Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm very confused about this post. Members are free to leave the local churches, and with hardly any attempt at contacting them after they leave, according to my main impression. I entered the church several years ago and have never had any problems with them. The church is really good and the saints are really good. The things we say should be accurate so as to avoid spreading misinformation.

Now, you may ask why this is only my main impression and not my entire impression. Because get stuffed, that's why. I have never experienced any kind of insidious retention of individuals. Also, I can successfully annoy everyone in the church without getting so much as a tiny reaction from them. This shows that they are truly of Christ.

Regards,
A brother, 24

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm very confused about this post. Members are free to leave the local churches, and with hardly any attempt at contacting them after they leave, according to my main impression. I entered the church several years ago and have never had any problems with them. The church is really good and the saints are really good. The things we say should be accurate so as to avoid spreading misinformation.

Now, you may ask why this is only my main impression and not my entire impression. Because get stuffed, that's why. I have never experienced any kind of insidious retention of individuals. Also, I can successfully annoy everyone in the church without getting so much as a tiny reaction from them. This shows that they are truly of Christ.

Regards,
A brother, 24

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I know what you mean about partaking spiritually. But I think if we eat bread and drink wine which signifies blood, spiritually, or symbolically, we are pretending to eat flesh and drink blood. If it's not real, then it's pretend. Baptism also has some pretend things in it. When we go into the water we pretend we are dying and being buried.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The Lord's Supper is a practice that is laid out in scripture where believers come together and eat bread (which signifies Christ's body that He has laid down for us) and drink the cup (which signifies the New Covenant promised through the blood of Christ). We do these things in remembrance of the Lord and await His return with a thankful heart. We don't partake of Christ's body and blood literally or physically, but spiritually. And we are nourished by the grace of God through the work of Jesus on the cross.

We don't pretend that we're drinking physical blood or flesh. Hopefully, we don't just "drink some juice and wafer".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If it is not pretending to drink blood and eat the flesh of Christ, then what is it? Do you even know what you are doing when you take communion? Are you just drink some juice and wafer?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

You "pretend" to drink blood on Sundays? That's a weird mindset to have while taking communion.

How does this fit into the thread? The initial points are below. I think most people on this forum understand that is the Catholic position. They also could have guessed you'd be the happy to condemn their denomination.

All-knowing leadership.

No room for differences.

A new and better way.

Down on Christian doctrine.

Scriptures get an added twist.

"Christians are wrong" mentality.

Works prove faith.

Salvation is a big unknown.

No exit.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I said "pretending". We can see how easy it is to make a standard church practice seem like a sinister cult-like practice. The reality is, that every Sunday, Christians gather to pretend to drink blood and eat flesh. Catholics gather to actually eat blood and drink flesh. Sounds even more cult-like.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've never heard that the LSM believes that they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. That is does not match with my experience in the LSM denomination either.

Is this what you practice in your locality? It would be very unusual to deviate from what is prescribed in Anaheim. Hope you lease your facilities or the blended brothers may be coming after your assets. Alert the elders.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think I just described communion/mass/Eucharist/Lord's table meeting.

Just to show that any practice of Christianity can be portrayed in such a way to make it appear cult-like, when in reality it is not.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I've never heard this claim before, nor personally experienced anything that would lead me to believe it holds any credibility whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I heard they get together every Sunday and pretend to eat and drink blood. Must be a cult.

Originally Posted by DistantStar

I recall one time, as every person took his turn to share something, how one person stood up and said something absurd. I cannot remember what he said, but it was akin to saying that Solomon was David's father, but with a serious theological message. Pardon me for not remembering what exactly he said. I only remember it to be extremely obvious. And everyone just said "Wow" or "Oh Lord Jesus".

Just because we are all together does not mean we are prophesying. I was amazed at how everyone either did not know or did not care that he was making such a mistake.

This is cultic behaviour: if you are "driven by the spirit", then whatever you are saying is gospel.

Originally Posted by Terry

Whatever is spoken (even in error) is received as gospel. Their word is good enough. No need for any fact-checking. There's no consideration a brother would have ulterior motive behind their speaking. If brothers want to have their testimony to be transparent, produce facts.

Originally Posted by OBW

I guess that is one of those things we inherited from the indigenous source of this particular denomination. We revere others and their opinions no matter how ridiculous or unscriptural. We must not let them lose face.

Originally Posted by Terry

There's this thing called respecters of persons that brothers cannot set aside. How often have you heard, "be one with the brothers"? This is in reference to deacons, elders, co-workers. There's a respect factor they have for one another. Whatever is spoken (even in error) is received as gospel. Their word is good enough. No need for any fact-checking. There's no consideration a brother would have ulterior motive behind their speaking. If brothers want to have their testimony to be transparent, produce facts.

Originally Posted by OBW

That's how inquiries get rigged. How otherwise legitimate research gets messed-up. People with a bias refuse to set their bias aside when they need to study the facts. Whether those facts are how to understand a statistical survey, a study under the scientific method, or a careful analysis of the meaning of words from important texts. When you start with the mindset of a hammer, you are almost certain to find nails. When you come to find out what the evidence provides, you at least have a chance at discovering something that is really there.

Originally Posted by Terry

In the LC culture, how do you exercise discernment . . . when discernment isn't corresponding to the preferred outcome of the blended brothers?

Originally Posted by Terry

Within the context of the Bible there is no differences. It's when you make non-essential matters essential for fellowship, that's when divisions come in.

