publications which go into great detail about the excommunication of Titus Chu. If these are not examples of publications that they were warning about in the passage you quoted then that passage is far too vague to be of any use. If it is then it certainly brands this forum as one of the ones they are warning against. Therefore I have to ask -- have you vetted your defense of LSM with LSM? How can you post on this forum supporting this policy without also submitting to it? I will take you at your word, do you represent LSM, yes or no?

I will continue under the assumption that you represent LSM and therefore all references to "you" will mean LSM. If that is not the case your post loses all credibility and my references to "you" should be understood as referring to LSM's policy.

2. I am still very confused by this policy.:scratchhead: It is based on a verse where the context is the church meeting. It seems you are equating the published word with the words spoken in this meeting, which is fine with me, just so we all understand, this "trumpet sound", this "speaking" is what this policy is referring to as published works. Now it seems there is an understanding that there is a local word that is not under this policy. Hymnals composed of songs the saints in the locality have written, gospel tracts, perhaps articles in the local paper. But then they say to "be careful" concerning these local works being disseminated more widely. How exactly could they do that? If I visit a locality and buy their song book how are the elders supposed to be "careful" about me taking it back to my locality, sharing it with others in other localities, etc? I have preached the gospel with tracts we published in Houston, I handed them out in bus stations, train stations even airports. How exactly are we to be "careful" about them being disseminated more widely?

3. I have a covenant with Jesus Christ. He died for me. I was baptized into His name. I submit myself to the Lord and He has blessed me with every spiritual blessing. I have been blessed with believing Abraham. But what covenant do I have with LSM? Why would I submit to them? Who gave them authority to decide what I say and what I don't say, what I publish and what I don't publish? These are beggarly rules, be careful who you share the gospel with, be careful who you fellowship with. Why would anyone after having received the blessings of the Lord want to again be enslaved by these beggarly regulations?

4. Jesus said if someone sins against you rebuke them. That is what many of these publications do. Yet any reasonable person would conclude that their publication for use among all the churches via the internet violates this policy. So who should I listen to, LSM or the Lord Jesus?

5. Jesus said if they refuse to hear you then tell it to the church. I went to Ed Marks, a representative of both the church and LSM (that was why he was visiting NY). I asked him about the letter of apology he signed to PL. I was subsequently kicked out of the meeting hall with the response that "Ed doesn't want to deal with this now". We are talking about something that happened 35 years ago and he still "doesn't want to deal with this now"? That to me is the definition of "if they refuse to hear you". Therefore, if I am going to obey the Lord Jesus I must "tell it to the church". However, that can't possibly refer to the church in NY, they kicked me out and refused to hear. So I posted it on this forum so that those from California, Texas, Florida, even Europe and Asia who visit this forum could read it. Again, according to a reasonable understanding of this policy that would be something they warn against. So then, do I listen to LSM or the Lord Jesus?

Drake

02-04-2019, 07:58 PM

-1

Brothers,

As a reminder, my posts represent my personal views and are not a proxy officially or unofficially for any other person, organization, or group. No claims are made otherwise and my point of view is a matter of personal conviction.

Therefore, my posts should be evaluated on their own merits and acknowledged or challenged based on the facts presented, the logic used, and relevance to the immediate topic under discussion. Furthermore, I always welcome viewpoints based scripture related to the topic under discussion.

Thanks
Drake

Trapped

02-04-2019, 08:50 PM

Drake> "No, it doesn't, Trapped"

The One Publication document quoted in the base note does not say anything about what the churches are restricted in reading.

No sir.

Trapped, let's examine in detail the full paragraph you quoted from to see if there is anything in that paragraph that says that. In other words, let's put that sentence above in context:

"But being restricted in the one publication does not mean, and has never meant, that individual churches are not free to produce and distribute materials for their local needs. We have always had publications like this among us, and there have generally been no problems related to these. Songbooks, local tracts, church meeting outlines, testimonies, etc., have long been produced among us without controversy. These are actually not part of the one publication among us in that they do not involve all the churches. These are publications that address local needs. Problems can be caused, however, when these local and non-permanent publications gain larger geographical status. Further, it is particularly problematic when new technologies, such as the Internet, are used to distribute these local publications. The elders should take special care to assure that what is produced for their local churches remains a local matter. Otherwise, damage may result. Although technologies now exist that permit the easy dissemination of material, we should not use these technologies at the risk of causing confusion among the saints and of damaging the one accord among the churches. The elders and saints everywhere should exercise the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China: all the saints and all the churches everywhere should similarly be restricted in one publication in the Lord’s recovery."

Trapped, in this paragraph you cited as proof that the local churches are restricted in what they can read yet there is not one statement, or a shred of a statement, not a hint, not a suggestion, not an implication, nor an innuendo... that they are being asked or told to only read Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Rather, this paragraph, and the sentence that you lifted from this paragraph are speaking about restrictions in publication, producing a publication, disseminating publication, etc. and the reference to local churches is all about the publications they produce for local needs. That is why there is no contradiction with what Brother Lee said in the same document that whether one reads the ministry or not is up to them. That is why there is no contradiction when Brother Lee said whether one reads his writings or not does not determine whether they are a genuine local church. The One Publication document addresses publication, and it addresses the very real problem of some brothers claiming to be part of the ministry but driving their own agenda and publishing their teachings under the umbrella of the ministry. Those brothers have the right to publish their own stuff, but not under the banner of being a part of or the successor to the one ministry by their own self-ascribed determination. That would be an "uncertain sounding of the trumpet" just to close the loop on that bit.

Furthermore, you may compare in the same document what is meant by "the same caution that Brother Lee spoke of when he testified concerning the one publication in mainland China". Again, in that historical account there is nothing about what the churches in China were restricted in reading. No, it was about restriction in publication, that is, Brother Lee would not venture out on his own and publish something that Brother Nee did not review and approve of as part of that ministry. That is the example given as like for like.... that is, as it was in mainland China, where brothers could produce something as part of that ministry, at least one brother, Witness Lee, would not publish something on his own without consulting and gaining the approval of Brother Nee. As it was there, concerning how things were published so it will be here.

Hope that helps.

Drake

Drake,

Um......if the One Pub restricts what is published........that restricts what is available to be read. If I cannot publish a book, then no one can read that book.

From the One Pub: "...the ministry materials of Brother Lee and Brother Nee. These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord’s recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today."

"Used" means "read", Drake. If the one publication is what is regularly read by all the saints and all the churches, and everyone else is to be restricted in NOT publishing.......then all the saints and churches are left to only read Nee and Lee. Don't take that to mean that I'm saying they can't read whatever they want in their own home; I've already covered that. I am talking about on a widespread shared scale, not individuals.

Drake, I am not unsympathetic to LSMs concerns over what may have been legitimate problems caused by DYL, etc, although I do not know many of the gory details of the whole situation. I personally cannot fault LSM or those affiliated for putting out a statement "discrediting" anyone who tries to put out publications that falsely claim they are a continued representation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. If WL did not "appoint" someone as a continuation of his own personal ministry (and my personal belief is that he did not) then, of course, it is not okay for anyone to publish as if they are such a continuation. If I wrote a bestseller and someone else wrote a sequel to it and tried to pass off that I had designated them to do so when I didn't, I would have a problem. Given that LSM's stated purpose is to publish WN and WL, and that purpose hasn't changed, it follows that anyone else, DYL or otherwise, is not part of their publication.

But unfortunately, the One Pub failed miserably, and I mean miserably, at getting that point across, if indeed that is the point.

I'd like to propose a revised version of the Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery. It's not perfect or all-encompassing, but here goes:

----
There are some brothers among us who are putting out their own publications under the claim that they are a continuation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. This is a false claim. Before his passing, brother Lee did not appoint any brother as his continuation and did not authorize further publication of his ministry by any person or entity besides LSM. LSM is the sole publisher of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's books, and any material published by other saints are not LSM publications.

While we all have a basic right to publish, anyone among us who publishes should not do so claiming affiliation with LSM, Watchman Nee, or Witness Lee as part of their publication. In addition, they should not use any such affiliation as a basis for promotion of their own work. Portions or excerpts of brother Nee or Lee's ministry may not be quoted or referenced without receiving explicit written permission from LSM to do so, and should only be done in a manner consistent with existing copyright laws. Furthermore, any saint who publishes should find an independent publishing company to do so.

As with any spiritual nourishment we take in, each saint should discern for themselves the benefit and truth found in any published work. Any Christian publication, whether put out by LSM, by a saint in the Lord's recovery, or by another Christian author, should be held to the light of the truth in the word. The credence given to any publication should be based on the light received, its accuracy according to the truth, and whether it brings you to know and love the Lord Jesus in a deeper way. The publication of divine truths is a serious and weighty matter. We recommend that any saint desiring to publish should not do so lightly or without much prayer before the Lord and fellowship with other believers.
----

While they certainly can make clear that anyone who publishes is not part of the one publication, the co-workers have no business restricting anyone from publishing if they are led by the Lord to publish, or restricting the scope of that publication. Claiming that this restriction is to be "governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross" is a shocking disrespect to the cross of Christ. If the One Pub is a reaction to DYL, it is quite a simple task to get that point across, given the brainpower behind who was probably involved in writing it, but somehow, that group of brilliant, eloquent, educated men couldn't do it.

Trapped

P.S. Ohio's points are excellent and I'd love to elaborate there too but am short on time. But goodness......if someone in a locality produces a tract that preaches the good news of the gospel, is the wide-eyed warning that "damage may result" if that tract is used in other churches really warranted? Why would something used locally that is spiritually beneficial to one locality suddenly become damaging when passed around to others? It's just ludicrous.

Also for anyone to sweepingly claim that other's publications contain "no new light or life supply" is just.......arrogance to the max. Argh!

UntoHim

02-05-2019, 08:10 AM

..if the One Pub restricts what is published........that restricts what is available to be read. If I cannot publish a book, then no one can read that book.
These are the materials that have been used regularly in the church life in the Lord’s recovery, and these constitute the one publication among us today."
"Used" means "read", Drake.

Yes, to most people, restricting what is published is tantamount to restricting what is read. And yes, to anyone not from Planet Lee, "used" does mean "read". But for followers of Witness Lee, and his Swiss cheese logic, up can also be down, square pegs can fit into round holes and "do what I say, not what I do" is the order of the day.

"One publication among us today" may seem somewhat innocuous to the uninformed, but in the Local Church of Witness Lee it is well-understood and taken as seriously as a heart attack. There is a very good reason why Lee is to be considered as "The One Minister with The One Ministry for The Age"...because that's exactly how he presented himself when he was alive, and this is how he is presented by The Blended Brothers "among us today".
-

awareness

02-05-2019, 08:42 AM

Weighingin

02-05-2019, 09:30 AM

Of course One Publication is a joke. Anyone can publish. But it's not a joke in the the recovery movement. It means only LSM publications can be used and read in the LC.

Like the Watchtower to the JW's ... and the book of Mormon to the LDS.

Looking at that writing years ago, I got the impression there's only one publication and if you want to write something, you must clear it with the LSM.
It seems we all understand that you can't publish something attributing that it is the LSM without consultation with them.
But since this is considered the ministry of the age, God's authority comes from he who can interpret the word, etc, any other publishing can be considered
competition with the one ministry based on ambition.
I have a compound question, did Titus and Dong just publish under their own name or did they claim it was with the LSM or "the one ministry of the age."
Any Christian should be able to write and publish, as long as proper accreditation is given to any sources. It seems the issues came up as to how they were promoted and distributed.
On a side note, I've tried numerous times to access that "One Publication" site, it still is "403."

Ohio

02-05-2019, 09:37 AM

Of course One Publication is a joke. Anyone can publish. But it's not a joke in the the recovery movement. It means only LSM publications can be used and read in the LC.

Like the Watchtower to the JW's ... and the book of Mormon to the LDS.
One characteristic of abusive sects or cults is to fetter the children of God and rob them of their liberties in Christ. Jesus came to set us free, as the Good Shepherd sets the sheep free.

In the apostolic age, it was the Judaizers who attempted to bring the liberated believers into bondage. During the Dark Ages it was the Roman Pope who did the same. Today it is insular and exclusive sects who do the same.

I grew up with the Catholic Missal. It defined the Lord's Day service for every parish on earth. Now the LC's have the Holy Word for Morning Revival published by LSM. It does the same thing.

Hi Drake, please show us one collection of churches (ie denomination) in history which has used a One Publication Policy and remained healthy in the faith. Every single one, including the Plymouth brethren, has used this policy to its own demise.

Ohio

02-05-2019, 09:47 AM

I have a compound question, did Titus and Dong just publish under their own name or did they claim it was with the LSM or "the one ministry of the age."

Of course they published their own books, and never claimed their books were LSM.

But that never was the point. The POINT is control. Control of the LC's. Both Lee and the Blendeds viewed these two as rivals to their control, and thus must be eliminated! Regardless of collateral.

Funny thing is that both Titus and Dong did the same thing in their regions. They permitted no rivals either. :rollingeyesfrown:

aron

02-05-2019, 10:40 AM

But since this is considered the ministry of the age, God's authority comes from he who can interpret the word, etc,"

This is interesting - "since this is considered the ministry of the age, God's authority comes from he who can interpret the word". Only the ministry of the age has the authority to interpret scripture. But I think of 1 Corinthians 14 as a contrast to this position. 26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored. 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

The LSM said that anyone exercising a revelation or a tongue or an interpretation outside of the prompting of the "ministry of the age" would bring in confusion. But Paul doesn't show this in 1 Cor 14: rather, everyone can prophesy, everyone can get revelation or tongue or interpretation. (and I don't differentiate between interpreting tongues as Paul presents it, and interpreting scripture, and [for that matter] having 'revelation'. They all require an independent action of the Holy Spirit in the believer). Each one, independently, in sequence, in good order. The Spirit of Christ reigns.