Take the Brethren of the 19th century. It resulted in division not because of the Bible but due to personalities.
Same with the recovery movement of the 20th and 21st centuries. Divisions due to personalities.
When you try to use 1 Corinthians as a basis to get unanimous support regarding quarantines, that's lacking in many areas. Not once is there's the thought, what are the facts why these brothers are being quarantined? Is there the consideration a brother is slandered and misrepresented?
Doesn't matter if that what's transpiring. Just be united in mind and thought.

Ones who have more spiritual maturity see making non-essential matters essential for fellowship such as quarantines or labeling localities as needing to be replastered as divisive. It's a message the Lord is closing one door and opening another.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

By this time Max Rapaport and his wife Sandee were as close to Witness Lee as anyone could be. It was obvious that Max was Lee's "right hand man". It was during this period that Max was made the scapegoat for exposing Witness Lee's son Phillip for being the serial abuser he had been for years. At that time, neither Max, nor any other of the gullible American brothers in So.Calif had any idea of how deep Witness Lee's nepotism actually ran. Max went from being one of Lee's closest and trusted confidants, to being publicly slandered with such labels as "the evil one". It wasn't long before Max was being interviewed by the LA Times and all but accused the Local Church of being a dangerous cult of sorts, and strongly encouraged parents to do what was necessary to get their children out of the movement, even to take the drastic step of employing the use of a professional "deprogrammer".

Ten years later, history repeated itself. Only this time the exposing and pressure came mostly from within the Movement itself. Once again, Phillip Lee was at the epicenter, and once again the biggest and most serious concerns were coming from Witness Lee's closest and strongest confidants. This time it was John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, John So, and just like the many other "rebellions", nobody's head was to be spared. Lee once again took his self-appointed place as prosecutor, judge and jury. "The Fermentation of The Present Rebellion" sealed the fate of all who stood accused, and all were viciously slandered, set aside and/or quarantined. Yet again, the news of "trouble within the Local Church movement" reached the secular media, and the Name and cause of Christ was besmirched and somewhat damaged because to Witness Lee, family blood ran thicker, (and the green stuff ran thicker too) and the desire to save his own skin and name, became infinitely more important than to preserve and glorify the Name and cause of Christ and his Kingdom.
-

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course you can expect the LRC rebuttal to be along the lines of King Arthur and the Knights of the round table as WN pulls the sword from the stone. They could portray WL as Jack in Jack and the Beanstalk as he trades in the milk cow of the LRC for a couple of FTTT magic beans. The blendeds could be the seven dwarves as they protect the "true church" from the wicked witch of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Already sounds more interesting than the Left Behind series. This idea might take off.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Your artistic license really made my post "My Time With The Local Church" jump off the page! My version seemed so boring and relatable. I can only imagine what you could do with the "picnic" chapter.

Maybe after our book deal, we can start working on the movie... one step at a time. I'll be played by Dwayne Johnson and I guess you'd be christopher walken or willem dafoe to keep with your narrative?

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet caring does not equal sitting silent while members slander other believers. Caring does not mean their mocking and derision go unchecked. Caring is challenging mischaracterizations, lack of due diligence, and scripturally unsubstantiated conclusions and misguided teachings. It is a strange irony that the forum is largely represented by members who have become the very thing they wanted to expose and warn others about.

Originally Posted by Drake

Why the chapter on "Picnics" alone would be worth the price!

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I love it! Maybe you can co-author? I'll have to catch you up to speed with my life outside of the forum, but I think you're on to something.

Who is the publisher for Jane Carole Anderson? We may need to get them in on this thing early, going to be huge.

Evan-gelical - Maybe you need to smile more my man - had to wait 1 year for a potluck invite?

Originally Posted by Drake

No doubt, a best seller here......

Front Cover Flap: A harrowing account of one man's descent into the bowels of an evil religious group and his struggle to escape. A unique and riveting experience of a wary christian attending weekly home meetings, church meetings, table meetings, picnics, and even spending Christmas break in Anaheim and a "training". Read about his explosive Q&A with elders, trainers, and brothers who encouraged him to ask questions. Finally, an arduous one year later, the author brings the reader on the journey back from the abyss starting with his Google searches and overcoming the mental pressures from those who encouraged him to stay. In a nail biter ending the reader will follow the author in the startling account of how one day he got in his car and simply drove away.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually, a discussion and a Google search qualifies you to write a book about your experience and be recognized as a Christian author, there's a high chance that a number of forum members here will buy it.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Those following these posts realize that Drake "volunteered me to fight" and drafted me as a "ready soldier". Maybe this is a prophetic word from our brother?

Readers also know that Drake has no idea, none what so ever, of what I have done, I am currently doing, or will do to share with brothers and sisters in Christ warnings of this group . Why would one wonder why it's the same old song coming from LSM detractors? In my time in the LSM, which Drake somehow minimizes without context, I dealt with the same things that other members on the forum dealt with over 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I started a thread based on a discussion that I had with a member of the LSM and a google search.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can we dial it down? Drake felt that some of the accusations that the LRC is a cult were insulting. It is certainly reasonable to say that. If you want to call the LRC a cult you are lumping them together with Charles Manson and mass suicide by kool aid. When someone hears cult they think of moonies selling flowers at the airport. You begin with a term that has the ugliest connotation possible, and then give a useless definition that could apply to any group of Christians.

All of this could be avoided if you use a biblical term like "false teacher" and "fruit of the false teacher", and then use the appropriate verses to define that.

Why don't these Christian publishers do that? Because they are convicted by these verses. Using the word cult is obfuscation.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

ZNP,

It is a rather interesting point, from my perspective at least. Obviously I don't know motive, but I do know when I asked the locality in which they attend I whole heartedly believed I would not receive a response. I don't blame or condemn their actions, just sympathize... or maybe pity their situation.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is so true , I left the lc and found true love with god . Not one of which the Lc drilled "views" on what god is .

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Those following these posts realize that Drake "volunteered me to fight" and drafted me as a "ready soldier". Maybe this is a prophetic word from our brother?

Readers also know that Drake has no idea, none what so ever, of what I have done, I am currently doing, or will do to share with brothers and sisters in Christ warnings of this group . Why would one wonder why it's the same old song coming from LSM detractors? In my time in the LSM, which Drake somehow minimizes without context, I dealt with the same things that other members on the forum dealt with over 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is quite surprising that the ones still INSIDE the LC are so secretive, yet those who have left, those negative opinionated opposers, seem to have nothing to hide. More proof that current members are actually not held by a vision but by fear, and after leaving, we learn that perfect love casts out fear.

Originally Posted by Drake

He is a ready soldier who volunteered to fight the good fight.... so I challenged him to do it and not fall into the pattern of personal destruction, irrelevant arguments, and put a reasoned compelling argument together such as you will find fron Evangelical. Perhaps he could have brought some fresh light but so far nothing but the same old song. Its a dark song. That is my care for him though it is doubtful he, you, or others interpret that way.Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Drake,

I'll respond to this part because I think its your only semi-legitimate point.

First of all, when I initially began reading this forum, it was clear that each member chose a "handle", the common practice was not to issue your full name (like on Facebook), so I did the same - like everyone else. Second, you are correct - there is a real and personal reason why I would not (as of right now) share my locality or my name. I have business operations with significant financial implications that are tied to the LSM denomination. Like many of you reading this, I have been personally intimidated (whether directly or indirectly) to know that it is not worth it. Once this passes (which is fairly soon) I'll be happy to make you the first to know, maybe get you a ticket to come visit?

In regards to your perception of my lack of thoughtful response or compelling arguments. When I post, which is historically very infrequently, I don't take much time to lay things out, just kind of get down and write (twitter style vs. blog style). I have a lot of good things going on in my life and don't really have enough time to provide you a response that would fulfill your needs. In my opinion, its also not worth taking time to layout a debate with someone who makes such shallow arguments ("He hides behind a handle"! etc). I know its a bit crude, but I just thought of this and hope it brings a laugh for you today - No need in getting into a pissing contest with someone who sits down to pee.

Originally Posted by Drake

Third, it's just plain ol hypocrisy - he is guilty of the same things that he accuses others of. Hiding behind a handle, what's that all about?

Originally Posted by Drake

Yep. And i will add these observations about leastofthese's recent line of argument:

First, it's irrelevant to the topic - unable to counter a compelling argument he wants to personalize it. A diversion.

Second, he is on a fishing expedition - he wants to see your tax returns. Must be something there.

Third, it's just plain ol hypocrisy - he is guilty of the same things that he accuses others of. Hiding behind a handle, what's that all about?

Leastofthese, are you rolling on the floor yet? If not I promise to try harder.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

"I agree with your point about not nursing past hurts and also about the same old song being played over and over again. However, there are those who are knew to the forum, there are those who show up confused, one foot out the door, not knowing what to do, and there are those concerned about a loved one's recent visit to the LRC. In those cases it is not hard to see who is hurting and it is not fair to characterize this as "same old song" as they are sharing their testimony for the first time."

Ok ZNP. But you said I did not show concern for those who came here who had been stumbled. I care greatly for the dazed, confused, the hurting who come to this forum. Who are you thinking of? Be glad to clear it up.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As far as I remember, Drake and I have never asked anyone where they are from.

leastofthese seems to be treating this as another test question to be added to the set of questions in the OP.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

ZNP,

It is a rather interesting point, from my perspective at least. Obviously I don't know motive, but I do know when I asked the locality in which they attend I whole heartedly believed I would not receive a response. I don't blame or condemn their actions, just sympathize... or maybe pity their situation.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

ZNP,

It is a rather interesting point, from my perspective at least. Obviously I don't know motive, but I do know when I asked the locality in which they attend I whole heartedly believed I would not receive a response. I don't blame or condemn their actions, just sympathize... or maybe pity their situation.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

UntoHim was in Orange County, Igzy was in Austin, Ohio -- self explanatory, like myself Hope was in Texas, Indiana, Terry, Countmeworthy, Kisstheson etc. They all have shared a little of their testimony and where they are from which helps understand why we have different perspectives.

However, I must have missed it but I don't know your background or Evangelical's. That does not help us to be tolerant. Why the mystery?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I think you may have lost it Drake. Take a deep breath brother.

You don't know anything about what I've been doing, especially in relation to the LSM - how could you? 1 month? Having all the answers? You think I care about falling inline with Untohim or this forum?

All laughable. Literally, I mean I laughed when I read your post. I know literally doesn't mean the same thing these days, but I literally opened my mouth and laughed out loud at your post.

I'll let you have the last word bro, you need it. Maybe you can tell me more about me

Originally Posted by Drake

You like straight talk, right?

A month ago you were newbie looking for clarification and now you are a crusader for truth with all the answers. A ready soldier to warn and defend against the shams.

So now, step up.

Not all, but many posters here have succumbed to a simple set of catch phrases and scripts, and though they may have started out with the best intentions, over time they gave way to the notion that scripts and catch phrases are compelling arguments. They are not, but the group think here reinforces the notion that they are. You conformed sooner than most did putting up no apparent internal struggle which I find odd.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

You like straight talk, right?