If "each of you" are doing this at the assembly level, as Paul suggests, and someone mis-aims, then the error will eventually be manifest by its fruit, and turned away (ignored, rejected) in the assemblies. There's a protection in the multiplicity of functions, expressions, disseminations. By contrast, if anyone holds themselves over the flock as a (super)apostle, and claim for their personal ministry all revelation, all tongue, all interpretation, then who else can function? And if they err, who can restrain them?

But the NT says, "each of you" has an interpretation - whether the effect of your interpretation travels or disseminates beyond the boundaries of the local assembly is the purview of the Holy Spirit, not an earthly HQ. Anaheim (for instance) doesn't control the Holy Spirit of God, nor are they the only ones obedient to the direct leading of Holy Spirit. The "ministry of the age" concept essentially shuts down the operation of the Holy Spirit, because then "each of you" only get the revelation, tongue or interpretation indirectly, from the ministry. With the ministry of the age, if anyone else functions, they're deemed competition.

Does 1 Cor 14 suggest any of this? I think not - rather its opposite.

Cal

02-05-2019, 10:46 AM

I'd like to propose a revised version of the Publication Work in the Lord's Recovery. It's not perfect or all-encompassing, but here goes:

Trapped, Your suggestion makes some good sense, which of course means its logic will be lost on some of the very ones you are trying to convince.

Here's the thing. Any Christian group has the right to set up rules for its members. We can argue whether those rules are right or wrong in the broad sense, but that is different from arguing whether the group itself can hold such rules.

For example, a group might have a rule that men wear ties and women wear dresses to meetings. We can argue whether that in general is a "good" rule or not, but in the end you have to concede if a group wants to have such a rule that's its business.

The "Lord's Recovery" obviously has some rules that most would find odd, and we might even be able to mount arguments as to why the LR should not have such rules, but in the end its their call. The beauty of that is, if you don't want to be a member of the LR, then don't. There are plenty of groups. The vast majority of Christian groups understand this. They believe in their particular vision, but allow others the freedom to disagree with them.

Not the LR, however. They just don't think their way is better. They think all other ways are invalid and you are evil for following them. They are not content just to have their own group and follow the Lord according to their own consciences, they want to compel the consciences of others to remain in their group, to the point of grievously unethical spiritual intimidation. As Ohio said, it's about control. This is plain evil, and this is where sheep dogs like myself feel to step in.

So trying to reform the LR without addressing their core problem of serious spiritual abuse is, I'm afraid, a waste of time. If they are not going to see the problem of their major abuses they certainly are not going to see the problem with their minor ones. If they aren't bashful about threatening members with 1000 years in outer darkness for leaving God's unique move on earth and his one true ministry, aka their little sect, do you really think they are going to give a rat's rear end whether they shouldn't restrict their members from publishing?

So, in general, if you like the LR, join up and follow their rules. If you don't like the LR, then leave without a giving a second thought to their stupid threats. But don't expect them to change anything as long as their attitude is that by definition they can do no wrong. By all means warn others, but don't expect to be able to change the LR.

Ohio

02-05-2019, 12:26 PM

Years ago someone commented about my former LC minister Dr. Philip Comfort saying, "perhaps our hearts in the churches needs to be enlarged." I immediately had to get a hold on my anger. After a bit, I commented, "the church loved Phil, it was the heart of TC that needed to be enlarged."

For years I heard LC teachings about trusting the Lord. Ministers were to be patterns for the church. When it comes to the ministry at LSM, there is no such thing as trusting the Lord. For decades they have operated according to fleshly wisdom, and sometimes they just employed the flesh without any wisdom at all. Just open to any of Paul's writings, and you will see endless details of healthy patterns of ministry long rejected by those at LSM. Their One Publication Policy is just the tip of the iceberg.

For example. Paul rebuked Peter (Gal 2.11) publicly in Antioch over discarded Kosher law, yet Peter later extolled "beloved brother" Paul's writings as the scripture itself. (II Peter 3.15-16) Compare this to Lee. When John Ingalls approached him privately a dozen times about his fleshly son Philip, Lee turned on him publicly to smear his reputation. Compare this also to the Blendeds. When Midwest brothers addressed their controlling ways, they quarantined them in return.

Our real pattern -- Paul -- was honest and humble, these guys are dishonest and arrogant.

ZNPaaneah

02-05-2019, 12:56 PM

The bottom line is that LSM has the right to tell people whether or not they can speak (publish) in the name of LSM. They don't have the right to tell us whether or not we can speak (publish) in the name of Jesus. Their attempt to do so is weak, beggarly, and usurps the Lord's authority. Only a fool would would agree to submit themselves to this ordinance. The only one that can forbid us to speak in the name of Jesus is the Spirit (Acts 16:6).

However, if you read Acts that attempt to forbid the apostles to speak in the name of Jesus is common (Acts 4:17, 5:28), nothing new about what LSM is doing. If you want to speak the word of God you need a backbone, can't be a reed bending in the wind.

Trapped

02-10-2019, 01:14 AM

While I don't disagree with the spirit of the concept that any Christian group has a right to set rules and regulations for its members, in the LCs many of the "rules" are not expressed outright, nor are they revealed up front. Many are set not in writing but through glances, looks, insinuations, comments, implications. No one coming into the church is given a list of rules that lets them know up front:

1. Don't grow a beard.
2. Jeans are rebellious.
3. Movies are evil.
4. Department stores are of the devil.
5. Don't have friends.
6. We only read one Bible version around here.
7. If you share from another Christian author too many times.....look out.
8. If you try to write something and publish it - you will be seen as a rival and are by default dead meat.
9. IF YOU GO TO ANY OTHER CHURCH YOU ARE DIVISIVE AND GOD WILL PROBABLY SEND AN ASTEROID TO CRUSH YOUR SINFUL BEING (just look at John Doe and the mac truck incident.......) :eek2:

Sign here! ______________________________

No one would ever join if they knew up front what they were getting into.

If to be a member of the church you have to waive personal publication rights in deference to LSM's publication work or get quarantined......then the local churches have no leg to stand on when they try to deny people's claims that they are LSM churches. They just don't.

They can dance around all they want, but the more they write in defense of all this the worse it is. The letters they wrote to DYL speak of "rivalry"......where does any Christian group manufacture the concept of rivalry to begin with?!?! And it's all over mortal human's publications. And many go down tooth and nail defending this stuff.

I wish I could find it again, but one letter started out with a thick paragraph denigrating all other non-LC churches, and there was this one sentence that made it so crystal clear that the co-workers view "the Lord's recovery" as "the Body of Christ". Not a part of it, but THE. The sentence was full of "ones", as in "the one Body of Christ as built up by the one ministry in the one recovery work as produced by the one publication of the one minister of the age" or something like that. I was so deflated reading it.

Something I can't wrap my head around though, is that even now, I know of new ones who have "touched the church" who say very explicitly that the Lord told them to come there. Even they were prominent people in their former church, and yet the Lord led them to the local church to be a no one. And yet others like me are dissatisfied there and have lost decades of a happy life from warped misrepresentations of God and need years to recover from being there. Who can ever know what the Lord is doing.

P.S. I understand that TC and DYL apparently turned exclusionary themselves; I'm not defending what they did or really making any commentary there since I don't know the full story. The whole structure of the local churches is wrong since they are based around a man, which inherently lends itself to this kind of thing. I am fine to say that many churches were raised up by Witness Lee, that is undeniable. But the continued force-fed diet and control of all the LCs is not good. The LCs disguise this under the guise of "fellowship among the churches" but it seems to me the emphasis should be much more on fellowship among the members of the church in a given city rather than fellowship among churches in many different cities.

By this I mean they should emphasize the fellowship of the TRUE church in Anaheim (all the believers in Anaheim, regardless of where they meet or what they call themselves) rather than a tiny portion of the church in Anaheim (the LC) fellowshipping with a tiny portion of the (LC) church in Boston fellowshipping with a tiny portion of the (LC) church in Seattle, etc.. The LC's always denigrate other churches coming together as "shaking hands over the fence", but the LC's don't see that they've replaced their own fences with 20-foot cinder block walls and turrets and machine guns and a moat and drawbridge. It's asinine.

One time I talked to an elder about this very thing, and he tried to speak up how the churches emphasize "oneness". I said, "okay, but wouldn't you call it an internal oneness while we are still separated from all the other believers?" His response was, "Yes, well, you go talk to any of those other pastors out there and they don't even know the name of the pastor in the next town over!" I realized I wasn't dealing with someone with two feet on the ground. Who cares if they know the name of the pastor in the next town over? I'm more than willing to bet they know the names of other pastors in their own town, and probably are friends with them, and ask advice and have them over for lunch, which is more than we can say! The local churches are the most egregious neglecters of the actual church in their own city.

Sorry, went off topic there, that gets into the ground rather than the publication....it's all connected but I'll stop there.

aron

02-10-2019, 09:06 AM

No one would ever join if they knew up front what they were getting into. Children in "local church" families don't have choice: they're born and they're inside, at least temporarily. Those who joined 35 or 50 years ago didn't know any better. The history of control was hidden, many practices were disguised. "Oh, we just love Jesus". Then little by little "restrictions" got introduced into the programme.

Today with the internet and those who've come forward, it's clearer what one's getting into. Steve Isitt has published his investigation, Jane Anderson has told her story, John Ingalls' STTIL is available. (Note that Steve I. asked LSM leaders for permission to publish his story, they denied him the right, and 'marked' him for even asking [even tho WL had publicly requested that someone find the 'lost' ones!]).

Something I can't wrap my head around though, is that even now, I know of new ones who have "touched the church" who say very explicitly that the Lord told them to come there. Even they were prominent people in their former church, and yet the Lord led them to the local church to be a no one..

There's an interesting phenomenon in the "local churches" where they say, "Oh, you have to get the vision" of some idea or concept. Whether of the Body or the Ministry or the Church or the One New Man or God's Oracle or whatever the label is this week. The idea is that there needs to be some inner surrender (unquestioning acceptance - again, think of an infant vis-a-vis parents) and subsequent behavioural transformation that enables one to overcome the natural barriers of reticence. Somehow the human will has to be weakened.

Of course there is biblical basis for all of that. Verses abound. But what happens is that the process of surrender, obedience, and transformation gets hijacked by unscrupulous ones, wolves in sheep's clothing. It's a widespread phenomenon in religion, not limited to this group. The subjects think they're surrendering to God but they're not. They're rather surrendering to a group with its customs and peculiar relations. That is their "subjective Christ".

Cal

02-10-2019, 10:07 AM

Sorry, went off topic there, that gets into the ground rather than the publication....it's all connected but I'll stop there.

The one publication is just another symptom of an extremely warped attitude.

The staunch LCers are convinced they are right. You are not going to change their minds. But your happiness or freedom should not depend on that.

I understand your frustration at wasted time. But don't waste more time trying to figure out why other people are crazy, you have enough on your plate just managing your own life. At some point you have to say "Thanks, but this is not for me," and move on. Church membership is NOT like a marriage. If our consciences are offended, we CAN vote with our feet. The LC has NO monopoly on anything. Either you believe that, or you don't. And if you don't, move on.

The bottom line is that the rest of your life starts today. I realize that separating from such a long commitment is not easy, and that you need a process of talking things out and working through it, and this board is great for that.

But you must realize you are not going to reform the LC. And for some questions you are not going to get answers for a long time. Don't waste more time in a whirlpool. By all means take advantage of these board discussions to work through things, but realize that the important thing now is fixing your life, not the LC. Take positive steps for the time you have remaining, and like the Lord did, leave their "house" to them and move on.

You might start by changing your name from "Trapped" to "Freed." Because if you believe you are trapped, you are. And if you believe you are free, you are. :)

aron

02-10-2019, 10:31 AM

I understand your frustration at wasted time. But don't waste more time trying to figure out why other people are crazy, you have enough on your plate just managing your own life. At some point you have to say "Thanks, but this is not for me," and move on.

I respectfully disagree on two fronts. First, one must figure out what happened to truly move on. It's like a relationship - the danger is that you break off an abusive one & simply enter another. When I left the LC I went into a group where women were literally "silent in the church", because Paul had said this. Headcoverings were likewise mandatory. They didn't take a name or register with the government because, "Its not in the Bible". And they were arguably more controlling than the LC. They micromanaged lives and families with black-and-white verses.

Second, as you begin to figure things out to your own satisfaction you can help others who may be struggling with the same issues & questions. That way one's experiences are used by God to serve others (help them break off controlling and manipulative relationships). The issue proves the process - one's proved free by helping others along the path. Look at Jesus' words to Peter in Luke 22:32. See also Psa 51:12,13 - one's journey back to light is not for oneself but for others, else it's for naught.

Ohio

02-10-2019, 10:39 AM

But you must realize you are not going to reform the LC.

I became convinced of this fact after reading Plymouth Brethren History.

They were our spiritual forebears. They also had the ground of oneness, all the riches, the MOTA Oracle, condemnation of all others, etc. . . All of the same ingredients of arrogant pride now infecting LSM. Did they ever change? No! Never! Nada! As they say.

Actually the only glimmer of hope that existed in that system was excommunication. Complete and thorough. Still, many of the excommunicated stayed in a morphed version of those who excommunicated them. Like those in the Gospels at Jesus' time, your greatest hope was in being thrown out of the synagogue.

Cal

02-10-2019, 12:43 PM

I respectfully disagree on two fronts. First, one must figure out what happened to truly move on. It's like a relationship - the danger is that you break off an abusive one & simply enter another. When I left the LC I went into a group where women were literally "silent in the church", because Paul had said this. Headcoverings were likewise mandatory. They didn't take a name or register with the government because, "Its not in the Bible". And they were arguably more controlling than the LC. They micromanaged lives and families with black-and-white verses.

Second, as you begin to figure things out to your own satisfaction you can help others who may be struggling with the same issues & questions. That way one's experiences are used by God to serve others (help them break off controlling and manipulative relationships). The issue proves the process - one's proved free by helping others along the path. Look at Jesus' words to Peter in Luke 22:32. See also Psa 51:12,13 - one's journey back to light is not for oneself but for others, else it's for naught.

I agree in principle, but the question is: To what degree do you take those efforts? Certainly you need to figure some things out, but there also needs to be some closure. God has called us to life and peace, and the idea that a lack of complete clarity about what happened need steal your peace must not hold.

Trust me, I'm one of those people who want to know EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. But experience has shown me we can't understand everything, at least not right away. One reason I visit here is to see if there are more insights. If I made my happiness dependent on understanding everything I'd waste my life.

Also, if anyone is out there who feels like they will not have any peace in their life until the LC is exposed, brought down and put in its place, I would say to them that is a symptom of your still being controlled by them. Let that go. Try to be more objective, remove your sense of self-esteem or God's esteem for you from the equation. Your peace about YOURSELF cannot depend on the LC getting its just desserts or even admitting to anything.

We all post here because, in part, we want to see the LC exposed and justice to be served. But don't make your sense of peace and freedom depend on that. That's my point.

Cal

02-10-2019, 12:51 PM

I became convinced of this fact after reading Plymouth Brethren History.

They were our spiritual forebears. They also had the ground of oneness, all the riches, the MOTA Oracle, condemnation of all others, etc. . . All of the same ingredients of arrogant pride now infecting LSM. Did they ever change? No! Never! Nada! As they say.

Actually the only glimmer of hope that existed in that system was excommunication. Complete and thorough. Still, many of the excommunicated stayed in a morphed version of those who excommunicated them. Like those in the Gospels at Jesus' time, your greatest hope was in being thrown out of the synagogue.

History shows empires don't reform, they collapse.

Here a relevant quote:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

-- Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841

People wander away from the LC one by one, nursing hangovers and asking themselves, "What happened?" All the while the herd they left behind continues in its madness.

What happened is the madness of crowds; and madness, at some level, is unexplainable.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nyjYg2nxZlvcJ95ti0Qe_w-t-tEELT4f

Trapped

02-10-2019, 11:10 PM

Yes, I agree with the "move on" thing, but the reality is I'm just not there yet. "Moving on" is still tantamount to stepping into space without a tether. I'm not someone who make rash moves and I personally can't move on until I'm moving on towards or connected to something. Otherwise I'm moving on into a vast empty desert.

This forum is where I am only beginning to flex muscles that were snipped as a kid when I wasn't even aware. It may look like I'm languishing here but that's not my intention at all. My posts are just me thinking for myself for once. Using logic for once. Not pounding my square head into a round Lee hole for once wondering why everyone around me loves his stuff and I get nothing from it.

I know I can't reform the LC's; I'm well aware. That wasn't really the intention of my proposed revised version of the One Pub a few posts back. The point of that "revision" was just to show how easy it is to say clearly what LCers try to pass off that it's saying but really isn't. Or how easy it is to take a line that protects LSMs publication rights while balancing the validity of other publications rather than taking the shamefully haughty position that only Lee has the light. And to say that he should be subject to the same discernment as any other Christian author.

I'm just punching against the bully I didn't know I could defend myself against. I'll run out of the desire to punch at some point and will be able to walk away.

Igzy, I understand when you say you are a person who needs to know what happened. I am too, but I also need to know why. I can't stand up after decades on the ground, shake it off, say "huh, that was weird" and walk off in another direction. I don't want to lose more decades lost in another wormhole group, missing the mark. Was there no point to those decades? Why did they happen if not for something? Otherwise what we go through in life is meaningless.

awareness

02-11-2019, 09:27 AM

I agree in principle, but the question is: To what degree do you take those efforts?
My own personal experience is that it could take decades to change a local churcher, or in my particular experience an ex-LCer.

And the only reason to stay at the task is because of loving them. Otherwise you won't stay at it.

I wormed the brother for years. Worming is throwing the truth on their hard noggin, so that the worms eventually bore down into their head, and a little light comes in, and then a aha moment happens.

But it can take years, even decades, for the worms to bore thru. And when they do, you won't get any credit for it. Which is the way it should be.

Cal

02-11-2019, 09:29 AM

Igzy, I understand when you say you are a person who needs to know what happened. I am too, but I also need to know why. I can't stand up after decades on the ground, shake it off, say "huh, that was weird" and walk off in another direction. I don't want to lose more decades lost in another wormhole group, missing the mark. Was there no point to those decades? Why did they happen if not for something? Otherwise what we go through in life is meaningless.

I totally get your whole post. I've been there. Let me just say the following:

1) Realize your value to the Lord has NOTHING to do with your status with the LC. He values you and loves you as his precious child and that has nothing to do with being affiliated with a church movement. You must get to a place where your self-esteem before the Lord is not fundamentally based on anything to do with the LC or any other group.

2) No group or person owns the Church. The church belongs to Christ. He "loans" aspects of the church to practical groups, but he can just as easily take back those things. The Lord never lets fallen people hold the church or its members hostage. Anyone who thinks he does is sadly deceived.

3) All church groups are imperfect. This is something we need to get. There have been many, many godly people in the Catholic church, but there have been some other things that are not good. It's a mixture. The LC is no different. When you ask what was that all about, what did it mean, it meant that the Lord works wherever he can as much as he can. But just because he is working in a place does not mean that is the only place he is working or can work. Because we were so committed to the Lord in the LC he was able to do many amazing things. But because it was eventually overwhelmed by a warped vision, it became toxic in some ways.

Lee clearly saw that the church has its good and bad sides. Where he went off the reservation was to look at the good in the LC and disregard the bad, and at the same time look at the bad in "Christianity" and disregard the good. In other words, he looked at the LC in an idealized way, at what he hoped it would become, while doing the exact opposite with any other groups. This bait-and-switch, equivocating mentality is rampant in LC thinking. But it's so subtle to them that they don't see it, because they believe they are special and chosen and so operating under a set of rules which favors them, which is the calling card of every errant group that ever existed.

4) The fact is there are contradictions in the LC. Some can take them, some can't. If you can't the Lord is not, in principle anyway, telling you to stay. That is, it is not fundamentally by his law and nature necessary for you to stay. He may be leading you practically to stay, he may be leading you to leave, he may even be leaving it up to you. But there is no bedrock principle that says you must stay.

5) So what did it mean? It meant God was working. It meant he was there with people that were meeting in his name, just as he said he would be. What was really good about the LC? The Lord, the Spirit, the brotherly love. Other stuff like being "the Recovery" or "bringing the Lord back" were exciting, but that probably isn't what kept you there. The Lord puts up with a lot of our silliness to be with us, but that doesn't validate the silliness. It was those basics that mattered: love, fellowship, relationship, purpose. All and only the things that are available anywhere.

So, again, my advice is get yourself to a place where you feel good about where you are. Don't feel like you have to figure everything out before you get there. The same approach must be taken with other things in life which don't make sense: the death of a loved one, a divorce, unfairly losing a job, any major challenge which doesn't make sense. You have to decide to be happy without having figured out why it happened. As I said, at some level madness is unexplainable, and you have to trust that the Lord sees and knows everything and will make known what we need to know when we need to know it. It always comes down to faith in him.

Cal

02-11-2019, 10:04 AM

Let me put it this way:

What matters to the Lord is that which is available in any church group. What is only available in some or one does not matter to him.

Ohio

02-11-2019, 10:41 AM

So, again, my advice is get yourself to a place where you feel good about where you are. Don't feel like you have to figure everything out before you get there. The same approach must be taken with other things in life which don't make sense: the death of a loved one, a divorce, unfairly losing a job, any major challenge which doesn't make sense. You have to decide to be happy without having figured out why it happened. As I said, at some level madness is unexplainable, and you have to trust that the Lord sees and knows everything and will make known what we need to know when we need to know it. It always comes down to faith in him.
Igzy, great words of wisdom here.

Last year I took a class to study the book of Job. Never studied that book before, in fact, in the LC I was told it was a waste of time. All the sages of the land gathered to help poor Job understand the unexplainable madness which had suddenly engulfed him. None could help him. Today mankind, with all its vast improvements in technology and learning, has no more wisdom to understand the often times unexplainable madness of life than any of Job's friends to answer these questions.

The message of this book, written for all of God's people, is to save us from trying to figure everything out. We are on a journey of faith. The number of days we have on this journey have been predetermined. God's way for us is to believe Him . . . regardless of what comes our way. Faith demands that we trust God, our creator and Father, and this faith, like everything else of value, needs testing. Nothing in human life can prove our faith except hardships and obedience to God.

James encourages us to "count it all joy brothers." Rejoicing in the Lord helps to save us from the disease of "I gotta understand what's goin' on," and strengthens our faith to love and know Him.

UntoHim

02-11-2019, 10:45 AM

Great summary by Igzy! Thank you brother for this thoughtful and insightful summation. I think it is not only a helpful answer to Trapped, but to all of us who struggle in trying to "make sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement". If none of us were concerned with trying to understand, and even make some sense of, all that we have gone through (some of us for our entire lives) then this forum would probably not exist in the first place.

I would like to piggyback off your last statement and change it to: "What matters to the Lord is what is available in the ministry of any true Christian minister. What is only available in some ministers or one minister does not matter to him." For our purposes here, I would like to apply this to Witness Lee. If the man was actually a true minister of the Gospel and the Word, then only the things that he preached and taught which were of value to the entire Body of Christ are what matters to the Lord, and the exclusive and self-promotional, self-aggrandizing things that he preached and taught are of no value to the Body of Christ, and mean nothing to the Lord.
-

Cal

02-11-2019, 11:15 AM

The message of this book [Job], written for all of God's people, is to save us from trying to figure everything out.

Amen to that!

"What matters to the Lord is what is available in the ministry of any true Christian minister. What is only available in some ministers or one minister does not matter to him."

And Amen to that, too!

Of course we each are unique, and can present things in different ways. But each of our unique styles does not suggest a difference in content. We each describe what we see from different perspectives, but we each see the same common baseline of the Lord and the Spirit of Truth, which is available in any genuine Christian group. You can't hijack God's truth and make it uniquely your own. If you try you'll only end up with a bucket of sand where you thought your great unique ministry was.

Cal

02-11-2019, 11:38 AM

James encourages us to "count it all joy brothers." Rejoicing in the Lord helps to save us from the disease of "I gotta understand what's goin' on," and strengthens our faith to love and know Him.

Just thought of this. Inspired by Ohio:

The things in your life which make the least sense to you are the ones in which God is doing his greatest work in you.

Drake

02-20-2019, 05:24 PM

I'm saying they can't read whatever they want in their own home; I've already covered that. I am talking about on a widespread shared scale, not individuals.

Okay Trapped. Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate that, yet you are also aware that is a minority viewpoint in this forum. Since we agree on the freedom to read personally whatever we want then we can move forward in our conversation.

... I personally cannot fault LSM or those affiliated for putting out a statement "discrediting" anyone who tries to put out publications that falsely claim they are a continued representation of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee's ministry. If WL did not "appoint" someone as a continuation of his own personal ministry (and my personal belief is that he did not) then, of course, it is not okay for anyone to publish as if they are such a continuation. If I wrote a bestseller and someone else wrote a sequel to it and tried to pass off that I had designated them to do so when I didn't, I would have a problem. Given that LSM's stated purpose is to publish WN and WL, and that purpose hasn't changed, it follows that anyone else, DYL or otherwise, is not part of their publication.

Right! This is the key point of the One Publication document.

While they certainly can make clear that anyone who publishes is not part of the one publication, the co-workers have no business restricting anyone from publishing if they are led by the Lord to publish, or restricting the scope of that publication.

Yes, again. That was stated clearly in the One Publication document.... unless you mean that any one should be able to send their personal ministry to the local churches and no one will object. Then we still have a disagreement.

Claiming that this restriction is to be "governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross" is a shocking disrespect to the cross of Christ. If the One Pub is a reaction to DYL, it is quite a simple task to get that point across, given the brainpower behind who was probably involved in writing it, but somehow, that group of brilliant, eloquent, educated men couldn't do it.

Setting aside the snarky aspects of your point above I believe you brought up an important matter. All believers should be "governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross", shouldn't they? Since you object to the statement being made and characterize it as a "shocking disrespect to the cross of Christ" then please eleborate.... Are we not called to live a crucified life in personal things and in our service to the Lord? Practically speaking, shouldn't every post published in this forum be governed by the higher vision of serving under the cross? If not that, then what? And if you agree, then what specifically is it to serve under the cross of Christ? Why shouldn't what serving ones publish, here or everywhere, be fully under the governing vision of the cross of Christ?

Thanks,
Drake

ZNPaaneah

02-20-2019, 07:24 PM

Right! This is the key point of the One Publication document.

Protecting their name may be the key point to you, but it is certainly not the key objection.

“I never published anything by myself. I always mailed my manuscript to the Gospel Room, which was under Brother Nee and his helper. It was up to their discernment whether my manuscript should be published or not.” Post #1 — Publication work in the Lord’s recovery, Being restricted in one publication.

“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?” Post #1 — Publication work in the Lord’s recovery, Being restricted in one publication.