A month ago you were newbie looking for clarification and now you are a crusader for truth with all the answers. A ready soldier to warn and defend against the shams.

So now, step up.

Not all, but many posters here have succumbed to a simple set of catch phrases and scripts, and though they may have started out with the best intentions, over time they gave way to the notion that scripts and catch phrases are compelling arguments. They are not, but the group think here reinforces the notion that they are. You conformed sooner than most did putting up no apparent internal struggle which I find odd.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok ZNP, but who in this forum is actually hurting?

Rather, I see the once hurt have morphed into those who do the hurting.... Gleefully too. Often viciously.

And you did recognize UntoHim's recent shot over your bow for non-conformance to the group think message, didn't you?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, warning others is deeply embedded in the culture of this forum. In fact, it is its very mission. In practice, it is mostly self affirmation, a support group, between a dozen or so regulars. Therefore, why shouldn't those in the local churches be warned about online forums like this one? They would be remiss not to. The threads have new titles but it is the same old song. Grasping for something new to talk about even ol' Hank gets kicked to the curb. The intolerance is both sad and amusing but no light.

Yet, those in the local churches are not obsessed about warning others about online forums like this online forum is about them. I recall hearing something maybe thrice in the last few decades and I have lived in several localities. Though there is a concerted effort to poison others against the local churches it has very little effect except now and then mostly a newbie will get picked off.

Net net is this. No one in this forum has the ground to condemn the local churches for warning others about those who would poison them.. Warning others is the deeply embedded culture of this forum.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

You like straight talk, right?

A month ago you were newbie looking for clarification and now you are a crusader for truth with all the answers. A ready soldier to warn and defend against the shams.

So now, step up.

Not all, but many posters here have succumbed to a simple set of catch phrases and scripts, and though they may have started out with the best intentions, over time they gave way to the notion that scripts and catch phrases are compelling arguments. They are not, but the group think here reinforces the notion that they are. You conformed sooner than most did putting up no apparent internal struggle which I find odd.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

You like straight talk, right?

A month ago you were newbie looking for clarification and now you are a crusader for truth with all the answers. A ready soldier to warn and defend against the shams.

So now, step up.

Not all, but many posters here have succumbed to a simple set of catch phrases and scripts, and though they may have started out with the best intentions, over time they gave way to the notion that scripts and catch phrases are compelling arguments. They are not, but the group think here reinforces the notion that they are. You conformed sooner than most did putting up no apparent internal struggle which I find odd.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Your perceptions don't match my reality, on many, many levels. So I guess I don't feel the need to speak above such a simple statement. Leastofthese ultimately doesn't change hearts and minds, it's our Lord and savior Jesus that has taken this role. I don't write on this forum for you, but for others. They can make their own conclusions.

May The Spirit guide your heart and bless you in all you do.

Originally Posted by Drake

Lot,

Really now. Is that your canned response when you have no compelling point? "Don't be intimidated" That's it?

So soon you have fallen into the trappings of your own rhetoric. That my friend is your reality, not mine.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Lot,

Really now. Is that your canned response when you have no compelling point? "Don't be intimidated" That's it?

So soon you have fallen into the trappings of your own rhetoric. That my friend is your reality, not mine.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, warning others is deeply embedded in the culture of this forum. In fact, it is its very mission. In practice, it is mostly self affirmation, a support group, between a dozen or so regulars.

Originally Posted by Drake

Therefore, why shouldn't those in the local churches be warned about online forums like this one?

Originally Posted by Drake

They would be remiss not to. The threads have new titles but it is the same old song. Grasping for something new to talk about even ol' Hank gets kicked to the curb. The intolerance is both sad and amusing but no light.

Originally Posted by Drake

Yet, those in the local churches are not obsessed about warning others about online forums like this online forum is about them. I recall hearing something maybe thrice in the last few decades and I have lived in several localities. Though there is a concerted effort to poison others against the local churches it has very little effect except now and then mostly a newbie will get picked off.

Net net is this. No one in this forum has the ground to condemn the local churches for warning others about those who would poison them.. Warning others is the deeply embedded culture of this forum.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Drake,

You are a hoot. Come back to reality my brother, don't be intimidated.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Being intimidated not to ask questions, being told directly to fall in line with the crowd, warned not to seek any insight from outside of the forum? Wait; do I need to check with Untohim what is ok to read, watch, listen to???

I must have missed the memo.

Drake which locality do you meet with?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well, I don't know what bible you have but my bible says this:

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So we may say that warnings about being "poisoned" , was actually deeply rooted in the culture of the New Testament church.

Some people may think this applies only to their own particular denomination or fellowship of their own choosing. But it doesn't. It is written not to denominations, but to every Christian in a locality, to avoid those who cause divisions. At the time, the only people who would have been causing divisions were those who were looking to divide, and create denominations, according to "I follow Paul, I follow Apollos" (1 Cor 1:12-13). And Paul asks the question in verse 13 "is Christ divided and has your denomination been crucified for you?"

Why would Paul write this to groups within groups within groups within groups in a locality? He is not talking about not having division just in your own family, between husband and wife, but between whole groups of Christians, who we might call denominations today.

In other words if you are in a division /denomination, and think that you are not divisive because you get along with everyone in your denomination happily, think again.

You see, the bible is consistent on these matters.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.