The objection that I have is that LSM wants to stop anyone else from doing what they are doing. That was a major justification for the discipline on Titus Chu. That is why they warn the saints away from forums like this. That is why WL said it bothered him that saints put out publications. If WL can speak for the Lord why would he try to stop others speaking for the Lord?

Drake

02-21-2019, 07:08 AM

Protecting their name may be the key point to you, but it is certainly not the key objection.

ZNP,

"Protecting their name" is not the key point, ....really not even a meaningful point in my view.

Drake

Ohio

02-21-2019, 07:26 AM

ZNP,

"Protecting their name" is not the key point, ....really not even a meaningful point in my view.

Drake
Hardly.

"Protecting their name" is not the key point, it's the only point.

WL and the Blendeds have repeatedly sacrificed people and principle in order to protect their names.

LSM has become little more than a ruthless business, wining and dining shady Hank Hanegraaff for publishing favorable reports, and throwing the Cleveland brothers under the bus for publishing unfavorable reports.

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 08:45 AM

ZNP,

"Protecting their name" is not the key point, ....really not even a meaningful point in my view.

Drake

Unless I have misread LSM's documentation on the "One Publication" you cannot claim to submit to this doctrine without vetting anything you publish with them.

Now they may not take issue with some very minor publications that are distributed locally, but they would certainly take issue with anything posted on this forum since it is extra local.

Since I only recognize 1 mediator between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ, I am not willing to submit to this beggarly rule.

Since you have already stated for the record that you are not vetting your posts through LSM I cannot understand how you can defend this doctrine if you don't actually submit to it.

Cal

02-21-2019, 09:29 AM

Yes, again. That was stated clearly in the One Publication document.... unless you mean that any one should be able to send their personal ministry to the local churches and no one will object. Then we still have a disagreement.

Who has the right to try to stop someone from sending his publications to a local church for possible use? Answer: No one.

This is the root of the problem: LSM or the Blendeds or whomever have no right to try to stop people from publishing, nor do they have a right to try to stop people from distributing those publications to whomever they wish. Ministries do not own churches, they do not own people, and they certainly have no right to try to restrict people from what they should have the freedom to do.

Here's basically what the One Publication means in reality. LSM says essentially:
If you want to be associated with LSM, then you are going to do what we say. If you don't do what we say we are going to discredit you and say you are no longer part of the glorious "Lord's Recovery" and not even a legitimate church, and any other condemnation we can think of to try to intimidate you.As if anyone should give a hoot whether they are part of this imaginary thing called "the Lord's Recovery," or whether LSM thinks they are a church or not. But that's the "game of thrones" LSM is playing. It's all intimidation based on a non-existent entity called the "Lord's Recovery." No church, whether ever associated with LSM or not, is under any obligation to respect it. That's true of any other ministry or movement which takes that tack.

It's all a game of intimidation based on lies. It's ridiculous. It's flat wrong.

Drake

02-21-2019, 09:31 AM

Unless I have misread LSM's documentation on the "One Publication" you cannot claim to submit to this doctrine without vetting anything you publish with them.

Now they may not take issue with some very minor publications that are distributed locally, but they would certainly take issue with anything posted on this forum since it is extra local.

Since I only recognize 1 mediator between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ, I am not willing to submit to this beggarly rule.

Since you have already stated for the record that you are not vetting your posts through LSM I cannot understand how you can defend this doctrine if you don't actually submit to it.

Yes, you have misread or misapplied the "One Publication" and I have provided my viewpoint on that through my personal correspondences with Trapped posted in this forum.

There are no LSM police running around trying to control people, telling them what they can read or whether or not they can publish (Titus Chu publishes and sells books yet today....doesn't he?). That would be pointless and impossible to execute even if they were so inclined (which they are not). Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. If God's enemy were blatant then believers would not fall for his wiles. But he is subtle and so creates a small opening, like a crack in the wall, that later turns into something that a Mack truck can be driven through.

Then you end up with a situation like this:

"Today there are churches which are still passing through turmoil because of the influence of Titus Chu and certain divisive workers under his leadership. These workers have deviated from the central lane of God's economy in their teaching and actions. They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness."

So, personally, I appreciate that there are brother's who are mindful of the ministry in the Lord's recovery they have been entrusted with and will address potential issues head on. That's a good and responsible thing to do.

Drake

Cal

02-21-2019, 09:36 AM

So, personally, I appreciate that there are brother's who are mindful of the ministry in the Lord's recovery they have been entrusted with and will address potential issues head on. That's a good and responsible thing to do.

LSM has the right to define the terms of association with them.

They have no right to condemn anyone for choosing not to do so. Whether blatantly or by implying they have left the "central lane of God's economy," which is just BS and double-talk designed to intimidate, anyway.

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 10:07 AM

Yes, you have misread or misapplied the "One Publication" and I have provided my viewpoint on that though my personal correspondences with Trapped posted in this forum.

There are no LSM police running around trying to control people, telling them what they can read or whether or not they can publish (Titus Chu publishes and sells books yet today....doesn't he?). That would be pointless and impossible to execute even if they were so inclined (which they are not).

Let's not conflate the issue, I have not said one word about LSM controlling what you can read. I am not aware of what Titus is doing today, however I am aware that he was disciplined by the Blended brothers for "not being absolute for the ministry of WL and WN" and for "publishing" outside of their control.

Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. If God's enemy were blatant then believers would not fall for his wiles. But he is subtle and so creates a small opening, like a crack in the wall, that later turns into something that a Mack truck can be driven through.

Then you end up with a situation like this:

"Today there are churches which are still passing through turmoil because of the influence of Titus Chu and certain divisive workers under his leadership. These workers have deviated from the central lane of God's economy in their teaching and actions. They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness."

So, personally, I appreciate that there are brother's who are mindful of the ministry in the Lord's recovery they have been entrusted with and will address potential issues head on. That's a good and responsible thing to do.

Drake

Still don't understand the bigger issue. Is it that there are those who are "propagating unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery"?

If that is the "bigger issue" then this doctrine is stupider and more ridiculous than I even imagined. The Lord said "[It is] sufficient for the disciple that he should become as his teacher, and the bondman as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?"

If you are a disciple of the Lord it comes with the territory. If you don't realize that then you are a fool or a pretend disciple.

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 10:12 AM

LSM has the right to define the terms of association with them.

They have no right to condemn anyone for choosing not to do so. Whether blatantly or by implying they have left the "central lane of God's economy," which is just BS and double-talk designed to intimidate, anyway.

Judge not lest you be judged. I think much of what we share on this forum indicates that they have "left the central lane of God's economy".

When we talk about pure religion being the care of orphans and widows we are making the point that they have left this. When we point out that the apostle's fellowship was to not sue your brother we are pointing out that they have "left the apostle's fellowship" and "gone out from us".

So I think it is fair to conclude that we also have judged that the Blendeds "have left the central lane of God's economy", though instead of all the mumbo jumbo we would use a more scriptural term: "they have left the fellowship of the apostles and gone out from them".

Cal

02-21-2019, 10:30 AM

J
So I think it is fair to conclude that we also have judged that the Blendeds "have left the central lane of God's economy", though instead of all the mumbo jumbo we would use a more scriptural term: "they have left the fellowship of the apostles and gone out from them".

The difference is I'm not saying you have to follow my ministry to be in the central lane. I don't say people can't write books and try to market them to my church. I'm saying the LC leadership should back off and stop being so controlling. That's their sin and that is not something the rest of the Church should tolerate in the way we tolerate other differences.

Here's the bottom line:

There is no "Lord's Recovery." That concept was created to define a special elite club which its caretakers market. They define what it is and what its beliefs are, and hence who is "in" and who is "out."

They proclaim, with amazingly straight faces, which probably implies they actually believe it themselves, that if you are not in this club you are not up to par. But they and they alone have power to define what the rules are for being in the club. If you do and say what they like, you are in. If you don't, you are out. All this controlled by a small group of people.

If you are a member in good standing of their club--which again exists only in their own minds--they will approve you. If you are not, they will discredit you. So they take it upon themselves to be the judges of everyone. They have no problem using these means of intimidation to try to get their way.

Now, does anyone really think that is how God operates?

History shows that God does not operate that way at all. God has always raised up people as he saw fit to innovate and reform his work. Because of this very fact, he has always required us to give freedom to others to follow their consciences and not nitpick about details to try to retain control and numbers.

So their saying they are protecting the purity of their revelation is just wrongheaded. No one's revelation is so pure that it needs to be protected to the point of shutting out all other ideas. Again God just doesn't work that way. He can't. So their attitude actually produces the opposite of what they think it will. Instead of preserving light, it produces ever-increasing dimness.

Titus Chu believed in all the basics of what Lee taught. Yes, he had some other ideas. But anyone who knows how things work realizes that none of us are qualified to do thumbs down on someone simply because they have some minor differences.

But that is exactly the way the LC leadership thinks. They think they get to define what is best and what isn't in the most manipulative and intimidating way that they can--while still preserving plausible deniability. They are completely off base.

That is why they have had no growth in 40 years. Because the Lord left their club to them desolate.

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 10:36 AM

How is this a disagreement with what I said?

Cal

02-21-2019, 10:55 AM

How is this a disagreement with what I said?

I removed "I disagree" from my previous post.

Cal

02-21-2019, 11:24 AM

Ohio

02-21-2019, 11:43 AM

There are no LSM police running around trying to control people, telling them what they can read or whether or not they can publish (Titus Chu publishes and sells books yet today....doesn't he?). That would be pointless and impossible to execute even if they were so inclined (which they are not). Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. It seems like a simple matter about publishing something but then just a little deviation in one's service opens the door to manifold problems. If God's enemy were blatant then believers would not fall for his wiles. But he is subtle and so creates a small opening, like a crack in the wall, that later turns into something that a Mack truck can be driven through.

Then you end up with a situation like this: "Today there are churches which are still passing through turmoil because of the influence of Titus Chu and certain divisive workers under his leadership. These workers have deviated from the central lane of God's economy in their teaching and actions. They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness."

This is laughable. Or perhaps I should be crying.

And Mr. Drake who are these "brothers" who alone can judge whether Titus Chu is a "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?" Their chief condemnation of Titus Chu at the Whistler Kangaroo Court was that he visited and ministered in China after WL told him not to. Ought not TC have the right to obey God, and not man? (Acts 4.19; 5.29)

Would these ones be the Blended Bosses at LSM? Those same ones who protected Philip Lee, a known abusive sexual predator operating under the protections of his father? Those same ones who launched a slanderous smear campaign against the men of God who tried to protect the saints, brothers like John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, etc?

Do you expect us to believe these Blended Bosses at LSM -- BP, RK, MC -- are uniquely able to discern who is "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?" Unbelievable!

Let me suggest that Drake's "crack in the wall" metaphor, the so-called "deviation," actually refers to the failed and errant teachings at LSM. Look, for example, at the situation in China. First LSM claimed 10 million followers in China, called "Shouters". Then they disowned them all when abnormalities arose, so-called "Mack Trucks," which sullied LSM's pristine reputation. Instead of ministering to these new-borns, they try to stop ministers like TC, who was born in China, from returning to help their fledgling faith. One day LSM will be judged for this. They abandoned these young ones, and prevented others from helping them. True modern day Pharisees. (Mt 23.13)

Drake

02-21-2019, 12:53 PM

LSM has the right to publish or refuse to publish anything they want.

They do NOT have the right to:

Control, either by edict or intimidation, what materials local church members publish or consume.
Control, either by edict or intimidation, what materials local churches make available or consume.
Imply or state that if a teaching deviates from theirs it is "out of the central lane."

Again "central lane" is one of those vague, equivocating terms that means whatever LSM wants it to mean, but no one else can pin down. Basically "central lane" is whatever they claim they teach or mean, even if they actually taught or meant something different in the past. In short, THEY are the central lane. All others are not, by definition.

I agree with that .....and so does the One Publication except the last point.

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given, a fact, and a responsibility before the Lord.

Drake

Cal

02-21-2019, 12:53 PM

And Mr. Drake who are these "brothers" who alone can judge whether Titus Chu is a "serving one under the governing vision of the cross?"

More intimidation. The "governing vision of the cross" to those brothers is that you do whatever those brothers tell you to do. There's really nothing more to it, other than grandiose phraseology and phony posturing.

Cal

02-21-2019, 01:01 PM

I agree with that .....and so does the One Publication except the last point.

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given.

Drake

Not at the excruciating level of micro-managing detail the LC leadership employs.

Their approach effectively squelches any innovation the Lord may be trying to lead the believers there to. This cannot be denied. The LCs cannot innovate or reform, they cannot adapt because the leadership prevents them. That's one reason they have no growth. They are still believing in techniques that never worked and are even less appropriate now.

The fact is the LCs anal-retentive style of leadership hinders the Lord's advancing his people and work in the LC churches. A difference in degree is eventually a difference in kind. And they are a different kind.

Also, let an LSM-associated local church try to teach based on another contemporary ministry and watch the La Palma keystone cops start firing elders before you can finish one Max Lucado book.

Also, Drake, no one has such a perfect vision that they can go around saying that someone has "left the central lane" just because they differ a little. Again, Titus Chu was not that different from Lee. The Blendeds ousted Titus Chu not because he taught anything really unhealthy, but because he was a little different and wouldn't let them control him.

I cannot believe anyone has the nerve to justify the Blendeds going in and waylaying Great Lakes churches based on the historical evidence. The Blendeds accused Titus first, he was simply defending himself, which was then called dissension. I can't believe some people can't see their domineering for what it is, and then justify it as some kind of defense of truth. It's not about truth with them, it's about control. If it was about truth they'd obey the truths about giving people freedom, not lording, being humble, not thinking more highly of themselves that they ought to, respecting other's consciences and so forth.

I mean, come on. This is not nuclear science. This stuff should be simple for anyone who really knows the Bible and God's loving nature.

Ohio

02-21-2019, 01:25 PM

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given, a fact, and a responsibility before the Lord.

Drake
Are not those entrusted with a ministry also required to serve with all good conscience? (Acts 23.1; II Cor. 1.12)

Should they not also renounce the hidden things of shame? Should they also not walk in craftiness nor adulterate the word of God? (II Cor 4.1-2)

Where did Titus Chu or DYL deviate from the truth? Is not the plain words of the Bible our only standard for truth? By all accounts TC and DYL only "deviated" from LSL's directives, which you have labeled the "central lane." The Bible never identifies any restrictions like these as relevant to ministry. Your so-called "central lane" is man-made, divisive, and contrary to scriptures. The Bible instructs us to "mark" ones at LSM for their evil work. (Romans 16.17-18)

Drake

02-21-2019, 01:30 PM

The Blendeds accused Titus first, he was simply defending himself,...

That is your version Igzy... your narrative... but nevertheless, it is not your ministry and you have no part in it. That is fine.

You also have an opinion about it, as do I, and that is fine too.

thanks
Drake

Ohio

02-21-2019, 01:38 PM

More intimidation. The "governing vision of the cross" to those brothers is that you do whatever those brothers tell you to do. There's really nothing more to it, other than grandiose phraseology and phony posturing.

LSM's checkered history is so fraught with error and unrighteousness that for them to cite the "governing vision of the cross" is an affront to every minister on earth.

Ohio

02-21-2019, 01:51 PM

Also, Drake, no one has such a perfect vision that they can go around saying that someone has "left the central lane" just because they differ a little. Again, Titus Chu was not that different from Lee. The Blendeds ousted Titus Chu not because he taught anything really unhealthy, but because he was a little different and wouldn't let them control him.

I cannot believe anyone has the nerve to justify the Blendeds going in and waylaying Great Lakes churches based on the historical evidence. The Blendeds accused Titus first, he was simply defending himself, which was then called dissension. I can't believe some people can't see their domineering for what it is, and then justify it as some kind of defense of truth. It's not about truth with them, it's about control. If it was about truth they'd obey the truths about giving people freedom, not lording, being humble, not thinking more highly of themselves that they ought to, respecting other's consciences and so forth.

In the minds of the Blendeds, "how dare Titus Chu minister in China when Brother Lee told him not to." Take a minute to think about this statement. The Pharisees also commanded Peter and John not to preach in Jerusalem that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Peter said it is "better to obey God than man." That's all TC needed to know!

I'm not sure if TC honored Lee's request while he still was alive, but there was not a chance in hell that TC would obey some flunky in Anaheim over whether he could visit China or not. There are over a Billion souls in China. How many ministers do they need? Who do those Blendeds think they are? Seriously? They are more arrogant than the Pharisees ever were.

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 02:15 PM

LSM's checkered history is so fraught with error and unrighteousness that for them to cite the "governing vision of the cross" is an affront to every minister on earth.

I think it is very funny and if they have comedy shows in the New Jerusalem it will be a perennial hit.

Think about this, the "big issue" with the "One Publication" edict

Yet, the bigger issue is that unless a serving one is under the governing vision of the cross there will be problems. Drake

The vision I have of the cross includes false witnesses, a kangaroo court, and unprincipled attacks, some of which are anonymous "prophesy to us who hit you" and "He saved others Himself He cannot save".

They have propagated unprincipled attacks on the co-workers in the Lord's recovery and Living Stream Ministry via Web sites and anonymous spam e-mails disseminated worldwide. Their speaking is unhealthy, full of revilings and destructive words, leading those who follow these dissenting ones into division and worldliness

This is in fact what it means to be under the cross. The Lord knew this, John the Baptist knew this (they did with him whatever they wished), Peter was told this would be his end as well. Yet the blendeds think they can make some edict which will exempt them from the cross all under the guise of being the arbiter of "who is serving under the cross".

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 02:19 PM

Of course, it is the responsibility of those whom the Lord entrusts with a ministry to challenge mis-aiming or deviation from truth. Paul did that quite a bit actually. Its a scriptural given, a fact, and a responsibility before the Lord.

Drake

Yes it is. Glad to see we can agree. It is in fact the purpose of this thread to challenge the deviation from the truth.

But is there any way to challenge the deviation of the truth by the "one Publication" edict while still submitting to it? Isn't the edict designed to prevent anyone from challenging their authority?

Drake

02-21-2019, 03:01 PM

Yes it is. Glad to see we can agree. It is in fact the purpose of this thread to challenge the deviation from the truth.

But is there any way to challenge the deviation of the truth by the "one Publication" edict while still submitting to it? Isn't the edict designed to prevent anyone from challenging their authority?

ZNP,

Glad you asked.

Their authority has been challenged.... Titus challenged it, Dong challenged it, Nigel Tomes challenged it... you challenged it.. and the list goes on.

Taken at face value, the design center of the One Publication document was to encourage local or regional serving ones to not distribute their teachings into every or most every local churches across the globe.

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

Rather, it is better to be in fellowship with the responsible brothers in a coordinated fashion. And yes, that requires a willingness and practice of being in a governing vision of the cross. Its not easy.

Drake

Cal

02-21-2019, 03:34 PM

That is your version Igzy... your narrative... but nevertheless, it is not your ministry and you have no part in it. That is fine.

You also have an opinion about it, as do I, and that is fine too.

thanks
Drake

You've produced zero evidence that this version is false. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of seeing reality for what it is.

Cal

02-21-2019, 03:47 PM

ZNP,

Think about that scenario.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

False. The moderator here doesn't say if you don't follow his rules you are out of the "central land of God's economy." He says just don't do it here. That fact that he provides an alternate forum shows how accommodating he is willing to be. If the Blendeds simply said, This is our vision, but we realize we don't know everything and will not state or imply that our way is the best or only way, they would be fine. That's humility. That's reality. But no, they have to say that those who don't agree with them are "out of the central lane." History has proven Lee didn't have everything figured out, to say the very least. Why must they continue to pretend he did? What arrogance that is! What damage it has done!

Like I said, this isn't rocket science, Drake.

Drake

02-21-2019, 04:17 PM

False. The moderator here doesn't say if you don't follow his rules you are out of the "central land of God's economy." He says just don't do it here. That fact that he provides an alternate forum shows how accommodating he is willing to be. If the Blendeds simply said, This is our vision, but we realize we don't know everything and will not state or imply that our way is the best or only way, they would be fine. That's humility. That's reality. But no, they have to say that those who don't agree with them are "out of the central lane." History has proven Lee didn't have everything figured out, to say the very least. Why must they continue to pretend he did? What arrogance that is! What damage it has done!

Like I said, this isn't rocket science, Drake.

In fact Igzy, by sending certain threads to Alternative Views he is saying that thread or topic is out of the central lane of this forum.... and occasionally he might have to ban someone from the forum for violating the rules....

...and there is nothing wrong with that. It is in principle the same kind of oversight that without it would be abdicating responsibility... be it for the sake of the forum with its mission... or for the sake of the Lord's recovery and its mission.... responsible ones in both are acting according to the same principle.

Therefore, it is not a question about control. It's about responsibility. However, acknowledging that does not mean that you also agree with the mission. That is a separate matter.

So, right... it is not rocket science... why.... its not even Sid the Science Kid!

Drake

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 04:17 PM

ZNP,

Glad you asked.

Their authority has been challenged.... Titus challenged it, Dong challenged it, Nigel Tomes challenged it... you challenged it.. and the list goes on.

Taken at face value, the design center of the One Publication document was to encourage local or regional serving ones to not distribute their teachings into every or most every local churches across the globe.

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

Rather, it is better to be in fellowship with the responsible brothers in a coordinated fashion. And yes, that requires a willingness and practice of being in a governing vision of the cross. Its not easy.

Drake

I agree that LSM can say "this is not published here" and I agree that the elders in a local church can say "this is not spoken here". I also agree that UntoHim can tell people what they can and cannot say on his forum.

The issue with one publication is that they are telling every local church what they can and cannot say. True, they agree that they can publish a local song book and gospel tract as long as it doesn't go regional. Now if I started another forum and UntoHim excommunicated me from this one because I also have a forum, then that would be comparable to Dong and Chu.

Drake

02-21-2019, 04:37 PM

I agree that LSM can say "this is not published here" and I agree that the elders in a local church can say "this is not spoken here". I also agree that UntoHim can tell people what they can and cannot say on his forum.

The issue with one publication is that they are telling every local church what they can and cannot say. True, they agree that they can publish a local song book and gospel tract as long as it doesn't go regional. Now if I started another forum and UntoHim excommunicated me from this one because I also have a forum, then that would be comparable to Dong and Chu.

On the first point, the one publication does not dictate what a local church can and cannot say. That is flat out wrong. Brother Lee makes is crystal clear that whether or not a local church receives his ministry is entirely up to them. Therefore, they can say whatever they want about his ministry and that does not change their standing as a local church.

Now if they want to make sure all the local churches across the globe start receiving their teachings without fellowship... then that is where responsible action should be taken as needed... and it did.

To your second point, your analogy is not accurate. The like for like analogy would be that you, a long time member of this forum, start introducing topics that you know are not within the rules of this forum and after repeated exhortations you refuse to comply and therefore he blocked you and warned others not to do the same or they would reap the same action.... and THEN you went and started your own forum and sympathizers from here joined you. You could do as you pleased from then on without interference from the moderator of this forum. But if your disgruntled followers defamed, slandered, and falsely accused the moderator of this forum of trying to tell others what they can read or what they can publish then he might defend his actions... or he might just ignore them.

Under such an unfortunate circumstance, I am sure the moderator would regret your departure and hope that you would return someday as a member willing to play by the rules of THIS forum.

Drake

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 04:50 PM

On the first point, the one publication does not dictate what a local church can and cannot say. That is flat out wrong. Brother Lee makes is crystal clear that whether or not a local church receives his ministry is entirely up to them. Therefore, they can say whatever they want about his ministry and that does not change their standing as a local church.

On that point it is flat out wrong. The application of this doctrine is in the excommunication of Titus Chu. Read the letter from the Blending brothers disciplining Titus Chu, he was disciplined for not being absolute to the ministry of WL and WN and because he published his own materials. They also reference the "one trumpet", etc. Although they made some unsubstantiated allegations about the flesh, the only charges that were backed up with evidence (not hearsay) was the fact that he published outside of LSM, that he was critical of the Blended brothers, and that he was not absolute for the ministry of WL and WN.

Now if they want to make sure all the local churches across the globe start receiving their teachings without fellowship... then that is where responsible action should be taken as needed.

To your second point, your analogy is not accurate. The like for like analogy would be that you, a long time member of this forum, start introducing topics that you know are not within the rules of this forum and after repeated exhortations you refuse to comply and therefore you were blocked.... and THEN went and started your own forum and others from here joined you because they sympathized with you. You could do as you pleased from then on without interference from the moderator of this forum.

Under such an unfortunate circumstance, I am sure the moderator would regret your departure and hope that you would return someday as a member willing to play by the rules.

Drake

The point is simple -- UntoHim owns this forum, it is his. He has the right to set the rules. You don't like it, leave. What UntoHim doesn't have the right to do is to tell me I can't start my own forum.

Likewise the church belongs to the Lord ("church of Christ"), it belongs to God ("church of God") and it belongs to the saints ("church of the saints"). It does not belong to a ministry. Paul rebuked the Galatians for allowing someone else to come in and put them into bondage. That is what LSM is doing with this edict and with the application in their excommunication of Titus.

Drake

02-21-2019, 05:11 PM

The point is simple -- UntoHim owns this forum, it is his. He has the right to set the rules. You don't like it, leave. What UntoHim doesn't have the right to do is to tell me I can't start my own forum.

Right. And Titus has is own "forum" as did Dong... no one told them they couldn't. But, the responsible brothers did not allow them to impose their brands on the rest of the local churches. They can't stop them from doing their own thing and they can't stop them from publishing their own books.... but the responsible brothers have to follow the leading of the Spirit and that includes not allowing anyone to impose their brand/ministry on the local churches across the planet. If local churches choose to follow them, as occured, then that is their decision and prerogative... they answer to the Lord directly.

Likewise the church belongs to the Lord ("church of Christ"), it belongs to God ("church of God") and it belongs to the saints ("church of the saints"). It does not belong to a ministry. Paul rebuked the Galatians for allowing someone else to come in and put them into bondage. That is what LSM is doing with this edict and with the application in their excommunication of Titus.

Yes, the church belongs to the Lord..... and by the Spirit He directs men to carry out its practical affairs on earth. That we cannot deny.

Drake

Ohio

02-21-2019, 05:36 PM

Think about that scenario where they don't object.....where does it end? Even the moderator of this forum will not allow certain conversations to happen in the main forum... but are relegated to "Alternative Views". Is he deviating from the truth because he will not allow certain conversations to happen in this main forum?

Same thing in principle.

I heard far more politics in the meetings of the LC, than I have heard on this forum.

They would do well to be under UntoHim's "governing vision of the cross." :p

Ohio

02-21-2019, 05:55 PM

Right. And Titus has is own "forum" as did Dong... no one told them they couldn't. But, the responsible brothers did not allow them to impose their brands on the rest of the local churches. They can't stop them from doing their own thing and they can't stop them from publishing their own books.... but the responsible brothers have to follow the leading of the Spirit and that includes not allowing anyone to impose their brand/ministry on the local churches across the planet. If local churches choose to follow them, as occurred, then that is their decision and prerogative... they answer to the Lord directly.