Jude 1 : They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

There is a full list of scriptures here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/division

Originally Posted by Drake

Leastofthese) "Ah I see, that's why I was so confused! Because I WAS personally warned - experiencing this live, in person, by multiple people, from multiple localities..... You know its deeply embedded in the culture. "

As it is here.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well, I don't know what bible you have but my bible says this:

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

- I've never personally experienced another Christian group that causes more divisions and obstacles than the LSM. I've actually used this verse to describe the local churches - keep away.

Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

- I agree, Amen! So this shall be my last post towards you my friend.

So we may say that warnings about being "poisoned" , was actually deeply rooted in the culture of the New Testament church.

Some people may think this applies only to their own particular denomination or fellowship of their own choosing. Who? Wha... ah never-mind, would be an exercise of futility. But it doesn't. It is written not to denominations, but to every Christian in a locality, to avoid those who cause divisions. At the time, the only people who would have been causing divisions were those who were looking to divide, and create denominations, according to "I follow Paul, I follow Apollos" (1 Cor 1:12-13). And Paul asks the question in verse 13 "is Christ divided and has your denomination been crucified for you?"

Yes! Exactly! In the LSM, from my personal experience - the constant message of "I follow Witness Lee" caused me to turn away from this division

Why would Paul write this to groups within groups within groups within groups in a locality? He is not talking about not having division just in your own family, between husband and wife, but between whole groups of Christians, who we might call denominations today.

In other words if you are in a division /denomination, and think that you are not divisive because you get along with everyone in your denomination happily, think again.

I guess according to you I'm in a division being in a non-denominational church. I guess I was also with divisions while in fellowship with dozens of different churches across 4 different continents - serving the Lord and spreading His good news?

You see, the bible is consistent on these matters.

Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.

Jude 1 : They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

There is a full list of scriptures here:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/division

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Well, I don't know what bible you have but my bible says this:

Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Ah I see, that's why I was so confused! Because I WAS personally warned - experiencing this live, in person, by multiple people, from multiple localities. Come on Evangelical, come back to reality bro.... You know its deeply embedded in the culture.

"I was only a part of your denomination for a year and I heard it from multiple people from different localities and different states. Outside of these direct statements of being "poisoned", I heard countless other people share this same message indirectly."

When I said I heard "it", I was referring to people telling me not to read stuff online lest I be poisoned. I've also shared this personal experience on the forum in the past.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why weren't you warned about being poisoned before coming here? You are telling me something based on second hand knowledge, something others have told you. You are not speaking from personal experience, and only relaying the experiences of others. You never experienced it yourself in the time you were in the LSM? You said it's deeply embedded in the culture, yet it never happened to you? You said "heard it from multiple people from different localities and different states". How many people? 2? 100? 1000?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why weren't you warned about being poisoned before coming here? You are telling me something based on second hand knowledge, something others have told you. You are not speaking from personal experience, and only relaying the experiences of others. You never experienced it yourself in the time you were in the LSM? You said it's deeply embedded in the culture, yet it never happened to you? You said "heard it from multiple people from different localities and different states". How many people? 2? 100? 1000?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why weren't you warned about being poisoned before coming here? You are telling me something based on second hand knowledge, something others have told you. You are not speaking from personal experience, and only relaying the experiences of others. You never experienced it yourself in the time you were in the LSM? You said it's deeply embedded in the culture, yet it never happened to you? You said "heard it from multiple people from different localities and different states". How many people? 2? 100? 1000?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I'm sorry but I'm still not following.

Why didn't what happen to me? Being poisoned?

If I did get poisoned (which I whole heartedly do not believe), it was after I left. Is this what you mean? Genuinely trying here

I'm still interested in hearing why you're too intimidated to name the locality. Also, can you confirm that you have also been told about being poisoned? That this is deeply imbedded into the culture of LSM? Your response seems to discredit my experiences as something out of the ordinary.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If it were true that we are not allowed to read anything about the LSM online, then how could we be on this forum.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You said you heard it from multiple people - why didn't it happen to you.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Thanks for the response ZNP. I think you have a valid point of view. I wasn't clear enough in the OP. The hope was not to validate the survey questions, but to validate each point in relation to the LSM. My hope was to see where Witness Lee spoke specifically about "All-knowing leadership" or "A new and better way", etc. This may seem like a waste of time to someone who doesn't believe the points relevant, and I can agree with that. Since this post from Christianity Today has such a prominent place on the internet in relation to defining cults, I thought it would be interesting to see how what the ministry has said specifically on these topics. I can't speak for the author of the article, but I assume it was written for modern groups, so Peter, Paul, and the gang wouldn't even be called into question.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The OP was hoping to get responses from those on this forum to "drive home the validity of the survey questions". My response to the OP is very clear, those questions are not valid.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why put fire alarms in buildings? Why put burglar alarms on cars? Why did Reagan say "trust but verify"? Why did Jesus say "be wise as serpents, harmless as doves?" Why do we need prudence and discernment?

So many questions.

The OP was hoping to get responses from those on this forum to "drive home the validity of the survey questions". My response to the OP is very clear, those questions are not valid.

The reason they might seem valid is that a "false Christ" is imitating Christ, therefore they will try to imitate things that are true of Christ. It is like the mineral Pyrite (fool's gold). It is gold color and it does something very interesting which is it forms large cubes as a crystal structure. Usually the crystal structure reveals the molecular structure. Gold's molecular structure is cubic which is very symmetrical, but Pyrite's is not. Therefore it is very strange that it would form cubes when the molecular structure is not cubic. So then the gold color and the cubic crystals are not evidence of fool's gold. It is as though these criteria are telling you to identify fool's gold by those two criteria. Every single criteria in the OP can be applied to Jesus, or Peter, or Apollos, or James, or Paul, etc. So then you would always be accusing genuine men of God of being "false prophets and teachers" if you use this criteria.