Have not the Blendeds "imposed their brands on the rest of the local churches?" LSM has done exactly what they accuse Titus Chu of. And worse.

Once again, Apostle Paul's words to the self-righteous is fulfilled. (Romans 2.1)

TC, however, gave elders the choice of what to use in their meetings. LSM has taken away this liberty.

Cal

02-21-2019, 06:02 PM

In fact Igzy, by sending certain threads to Alternative Views he is saying that thread or topic is out of the central lane of this forum.... and occasionally he might have to ban someone from the forum for violating the rules....

Drake

Comparing UntoHim moderating this forum to the Blendeds moderating (or so they think) "God's move" is an invalid comparison, and completely misses the point that they have no ground to assume the moderation they assume.

UntoHim is manifestly the authority of this forum. That's reasonable. The Blendeds are NOT the authority of God's move, God's recovery (whatever that is) or anything other than their little club which is made up of them and no one else. Yes, they can moderate their club. No, they cannot moderate Christians, churches or, least of all, God's move.

As I said, a difference in degree constitutes a difference in kind. Apparently this little bit of rocket boys junior science is nuclear science to you.

Cal

02-21-2019, 06:22 PM

R but the responsible brothers have to follow the leading of the Spirit and that includes not allowing anyone to impose their brand/ministry on the local churches across the planet.

Wait, wait, wait.

How do you know the Holy Spirit is leading the "responsible brothers" to restrict people from influencing the local churches? What if God sends a minister to the local churches and the "responsible brothers" object. Who are they to object? What is their purview? Where does such authority come from? What if the minister is being led by the Holy Spirit and the "responsible brothers" are not? Whether you like it or not, that is entirely possible.

And who gave the "responsible brothers" the authority to keep ministers from the local churches in the first place? Do they have "first dibs" on them? Do they own them? What gives them the right to decide who can minister where? Why can they impose their brand on local churches but no one else can?

You'd better be careful before speaking on behalf of the Holy Spirit. He may be doing something he hasn't clued you in on. Did you ever think of that?

My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 06:28 PM

My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.

That is "One Publication" in a nutshell.

Drake

02-21-2019, 06:33 PM

Comparing UntoHim moderating this forum to the Blendeds moderating (or so they think) "God's move" is an invalid comparison, and completely misses the point that they have no ground to assume the moderation they assume.

Igzy,

Whether the Blended brothers have been commissioned to care for the Lord’s recovery and the ministry of that commission is not our decision.

Yet, one thing I’m sure of.. you are not.

Thanks,
Drake

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 06:46 PM

they answer to the Lord directly.

So they are not bound by the "One Publication"?

It is the claim of this thread that we all answer to the Lord directly and are not desirous to be under the law.

Cal

02-21-2019, 06:47 PM

Whether the Blended brothers have been commissioned to care for the Lord’s recovery and the ministry of that commission is not our decision.

Yet, one thing I’m sure of.. you are not.

Ha! That is the most obtuse piece of reasoning I've ever heard.

It assumes that there is something called "the Lord's Recovery" for which God has commissioned caretakers. Those are two assumptions which are not supportable in reality. First, "the Lord's Recovery" is not biblical, so whether it exists is pure conjecture. Second, since it is not biblical, is it absurd to talk about who God has commissioned to care for it. That's like talking about who God has commissioned to care for Neverland.

So what you are saying is there is this fanciful thing called "the Lord's Recovery" for which we cannot say who has been commissioned caretakers? So, I'll bite, how do we know who the caretakers are? Let me guess, they will tell us.

Hooboy!

I may not a caretaker of the "Lord's Recovery," but I wouldn't want to be because the thing does not exist. I am, however, humbly, a caretaker of the Church. We all are supposed to be. And I for one plan to do my job. In the meantime, "the Lord's Recovery" can go to hell.

Drake

02-21-2019, 06:53 PM

Wait, wait, wait. .....

....My goodness. The presumptiveness never ceases to amaze me.

Whoa! Hold on there big fella.

You know there is no such word as “presumptiveness” don’t you?

... but let’s go with it anyway.

You probably meant to express the thought “such presumption!” or “boy, they have presumptive ideas!”?

They both work in a way.

Presumptive: “giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief”

Presumption: an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION
b : the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief
3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact

Drake

Drake

02-21-2019, 06:55 PM

So they are not bound by the "One Publication"?

It is the claim of this thread that we all answer to the Lord directly and are not desirous to be under the law.

You’re losing me now Brother ZNP. Can’t follow and don’t have the time to devote to sorting it out. I’ll leave you the last word.

Thanks
Drake

Cal

02-21-2019, 07:01 PM

You know there is no such word as “presumptiveness” don’t you?

No, I didn't. I presumed there was. That was my presumptiveness. Anyway, there should be such a word. Actually, I still think there might be....

Whatever, if you are reduced to taking shots at my vocabulary I know I must be doing a good job. So, I'm encouraged.

Drake

02-21-2019, 07:48 PM

No, I didn't. I presumed there was. That was my presumptiveness. Anyway, there should be such a word. Actually, I still think there might be....

Whatever, if you are reduced to taking shots at my vocabulary I know I must be doing a good job. So, I'm encouraged.

Ok Igzy. Let’s moderate ourselves for a moment.

I believe it is the irony in your posts that caught my attention. The irony being you take a high position of speaking down to believers in the local churches and to leading brothers in particular, sort of lecturing about things that you do not appear to fully understand, and talking about God’s love yet your posts appear completely devoid of it, no trace of its reality.

And then, your fake word.

Look, I really don’t care about your command of the English language. I don’t really care about your derogatory opinions of the Lords recovery, the local churches, the serving ones, or brothers like me. However, I do care about whether you represent the truth accurately and to some extent I care about the way you prosecute your case.

We all butcher the language every now and then. You can call me on it when my time comes. If you want to invent a new word, then give me a heads up so I can brace myself!

Drake

ZNPaaneah

02-21-2019, 09:32 PM

You’re losing me now Brother ZNP. Can’t follow and don’t have the time to devote to sorting it out. I’ll leave you the last word.

Thanks
Drake

According to the One Publication edict you need to have your speaking vetted. Even WL would not presume to publish something without getting a senior brother like WN to vet his words. Yet you say that these blended brothers "answer directly to the Lord". That is contrary to this edict. If they answer directly to the Lord they do not need to have an intermediary approve their speaking.

Why is it that everyone who defends this rule (you are the only one on this thread) and every one that enforces this rule does not submit to it? Why do you expect everyone else but yourselves to submit to this rule?

You don't get your posts vetted. Why is that?

Nell

02-22-2019, 02:17 AM

No, I didn't. I presumed there was. That was my presumptiveness. Anyway, there should be such a word. Actually, I still think there might be....

Whatever, if you are reduced to taking shots at my vocabulary I know I must be doing a good job. So, I'm encouraged.

ne·ol·o·gism Dictionary result for neologism
/nēˈäləˌjizəm/Submit
noun
a newly coined word or expression.
synonyms: new word, new expression, new term, new phrase, coinage, newly coined word, made-up word, invented word, invention, nonce word; portmanteau word
the coining or use of new words.

Cal

02-22-2019, 07:30 AM

I'm not choosing Drake, but he did say when he joined the forum that he was a LCer for 40 years. He said that He knew Lee and the Blendeds personally. I got the impression he lived in Texas for awhile.

Perhaps you got him mixed up with others who have trolled us. Drake has made it clear that he supports all of LSM's positions. He told us he was a Christian before joining the LC's ~1976, when I did.

I have repeatedly challenged Drake over the Phillip Lee quagmire at LSM, since he lived thru it, and told us he knew all the people. He decided not to answer any of my questions, and then a few months ago refused to respond to any of my posts, effectively making him an "anti-troll" towards me.
Drake displays typical troll characteristics. He is intelligent, yet also seems maddeningly clueless when the discussion reaches the moment of truth, when someone has made a clear and valid point and has painted him into a corner. At that point he consistently does one of several things:

Disappears.
Simply says he disagrees in the face of logic no sensible person would turn his back on.
Focuses on some minor issue to try to discredit the other person (as when he made an issue of my use of "presumptiveness.")
Has a startling character change for a moment where his unctuous demeanor changes to something like an adolescent.

But you see the MO, over and over. He will probably disappear for awhile, then reappear in a few days as if nothing happened, and continue his merry way. And it will go around and around with him again. That's what he wants. He has no intention of honestly engaging anyone here. His goal is simply to pretend he is doing that, to fool you just enough to trust him. But he's shown time and again he's not interested in any evidence given to him in favor of anything he doesn't want to believe.

The reason Drake doesn't engage you anymore, Ohio, is because you beat him. You've given so much evidence about the abuse and duplicity of the Blendeds that it has reached the point where he just looks stupid saying "I don't know nuttin' 'bout dat," and so he just pretends you are not there.

I had just made a very valid and, I think, insightful point about how the Blended's narrow-mindedness, rather than preserving the Lord's light, actually hinders it, and so actually produces darkness. This is an irrefutable point, or at least one that any fair mind would consider and discuss. Did Drake consider it? Did he comment on it? No, he brushed it aside in favor of criticizing my vocabulary, and then went on to put into question my integrity by accusing me of using a "false word." Leave alone for a moment that his favorite MOTA, Lee, invented words all the time (see "Son-ized," etc.). But jumping on someone's language, grammar or spelling to try to deflect a discussion? That's the kind of thing preteens do. That kind of shift, from unctuous gentleman to mocking brat, is weird.

Was "borderline sociopath" too strong? I would say those who display such blase attitudes about real people hurt by the system they defend are definitely leaning that way. They've definitely hardened their hearts to hurt.

The Lord said the first commandment is to love. Defending the LC system in the face of all the damage it's done to his children is direct disobedience of that command. Matthew 25:45 warns strongly about this. At judgment some will claim to have done all kinds of things for the Lord (including perhaps defend "the Recovery"). He will tell them, if you hurt my little ones you totally missed it.

But Drake may not even be a real LCer. He may just be a guy who has nothing better to do. He certainly has given no evidence that he is personally acquainted with anyone or anything to do with the LC. All his displayed knowledge is general and can be found on the internet. He never talks about meetings he's been to, brothers he's spoken to, or the like. He has no personal anecdotes. Compare him to Ohio or ZNPaaneah, who are regularly relaying experiences and history. Drake never does that. Don't you think that is strange?

But I'm through playing his game. I'm going to call it like I see it from now on. I'm a sheep dog.

Ohio

02-22-2019, 08:58 AM

Drake displays typical troll characteristics. He is intelligent, yet also seems maddeningly clueless when the discussion reaches the moment of truth, when someone has made a clear and valid point and has painted him into a corner. At that point he consistently does one of several things:

Disappears.
Simply says he disagrees in the face of logic no sensible person would turn his back on.
Focuses on some minor issue to try to discredit the other person (as when he made an issue of my use of "presumptiveness.")
Has a startling character change for a moment where his unctuous demeanor changes to something like an adolescent.

But you see the MO, over and over. He will probably disappear for awhile, then reappear in a few days as if nothing happened, and continue his merry way. And it will go around and around with him again. That's what he wants. He has no intention of honestly engaging anyone here. His goal is simply to pretend he is doing that, to fool you just enough to trust him. But he's shown time and again he's not interested in any evidence given to him in favor of anything he doesn't want to believe.

The reason Drake doesn't engage you anymore, Ohio, is because you beat him. You've given so much evidence about the abuse and duplicity of the Blendeds that it has reached the point where he just looks stupid saying "I don't know nuttin' 'bout dat," and so he just pretends you are not there.

But I'm through playing his game. I'm going to call it like I see it from now on. I'm a sheep dog.
Igzy, I completely agree. Drake uses the exact same techniques that LSM has mastered for decades to cover unrighteousness, to deflect the light of God, to attack the "gnats" in other's words, to twist the truth for base gain, to protect themselves from any accountability, etc. Personally I think Drake is no different than political operatives skilled in spin. Where could he learn this ... but by reading and/or writing for LSM?

Consider my last line of questioning in this thread. I lived thru the recent quarantines, so I asked Drake how does one agree with how the LSM Publishers can excommunicate TC for ministering to China "cause Lee said not to." At first, Lee and LSM claimed all the "Shouters" as their own fruit, until their errors became apparent. TC then goes to China, his birthplace, to help these ones, and Lee/LSM publicly condemn him. LSM then quarantines TC and disavows any connection to these "Shouters." There's a billion people in China that need Jesus. How can any book publisher declare exclusive rights to them?

Reminds me of that brother from Hong Kong who smuggled LSM Bibles into China (http://www.concernedbrothers.com/BibleSmuggling/LSMsBungledBibleSmugglingScheme.pdf). He was a hero at LSM until he got caught. TC brought up this matter in the exchanges prior to his quarantine. The Blendeds threw that brother under the motor home in order to protect themselves. These people are enemies of the cross of Christ. (Phil 3.18-19)

Cal

02-22-2019, 09:01 AM

Oh, one more thing trolls do. They will engage in all their exasperating feigned obtuseness with the express purpose of driving you crazy. When you finally call them on it, and you usually have to do this with some firmness, then they shift to playing the outraged victim. Or, they accuse you of being a bad person, or, as Drake accused me, of being unloving.

It's just a game. They enjoy the dance. No matter how much sense you make, no matter how good an argument you present compared to theirs, you will make no headway with them. When you finally react to their sly obtuseness with some impatience, that's what they want, because then they can play the abused victim, and so forth.

Real LCers and other observers deserve better than our dancing around with those kinds of people. We look ridiculous continuing to give them the benefit of the doubt. They should be marked out and called on it. If they don't get real they should be restricted. Don't worry, they will always put on the outraged act when that happens. Like I said, it's a game to them, one that never ends.

Ohio

02-22-2019, 12:19 PM

They don't blow up people physically. They just blow up reputations, lives, marriages, families, ministries, works, churches--basically the whole rest of the Body of Christ is all--just to defend their crazy world view. They even have their manifestos, which read like manifestos--like rants from bright but deluded minds. Sounds like unabomber-lite to me.
Drake regularly comes on board to inform us that we all are in danger of God's judgment for exposing these lies perpetrated over the years by LSM. What about all of those innocent Christian lives that were "blown up" for their own self-gains. Wasn't this Publisher's bottom line, not the truth of the gospel at all, but their own reputation -- which equals revenue? Hence they are guilty of filthy lucre, clearly and repeatedly warned about in the N.T.

It seems like, more today than I have ever seen in my lifetime, many people are just willing to believe lies. They reject the truth, so God sends them a powerful delusion, that they would believe falsehoods. (II Thess 2.10-12)

Cal

02-22-2019, 12:35 PM

Drake regularly comes on board to inform us that we all are in danger of God's judgment for exposing these lies perpetrated over the years by LSM.

Thankfully God is not taking direction from Drake. :lol:

For everyone's information, I regularly pray, "God if I'm wrong in my beliefs and opinions, please show me. But I'm going to hold them until you tell me not to. I know I can be highly-opinionated. Please course-correct me if needed."

Do you think anyone in the LC movement does that? Do you think Drake does? I still remember asking an LC brother to at least pray about whether the LC was wrong. His response? "I don't need to pray."

That's what we are dealing with here. From a Christian standpoint, that's mental illness.

Drake

02-22-2019, 01:02 PM

I've had testimony from a brother that you corresponded with him and said you really weren't that much for the LC, but rather that you just enjoyed being a foil to the people here.

Now THAT is total fake news. :rolleyes:

You should find better sources.

Igzy, you might be confusing me with someone else. Who, I have no clue. Just to be clear, all your evidence about what I haven't shared is right here in this forum for anyone to read. Before flaming on with a personal tirade and ad hominem attack against this sincere contributor you should have read what I already posted. Anyone who has conversed with me on a variety of topics knows that your characterizations are completely baseless. Had you done the due diligence (even a little) then you could have crafted your attack on something real. I have plenty of shortcomings so you could have easily found something real to condemn.

And yet, I'm not really asking you to do the due diligence. It's up to you and I really don't mind what beliefs you hold about me, even erroneous ones as yours are. If you choose to remain misinformed after one or two corrections then I'll just assume that you don't care to know. No problem... to me it's like water off a duck's back so to speak.

I've said this before, but for clarity to anyone who gives a hoot, my participation in this forum is intermittent due to several personal factors, I'll try to offer a point of view on topics I believe I can contribute to in the time allotted, and with some posters I may mostly or totally put them on ignore if I think their only interest is to badger and engage in ad hominem attacks instead of focusing on the topic at hand.

That's just me but that is neither the behavior of an internet troll nor is it the modus operandi of a freelancer.

Now how about you brother Igzy? Why the condescension toward brothers in the Lord....even in this forum? Why the ad hominem attacks? May I ask, shouldn't a message about God's love be accompanied by some expression of it even toward your enemies? I am your enemy in your eyes, aren't I? Still, brotherly love or none, can you disagree without becoming disagreeable? I'm not trying to hurt your feelings and I'd like to hear your point of view on several topics but your outbursts in these last few posts are distractions... this thread is not about Drake.

But look, if you want to open a thread all about Drake I may or may not join you.. but at least you would be on topic!

Drake

Cal

02-22-2019, 01:29 PM

Drake

Drake,

I'm sorry, but you have little credibility with me. I honestly do not know if you are lying or telling the truth. I've watched you spin on this forum so much that frankly I'm dizzy. I honestly think you are full of sh*t.

I've seen you dodge, bob and weave and flat out lie through your teeth here. You cannot possibly be as obtuse as you pretend to be. You claim you've never seen the offenses that Ohio has posted reams of proof of. Yet you claim to know your stuff. Both can't be true. And I believe Ohio.

Offending a brother in Christ? How about all the brothers in Christ you and your homies have offended and wrecked down the years? How about them? Please don't tell me you care about brothers in Christ.

Whether you are the former troll I associate you with or not, you have much more in common with him than you should want to. Trust me on that one. The similarities are scary. Of course, this speculation, if it is speculation, would be completely unnecessary if you would stop playing so coy and just be completely up front. But like most LC-affected people, you play games.

Stop spinning and come clean.

By the way, "the Recovery" is a hoax.

Igzy

Cal

02-22-2019, 03:21 PM

I consider his posts very helpful for me to examine the question in hand. No one else is defending these doctrines so it is essential to hear what a genuine defense would sound like.

Second I cannot condemn WL's rude and insulting aspects of his ministry and then condone Igzy (aka "Not my momma"), which is far more slanderous and without even the slightest Biblical basis.

"Far more slanderous?" Are you serious?

Here's the problem, Z. We go around and around, and these guys hide behind thinly-veiled words and pseudo-Christian protocol. Whenever pressed, they stonewall. When you press harder, to the point of impatience, they start asking for decorum. It's their hiding place.

Without the slightest Biblical basis? Jesus and Paul did not give in to such squeamishness. They blew up those hiding places.

Jesus called the Pharisees "vipers" (Matt 12:34). He called them "whitewashed tombs" (Matt 23:27) Paul called the Jews "dogs" (Phil 3:2). He called the high priest Ananias a "whitewashed wall" (Acts 23:3).

These words were reserved for religious hypocrites, and that's exactly what Drake and the Blendeds are.

So I call them "mentally ill" and "full of sh*t." Does that really have any appreciable difference from the tone and words Jesus and Paul used? Are you going to make that argument? I'd like to see you try.

Don't tell me I'm out of line with the Bible. I'm right in line.

Cal

02-22-2019, 06:29 PM

Igzy,

You are way out of line with the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that your profanity-laced speaking is the Holy Spirit's utterance. Even unbelievers would call you on that.

Don't fool yourself by thinking the berating of fellow brothers in the Lord is condoned by the Lord or would be by Paul. Believers are not Pharisees or Jews that attacked His believers and persecuted His church....that is where you also err in your comparison.

Drake

BTW Drake,

If I thought for a moment that you had any credibility, standing or authority to lecture anyone in the Body of Christ about anything, I might be inclined to listen to you. But since you insist on being a callous apologist for a corrupt religious organization which has engineered the damage of thousands of Christians and many churches, and since you remain unrepentant of your part in that assault on the Body, I am not going to lose any sleep about you or your pompous pontifications.

But, again, this is the hypocrisy once more. Instead of honestly addressing the questions about the undeniable damage of the LC leadership's lording over the saints of God, Drake has opportunistically found yet another way to dodge the important issues by focusing on the fact that I've said he was full of sh*t. Let alone for a moment that such an utterance is completely accurate and appropriate in his case.

Even the unbelievers know you are full of it, Drake. That's the funny part.

Ohio

02-22-2019, 06:57 PM

I'm concerned brother. Foul language will ruin your christian testimony.

Let's do this. You go back and edit the language, express your discontent in other acceptable terms. I will then delete these requests to change it.

Thanks
Drake
Mr. Drake, let me tell you two short stories. You tell me which one ruined his Christian testimony?

Story #1: As a teenager working with my Dad, who ran a construction company, I watched him once look a guy in the eye and smile, saying to him, "Nothing personal sir, but you're full of sh*t. Nothing personal."

Story #2: As a Christian I watched Witness Lee deceive a huge audience of concerned Christians that John Ingalls orchestrated a global conspiracy to destroy his ministry.

Now please tell me which one of these two ruined his Christian testimony?

Ohio

02-22-2019, 07:08 PM

"Far more slanderous?" Are you serious?

Here's the problem, Z. We go around and around, and these guys hide behind thinly-veiled words and pseudo-Christian protocol. Whenever pressed, they stonewall. When you press harder, to the point of impatience, they start asking for decorum. It's their hiding place.

Without the slightest Biblical basis? Jesus and Paul did not give in to such squeamishness. They blew up those hiding places.

Jesus called the Pharisees "vipers" (Matt 12:34). He called them "whitewashed tombs" (Matt 23:27) Paul called the Jews "dogs" (Phil 3:2). He called the high priest Ananias a "whitewashed wall" (Acts 23:3).

These words were reserved for religious hypocrites, and that's exactly what Drake and the Blendeds are.

So I call them "mentally ill" and "full of sh*t." Does that really have any appreciable difference from the tone and words Jesus and Paul used? Are you going to make that argument? I'd like to see you try.

Don't tell me I'm out of line with the Bible. I'm right in line.

Both Lee and the Blendeds have called dear brothers like John Ingalls et. al. "Lepers," implying that they are so deathly sick that even their families should not sit at meal with them.

The Blendeds publicly stated that these "lepers" should have their houses torn down or re-plastered.

How can Drake continually protect these characters, and yet claim we are tossing "ad hominems" unfairly.

Cal

02-22-2019, 07:09 PM

Mr. Drake, let me tell you two short stories. You tell me which one ruined his Christian testimony?

Story #1: As a teenager working with my Dad, who ran a construction company, I watched him once look a guy in the eye and smile, saying to him, "Nothing personal sir, but you're full of sh*t. Nothing personal."

Story #2: As a Christian I watched Witness Lee deceive a huge audience of concerned Christians that John Ingalls orchestrated a global conspiracy to destroy his ministry.

Now please tell me which one of these two ruined his Christian testimony?

Drake may not understand it, but I needle him and get after him to the core because I love him. Sometimes drastic measures are needed. Like (horrors!) using the word sh*t. Not to sound pompous, but someday he will understand.

Ohio

02-22-2019, 07:10 PM

Cal

02-23-2019, 06:21 AM

Both Lee and the Blendeds have called dear brothers like John Ingalls et. al. "Lepers," implying that they are so deathly sick that even their families should not sit at meal with them.

The Blendeds publicly stated that these "lepers" should have their houses torn down or re-plastered.

How can Drake continually protect these characters, and yet claim we are tossing "ad hominems" unfairly.

They call brothers "rebels," which the Bible prohibits. Ron Kangas in a public message called Steve Isitt a "man of death."

But if I say to Drake, not behind his back but to him, as a challenge, you are full of it, giving him a full chance to respond, then he goes off on a fastidious tangent. Classic straining gnats and swallowing camels to avoid what's really important, which is being accountable for a religious entity which has damaged thousands of lives, and which he continues to try to protect with his incantations.

Religious hypocrites, when pressed, hide behind outrage and indignation. Did you ever see the Lord do that? Did he ever run and hide behind fastidiousness when the going got rough? No, he didn't blink an eye. Jesus lived with the people, he didn't cower behind religious doors and squeamishness to avoid an accusation. He came right back honestly and straightforwardly.

So I'm sorry I offended some people's dainty sensibilities with my language and descriptions. But serious times require serious measures, and I humbly suggest you folks are going to have to man up and get over it, and not run and hide like a bunch of little girls who might get their dresses dirty.

What does it mean when you say people are full of it? I'll translate for those who are too fastidious to see the point.

It means they:
Are dishonest.
Are duplicitous
Are not forthright.
Equivocate.
Speak with forked tongues.
Speak in half-truths.
Hide the truth.
Don't tell the whole story in order to make themselves look better.
Cover up scandal.
Lack integrity.
Are cowards.
Are hypocrites.
Say one thing and do another.
Are arrogant and self-important.
Think more highly of themselves than they ought to.
Do not know how poor, blind, naked and miserable they are.
Do not deserve respect.
Are worthy of derision and mockery.
Are pompous. That is, "affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important." If that doesn't describe the BBs, I don't know what does.

But somehow, none of those quite say it like saying someone is full of it. Which is why I said it. The best way to puncture prideful pomposity is to pop it with a pointed irreverency. It asks for it and deserves it, and just about everyone enjoys seeing a hypocritical windbag get deflated.

Who knows? I might be next.

So, please, stop straining ghats and swallowing camels.

Cal

02-23-2019, 08:30 AM

But getting back to the OnePub discussion...

On the one hand the OnePub does not attempt to restrict publications by churches. On the other hand, in the list of example publications that churches might publish it never mentions "books." In short, it stops short of opening that door all the way. This is vague and equivocating. Then it goes on to suggest that these non-OnePub publications should not be distributed widely. This is out of line.

Who has the right to say any person or church cannot distribute their publications widely among the Church? Well, this is where the bait-and-switch comes in. They substitute "the Recovery" for "the Church," and suddenly they have the right, or at least that's what they want people to think.

Here's the scenario: LSM envisions this entity, called "the Lord's Recovery." What is it? Well, again, it is another equivocation. Originally it was said to be the Lord's general working to bring his Church "back" to his original intent for it. Somehow, though, during the time of Nee and Lee, it became something else, a move or movement of specific people. Eventually it even gained official leaders, and finally it seems, even exclusive owners or at least caretakers.

LSM assumes, manifestly, to have exclusive rights to "the Lord's Recovery," which is actually a way of saying they own the Church, or at least the best part of the Church, the part that really matters. They get to define what it is and where it is. Now, think about that for a moment. We are talking about something that started with God's work among various people in various places, with no human control or authority, which somehow morphed into an organized movement of people who claim unique ownership of the thing. That's is a startlingly audacious presumption! Not only so, but this move or movement or whatever it is, is considered God's very best. Nothing can compare to it, and LSM and the BBs alone have been given control of it. How do we know that is true? Because they tell us, that's how!