No, the way to identify fool's gold is 1. Density 2. fracture -- the mineral will break into pieces if you strike it with a hammer, gold is malleable 3. Rust -- pyrite will show oxidation whereas gold will not and 4. Look carefully at the crystal faces, fools gold has little lines on each face that show that the molecular structure is far less symmetrical than a cube.

The way to identify a false teacher --

1. Ministry is based on a fabricated story
2. Purpose is to make merchandise of you
3. Modus operandi is to make you twofold more a son of Gehenna
4. Outward appearance is "a false Christ".

True ministries are based on the truth:

Paul was less than the least because he persecuted the saints of God

James was caught up with the Judaizers in a personality cult

Peter denied the Lord

They don't make merchandise of the saints -- rather they support themselves as tent makers, or fishing, etc.

Their "fruit" reveals they are not thorns and thistles. Just as Paul said "you are my letter of recommendation"

They are servants of God and don't pretend to be Christ, or super apostles.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I don't understand your question. Nevertheless, I'll try to address it despite your every attempt to dodge my questions. I did not look at this forum until a month or more after I left.

Why play so coy on this subject? You honestly don't know what I'm talking about?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So why didn't it happen to you.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As per my previous post, why go down this road of survey questions at all? We have to consider the weight of each question, the potential for "survey bias", and the fact that we need to decide on thresholds. But you have given a number of other good "survey questions" that I do not see in the OP.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So you are telling me that you've never heard this before?

I was only a part of your denomination for a year and I heard it from multiple people from different localities and different states. Outside of these direct statements of being "poisoned", I heard countless other people share this same message indirectly.

The better question to ask would be how are you and Drake the only people on this forum? I could probably provide you with more stories, but I'm sure you already are well aware.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If it were true that we are not allowed to read anything about the LSM online, then how could we be on this forum.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Maybe Drake isn't too intimidated to share his locality?

Also, what do you mean IF that were true?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If that were true then how can Drake and I be on this forum?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Or it would apply to #9? "intimidation is often used to keep cult members from even thinking about getting out."

I was specifically told not to read anything regarding the LSM denomination online, lest I be "poisoned". This was followed by a bible verse on poison, I'm sure you've heard the same and can quote the verse. Likely - you also have experienced an anecdote about being positive and focusing on heavenly things. Whatever you do, don't read anything that goes against the ministry.

I've never heard this in all my years in non-denominational churches. Yet it was a constant during my time within the LSM denomination.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Exactly, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

How would that statement factor in to the larger discussion?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot disclose my locality on a public forum, sorry.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I don't disagree with you Evangelical, I said as much in my intro. This doesn't change the fact that it was the top google search. Which, I would think, is relevant at least as much as to shed light on what the general population may first read when looking for more information on cults.

Which locality do you meet with?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not think that the 9 questions that leastofthese put forward are so helpful or reliable in defining what is a cult.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So why do we go down this road? Trances, visions, prophecies, etc. All of these are genuine experiences in the Bible and typical examples of how a false prophet will try to scam you.

1. Lies -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
2. making merchandise of you -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
3. Poisonous fruit -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
4. Setting themselves up as false Christ -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.

Why go with a definition that is going to confuse a genuine man of God with a phony one?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are right the view is rather subjective, but I believe it to be correct, nonetheless, and can help tell a real cult. What I wanted to avoid was my interpretation being misinterpreted to mean any kind of experience that involves subjectivity. For example, experiences such as trances and out of body experiences are genuine and biblical (Peter and Paul had them). The practice of praying in tongues for example could be considered hypnotic and mesmerizing. Benny Hinn for example gets a following by mesmerization. But they are not a cult. Loud repetitive music in churches can be mesmerizing. I do not believe that pray reading or calling on the name of the Lord is any more hypnotic than praying the Lord's prayer by rote, or listening to Hillsong for any extended period of time at high volume.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, I was not privy to back room maneuvering. That said it seemed pretty easy to put two and two together. It always seemed very clear to me that if WL wanted to put a stop to this he could, so I didn't put any stock in his public denials and pretense about not saying these things.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Couldn't your description apply to any church on a Sunday?

Originally Posted by aron

For evidence of mesmerized sheep, look at how they sit, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, listening to to ratty and threadbare exposition, and no one raises a peep. At the Psalms training, one poster here said he and his neighbour looked at each other and grimaced. But not one modifying word came forth from the crowd. Everyone knew not to correct the Ascended Master. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

For evidence of intent, look at Daystar, Philip Lee as the Office, Linko and so on. Eventually they realized that Standing Orders to the ministry franchises, the local churches of LSM, was most effective.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

Mesmerization and hypnosis in and of themselves do not define a cult. There must be sinister intent.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I said "otherwise" good Christians. This is another example of how you use the fallacy of the extreme to try to make a point.



"Unity" is just another word you use to condemn others. I don't think you really have a clue what it is. To my observation your understanding of everything is superficial. I think you are sadly deceived. I don't think you have any idea what God is really about. All you have are teachings that make you feel like you are better than everyone else. Otherwise you are empty.

I've never heard anything in your personal testimony that leads me to believe you have a depth of relationship with God.

As I've said, if you are a example of what the LCM has become, I'm so glad I'm no longer there.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where did the apostle Paul agree with anyone? Can you answer?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Applying your words, to say, the LGBT church in a city (yes ,they exist), is troubling.