So, because they are the move, they get to control what gets distributed in it. So the concept of "the Recovery" simply exists to define an entity which the leaders can control. It's a way to assert authority over multiple churches, by creating a supposed "holy" sphere over which God has given a few authority. This sphere is grandiosely called "the Lord's Recovery," which though an impressive title, is not a biblicly defined entity.

Now, is any of this reasonable? Well, on the one hand it is similar to what other large Christian organizations do. They define a sphere, the scope of their denomination or ministry, and say if you want to operate in this sphere under our name you are going to have to follow our rules. That part is completely reasonable. God could not organize anything without some kind of understanding and cooperation like that.

Where "the Recovery" differs is they have taken this concept of a unique move of God and equated it with their organization. The problem is they are overstepping their bounds by doing this. Who can know for sure whether they are what they claim to be? Yet they proceed as if that is already settled, when it hasn't and cannot be. This belief and claim places undue pressure on members and churches to fall in line. This is the basic problem. If "the Recovery" would acknowledge that they have no biblical basis for assuming they are a special subset of the whole Church to which all believers should fall in line, they would be fine. But they don't, and that is the root of all the problems the movement has caused and seen. They are the fruit of the irrational and even fanatical belief that their sphere is the unique move of God.

So the OnePub is off-base by telling Christians and churches they cannot distribute within "the Recovery," that is, unless they want to admit it is simply an organization. In short, the leaders need to make a choice. If they want to regard themselves as something completely of God, simply the Church and his ministry, then they cannot restrict. But if they try to restrict, then they are admitting "the Recovery" is simply an organization of man. It can't be both. Said another way, the Church itself as a whole is the only extra-local entity the Lord recognizes as wholly and purely of him. You cannot carve out a piece, even if you call it "the Recovery," and say it is uniquely and purely of him. Only the whole Church has that status. Once you carve it, you have an organization of man. Organizations of man can and are used by God, but they do not have anything approaching the unique status of the Church, and neither does "the Recovery."

"The Recovery" then, is a manufactured entity masquerading as "God's pure and unique move," created to leverage control over many Christians and churches. It doesn't exist as something purely of God. It's just another religious organization, with no standing more than any other. Within this organization, like any other, some great things of God might occur. They may seem unique outwardly, but they are not unique in nature, nor do they make the organization uniquely of God.

Thus "the Recovery" is a hoax sold to the people of God there. It's another wile of the devil, perpetrated by people who should, by now, know better.

Cal

02-23-2019, 11:13 AM

For those disinclined to read my previous long dissertation, let me give the Cliff Notes version:

Any religious organization has the right to define its rules of membership.

No religious organization has the right to claim to be uniquely the move of God, since the unique move of God includes the whole Church.

The free flow of publications within the Church, the unique move of God, as a whole should not be restricted.

So, any attempt to restrict the free flow of publications within a group is effectively an admission that the group is an organization and so not uniquely the move of God.

Therefore, the One Publication policy of the “Lord’s Recovery” is an implicit admission it is simply an organization.

This effectively shows that the establishment of “the Lord’s Recovery” was an attempt to create a non-biblical entity with similar status and authority as the Church, but which in fact it was only an organization--and so was done with the express purpose of controlling Christians and churches under one umbrella.

Therefore, “the Lord’s Recovery” is a pernicious hoax.

Kevin

02-24-2019, 06:39 AM

For those disinclined to read my previous long dissertation, let me give the Cliff Notes version:

[LIST]
Any religious organization has the right to define its rules of membership

Igzy, would you mind clarifying that cliff note a bit?

Cal

02-24-2019, 06:55 AM

Igzy, would you mind clarifying that cliff note a bit?

"The Lord's Recovery" is either the move of God or an organization. If it is the move of God it cannot limit the freedom of choice of churches and believers. Since it does limit that choice, it is not the move of God, it is simply an organization. God can use organizations, but they are not the same as his move. So any organization which claims to be exclusively the unique move of God is doing so to leverage control over believers and churches. This what "the Recovery" is doing and this is why it is wrong. So to promote "the Recovery" is to promote a hoax.

"The Recovery" has the right to set its own rules which limit members in a stricter way than the Bible does. But once it does that, it is admitting it is just an organization, and cannot describe itself as the move of God, because such limitations are not characteristics of the move of God.

In fact, within his genuine move, God must allow personal freedom, the free flow of information and the ability of believers to follow their consciences, to teach, speak and share information freely as they see fit. This is the only way he can actually "recover." Ironically, this implies that "the Recovery" is actually an oxymoron. Their limiting approach actually hinders recovery

Ohio

02-24-2019, 07:25 AM

"The Lord's Recovery" is either the move of God or an organization. If it is the move of God it cannot limit the freedom of choice of churches and believers. Since it does limit that choice, it is not the move of God, it is simply an organization. God can use organizations, but they are not the same as his move. So any organization which claims to be exclusively the unique move of God is doing so to leverage control over believers and churches. This what "the Recovery" is doing and this is why it is wrong. So to promote "the Recovery" is to promote a hoax.

"The Recovery" has the right to set its own rules which limit members in a stricter way than the Bible does. But once it does that, it is admitting it is just an organization, and cannot describe itself as the move of God, because such limitations are not characteristics of the move of God.

In fact, within his genuine move, God must allow personal freedom, the free flow of information and the ability of believers to follow their consciences, to teach, speak and share information freely as they see fit. This is the only way he can actually "recover." Ironically, this implies that "the Recovery" is actually an oxymoron. Their limiting approach actually hinders recovery

This goes along with the assertion I have made for years that once a headquarters is established, it is by definition a denomination. The Spirit of God needs no headquarters because the only "Head" the Spirit honors is the Firstborn Son. Only the Son can set us free, truly free in the Spirit. With every passing message given by headquarters, our freedoms were depleted.

Oxymorons indeed!

Cal

02-24-2019, 08:00 AM

This goes along with the assertion I have made for years that once a headquarters is established, it is by definition a denomination. The Spirit of God needs no headquarters because the only "Head" the Spirit honors is the Firstborn Son. Only the Son can set us free, truly free in the Spirit. With every passing message given by headquarters, our freedoms were depleted.

Oxymorons indeed!

And once freedom is depleted, recovery halts in its tracks. "The Recovery" actually now hinders recovery, and the OnePub is a chief tool in that hindrance. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Cal

02-24-2019, 08:10 AM

Of course, "Recovery" loyalists would say that everything important has already been recovered, so the only thing to do now is lock it down and protect it.

But of course, they cannot possibly know that everything important has been recovered. This reminds me of when Bill Gates infamously said about computers, "64k of memory ought to be enough for anyone."

We can laugh at that foolish claim, and should also laugh at the foolish claim that everything has been recovered.

As I've said before, the concept of "the Lord's Recovery" exists only to create a non-biblical entity with elite status for the express purpose of controlling as many members and churches as possible.

Cal

02-24-2019, 08:52 AM

Nee was considered the leader of "the Recovery" because of the light he received. But what came first, the light or the leadership? Nee rose up out of nowhere, so the light came first. But not Lee. He took the mantle from Nee, and presumed to be the "continuation" of Nee. Then the Blendeds got the mantle from Lee. But in that process, the principle of God raising up a prophet from nowhere was downgraded, and replaced with the principle that only the leaders of "the Recovery" can get light.

But God has never operated that way. The whole OT principle of the prophet is that you never know who the next one is going to be. And the same with the NT body of Christ. If God cannot raise up whomever he wants from wherever he wants, then he cannot recover. So if Christians, churches or ministries are limited in their freedom to share information, then recovery is hindered. So again, the current "Recovery" movement actually works against recovery.

Cal

02-25-2019, 09:25 AM

"The Recovery's" One Publication policy is invalid from a Christian standpoint.

It is wrong to restrict the flow of information among the people of God, except in those situations where certain restrictions are mutually agreed upon, and these can only be in the context of organizations which are not the Body of Christ as a whole.

For example, if I join a church or ministry, which are organizations, I should agree to submit to its rules. If there are any rules I feel I cannot or will not obey, then I shouldn't join. It would indeed be rebellion for me to remain in the organization and defy its rules. Any Christian who joins an LC local church is obligated to respect its rules, but only while being a member. If the Christian decides to leave that church, he is not obligated to obey its rules anymore. The same would be true for a Christian who went to work for Living Stream Ministry.

The LC's error is that it has equated its organizations with the broad spiritual entity of the Body of Christ or the Church. They say, we are the Church, we are the Body of Christ, so whether you are member or not you are under the authority of our leaders. But of course it is unreasonable for any group to equate itself in such a way. Yes, each local church and ministry has certain aspects of the nature of the Church and the Body. But they are not the same thing. They are also organizations. You can join them or leave them. And leaving them is not necessarily division or rebellion.

This is true of "the Recovery," the movement which defines the LC phenomenon as a whole. It is also a Christian organization, and as such, can manifest certain aspects of the Body of Christ, like any other Christian organization can. But it is not the equivalent of the Body of Christ. You truly cannot leave the Body or the Church, but you can leave a ministry or a local church or other Christian group.

No subset of the Church can equate itself to the Church to the extent of saying that leaving it is equivalent to leaving the Church. Each subset or group, that is each organization, whether it be a church, ministry, small group or something else, is part of the Church and "borrows," so to speak, the realities of the Church. But none of them can claim to own those realities to the extent where they can say that leaving that organization is the equivalent of leaving the Church or leaving God.

The LC, "the Recovery," wants to believe so much that it owns the realities of the Church that it claims that to leave them is to leave those things. But this clearly cannot be the case. The realities of the Church and the Body are manifested all over the world, in churches, ministries and groups of all kinds. Further, history has shown than this us-only attitude of "the Recovery" has led to all its problems. Ironically, what it calls "rebellions" in its midst have actually been the legitimate exercise of liberty by Christians who received that liberty from Christ himself. The problems there were actually caused by an invalid assertion of authority. They were caused by "the Recovery's confused, equivocating and ultimately deadly equating of themselves with the Church to the exclusion of all others.

If "the Recovery" wants to admit it is an organization, then it has the right to restrict membership and require compliance to publication restrictions. If it does not make that admission, and continues to claim to be purely the unique move of God, then it is wrong to make such restrictions.

In the time being, LC members should feel no obligation to respect the One Publication policy, and should feel free to publish and distribute information as much and as far as they see fit. Any objection by anyone claiming to speak on behalf of "the Recovery" can be considered baseless. "The Recovery" has no standing before the Lord as a purely spiritual entity. And since it hasn't admitted to being just an organization, is really a non-entity.

Cal

02-25-2019, 11:38 AM

Only abstractions of the Church are purely spiritual entities.The Church as a whole, the Body of Christ, the Church in a city or region are all abstractions. All practical subsets of it, that is those with specific people who actually meet, interact or collaborate, are organizations.

This means that every practical local church, every ministry, and all other ways Christians choose to organize, even "Local Church Discussions" and “the Lord's Recovery, are organizations. None of them are purely spiritual entities. All of these “borrow” the realities of the ideal Church as a whole, but none of them own any of those realities exclusively or even in a superior way. They each are part of the whole, and manifest the nature of the whole, but none are the final word on what the whole is.

This was even true of Paul’s ministry. It was an organization. It was organized around Paul. He had co-workers and so forth. But all of them deferred to Paul. He was the leader. But this organization, as all are, was one of mutual agreement, not of compulsion. If a co-worker agreed to Paul’s request to serve with Paul, then that co-worker submitted to Paul, because that was the way that group operated. Paul did not draft anyone, he did not tell anyone they must serve with him. But if he decided someone should not serve with him, he could dismiss him. But he could not insist someone remain, nor condemn them for not doing so. Anyone could leave Paul, and if everyone did leave then Paul would no longer have group authority over anyone. Paul also clearly accepted that there were other legitimate organizations of ministry besides his. He recognized Apollo’s for one.

Membership in an abstract entity is true by definition. But membership in an practical organization is always voluntary. For example, I cannot choose to not be a member of the Body of Christ. Neither can I choose, if I'm living in Los Angeles, to not be a member of the Church in Los Angeles. But I can choose whether I meet with the organization on such-and-such street in LA which calls itself "the church in Los Angeles." And they are not the same thing.

However, if you agree to join or visit an organization, you agree to abide by its rules. But you are not obligated to join or remain in the organization. For example, Paul and Barnabas labored together. At one point they chose to go their separate ways. But in the record of this change in their working relationship, it is never implied that either one of them was wrong or rebellious. They simply disagreed and chose to go separate ways. Nee and Lee's assertion was that Barnabas was wrong and that is why the record in Acts doesn’t mention him anymore. But there is no proof text of that. The reason the record follows Paul and not Barnabas can only be said to be so because the chronicler, Luke, remained with Paul. Any other speculation is unfounded.

Witness Lee’s error, which he passed on to the current “Recovery” workers, was that he saw his ministry, movement and churches as the equivalent of universal, abstract, spiritual entities, which by their very definition Christians must belong to, rather than as the finite, temporal organizations which they have a choice whether to belong to.

Lee's view, of course, cannot be true. Such a system is recklessly presumptuous, and the damaging fruit of it is a fact of 70 years of history. Yes, when in a organization, we should obey the leaders. But we can choose to leave freely and are then no longer under their authority. Freedom of choice and conscience is always there. No one has the right to condemn anyone for leaving an organization, be it “the Recovery,” an LC church or Witness Lees’ ministry.

The One Publication, then, is a violation of this principle of free association that is a natural extension of our free conscience and choice to serve the Lord as he directs, not as some movement directs.