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is no place in the Bible where we are commissioned to judge whether a group of otherwise good Christians is a church or not. And the act of doing so is against the whole spirit of oneness, tolerance and receiving that the Bible encourages us to embrace among one another.

To me you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. Worrying about names, taking it upon yourself to decide what are churches and what are not and generally being a childish nuisance and pain in the rear.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not really circular because the definition of a church is straight from the biblical pattern. If the New Testament showed different churches with different names.. eg. Paul's letter to the "Baptist church of Ephesus", and Paul's letter to the "Faith Community Hope Peace and Love Center of Corinth" then we definitely would use that to define a church.

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is a circular argument. What is a "subgroup" of a church? Let's see, well, first you have to define a church. In the LSM mindset that's a group the calls itself "church in " and follows Witness Lee. Therefore any group that does otherwise is a "subgroup" and not a church.




The Bible does not give you enough information to make such pronouncements. Again, it's all just a pretest to discrediting everything but the LCM, um, sect.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

T
The Bible shows the definition of a church versus a sect:

A sub-group of a church is not a church, but a sect.

Originally Posted by aron

But where o where did WL agree with anyone? Where was he perfectly united in mind and thought? I remenber him telling us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 or 45 years.

Yet we were expected to be united with his mind and thought.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Which is it?

Listen, I am one of the few posters here which will give credit to WL and the LC's where due. You, however, admit to none of the numerous failings at LSM.

Let me answer your question another way. For many years I had to defend my own salvation by the Lord in the face of endless attacks by the opposers, some of which were my own cousins. I constantly assured them that I was wonderfully saved BEFORE entering the LC due to all the controvercies surrounding the teachings of WL. Because of Lee's constant assaults on all things Christian, it was nearly impossible for outsiders to ascertain whether he was saved or not, let alone all the LC members.

You bring the problems on yourself. Today I wonder if salvation is preached there anymore. Just say "Lord Jesus" three times? Five times during a quarantine? Do you still teach that believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the "low" gospel?

Which is it?

Originally Posted by OBW

Z,

You have mostly confessed that the real problems were not visible to the average participant.

And you are correct.

But when Paul made reference to any owing him their "very lives," was this because he was the one who brought them the gospel, or because he was some wonderful, special person that they just had to fawn all over? The problem with the former is that if someone else had been the ones bringing the gospel, then it would have been that person's place to say that. And it would not be wrong. It just wouldn't mean what we are thinking of when we read it (whether directed at Paul or someone else).

Paul wasn't making himself out to be some special person that they should never question. He was pointing out that if they were thanking anyone for their introduction to Christ, it was Paul.

Originally Posted by OBW

When it comes to saying that anyone could, if asking the right questions, see certain problems in the LRC, you are correct. But did you even know there was a Daystar to ask about?

Originally Posted by OBW

Were you aware that when Ray Graver made statements about Lee being the MOTA, he was basing it upon a carefully orchestrated series of separate statements — often not even in the same meeting — in which there was a back-door statements about who would be the minister of the age. It would be the one with the ministry of the age. And what was the ministry of the age?

Originally Posted by OBW

In a significantly separated statement, Lee would make it clear that there is no useful ministry at the time other than his. Therefore if there is always a ministry of the age, then it must be his. And if the one who brings the ministry of the age is the minister of the age, then . . . . you figure it out.

Originally Posted by OBW

If you didn't hear all of those statements close enough together to remember one when you heard the other, then it slipped right on by. But Ray's grandiose declaration, no matter what you think of him personally, was not dreamed up in a vacuum. He was just doing exactly what you suggested. Connecting the dots. And Lee expected each of us to eventually get on board with it and be obligated to him for everything that he could publish.

And despite those carefully separated statements, it was just such separated statements that made some of Lee's deposition testimony false in the Mindbenders/God Men lawsuits. He declared that he never said any kind of thing as grandiose as apostle or minister of the age or anything else like that concerning himself in those depositions. Yet he had made some of those independent statements already. Just not as voluminous at that point and not in as close a proximity to each other as to be as obvious to everyone.

While I still agree that applying the "cult" label is not particularly helpful, the things that bring people to arrive at those conclusions are very real. And even if you don't like that label, there is clearly a problem relative to several of those characteristics that collectively indicate there is a serious problem with the LRC. Don't like "cult"?

Originally Posted by OBW

Fine. But you agree that there are problems with the issues. Problems beyond the simple fact that groups have leaders. And we are a "personality cult' of Christ. The entire mantra of the LRC is that they are a new and better way. And they have twists on scripture that require external overlays so that the revised meaning can be derived from words that could never get there in any form. And they are busy pointing at the errors of all of the remainder of Christianity.

(Some will point to the fact that we are doing the same re: the LRC. but it is notable that we are not generally saying that of all other Christians, just those who take extreme positions related to all other Christians. Mainly the LRC as far as we are concerned.)

Originally Posted by Ohio

So true.

Brother Titus Chu, whom we all considered to be one of the greatest free thinkers in the LC, chided John Ingalls for speaking his conscience on behalf of the Anaheim saints saying, "you owe brother Lee even your own life."

Who would say such a thing? Where and when did we in the LC's make such a horrible transition? How did we morph from owing the Lord everything for His great salvation to owing Lee everything for his "great" ministry? At what point did our ascended Head stop being the Minister of the age, and Lee take over His duties?

Originally Posted by aron

Our "having the same mind" and "thinking the same thing" wasn't predicated on the MOTA also following this. The MOTA as Seer of the Divine Revelation (WL's de facto title for WN & thus himself) communed only with God.

But where in the NT do we see Paul claiming primacy? Where do we see the apostle John adopting a slavish imitation of Paul? We simply do not. But this fiction was essential to WL being 'today's Paul' and dominating the intellectual landscape of the LSM LC with his personality.

It was so bad that if anyone tried to use their God-given capacity to think, they were roundly deemed ungrateful for WL's efforts on their behalf, and in danger of being labeled as independent, ambitious, and factious.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Silly aron ... MOTA don't have to agree with anyone. It's us that s'posed to agree with him. (or her.)

Originally Posted by aron

We were told when Witness Lee died that the age had turned. No Bible references were given. "The age has turned". This was spoken from the dias by those who now run the show, the so-called "Blendeds".

Originally Posted by Eastern Lightning

Here are a few of their basic beliefs:
Christ has already returned. The first time he came he was a Jew named Jesus. This time he is a Chinese woman.
There are three ages (or dispensations):
· The Age of Law —This is the Old Testament period.
· The Age of Grace —This is the time of Jesus until the second incarnation of Christ.
· The Kingdom Age —This is the End Times, which apparently began sometime in the 1990’s.
Eastern Lightning denies the Trinity. Instead, they affirm that God simply used different names in the three different ages:
· God was called “Jehovah” in the Age of Law.
· He was called “Jesus” in the Age of Grace.
· He is called “The Almighty God” in this present Kingdom Age (and currently The Almighty God is a certain Chinese woman).

Originally Posted by Ohio

Today I wonder if salvation is preached there anymore. Just say "Lord Jesus" three times? Five times during a quarantine? Do you still teach that believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the "low" gospel?

Originally Posted by Ohio

They start out building the church, and eventually decide to build their own empire. Happens all the time to the talented ones.

Originally Posted by aron

Why does someone build a church where the rules apply to everyone but them?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Silly aron ... MOTA don't have to agree with anyone. It's us that s'posed to agree with him. (or her.)

Originally Posted by aron

But where oh where did WL agree with anyone? Where was he perfectly united in mind and thought? I remember him telling us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 or 45 years.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anything? What about number 8.

Do you believe number 8 is an accurate portrayal of the LC?:

8. Salvation is a big unknown. Since cults often teach that salvation is based on performance, cult members can never know if they've done everything necessary to get to heaven.

Anyone who has encountered the LC for even a little bit knows that we believe in the assurance of salvation and salvation by faith alone, even without any works at all.

On the one hand we are accused of "easy believism", now we are accused of salvation by works?

Which is it?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry Evangelical, but it's hard to believe anything you wrote.

We were there. We know better.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nine items here. Let's label them and discuss them one by one.

Whether these 9 items actually define a "cult" is one matter, but whether they define LSM and the LC's is another.


1. All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.

Noone can spend more than a few months in the LC and not discover that everything is Lee. Lee for breakfast, Lee for study time, Lee for teachings, Lee for the meetings, Lee for conferences, Lee for trainings, Lee hymns for singing, Lee for prophecying in the meetings. Lee has been referred to as the Minister of the Age, the "acting god," the oracle of God. There is a reason why every single new member to the LC's has to take a step back when first learning this feature of the LC.

For any elder, worker, or member church to teach other than Lee brings the ire of headquarters in Anaheim. My LC learned this the hard way. Titus Chu (GLA region) and Dong YL (Brazil) were both quarantined for not teaching enough Lee. Churches were divided, families were at odds, and long-term friendships in Christ were broken over this one item -- all LC teachings must be Lee (and occasionally Nee when they match.)

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.

- there is no explicit ruling. There is no guru or otherwise.



No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.

1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.


A new and better way. Cults often claim they've been given a "special revelation" from God that's superior to the Bible, or explains what the Bible is really trying to say.

Heb 10:20 By his death, Jesus opened a new and life-giving way through the curtain into the Most Holy Place.


Down on Christian doctrine. Cults often depict basic Christian doctrines and beliefs (like the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith) as "full of holes" and completely illogical.


The LR never says these things are full of holes and illogical. It fully affirms the Trinity, deity of Christ and salvation by grace through faith. By the way, the Trinity is illogical. 1+1+1=1 does not fit into our concepts and mathematical frameworks. That is why it is called "a mystery".


Scriptures get an added twist. Bible verses are often taken out of context or twisted to mean something very different than what was originally intended.

This could be said of any individual or Christian group who does not correctly interpret the Bible. e.g. word-faith prosperity movement.


"Christians are wrong." Cult members believe God has given their group the job of pointing out "heretical and evil" teachings of Christianity.

This could be any apologetic website or ministry that cares about sound doctrine.

Works prove faith. Cult members often claim their good works are superior to those performed by Christians, and they say their works prove their religion is the one-and-only truth.

Luther taught that works prove faith. Also, the bible says:

James 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.



Salvation is a big unknown. Since cults often teach that salvation is based on performance, cult members can never know if they've done everything necessary to get to heaven.

Sounds like the Catholic or Orthodox churches. The LR believes in assurance of salvation. In fact, we have been accused of "easy believism", believe in the Lord 3 times and you will be saved. Clearly, we do not believe in anything about our performance getting us to heaven.

No exit. Leaving the cult is not an option, and intimidation is often used to keep cult members from even thinking about getting out.

There is no pressure to stay in the LR. People come and go all the time.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is rather intimidating for those who would renounce the faith.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think our friend ZNP has been pray-reading too much of J. Gordon Melton and Hank Hanegraaff (just razzin you Z)

Seriously, Melton and Hanegraaff both came to the nonsensical and absurd notion that since the term "cult" has been misapplied a few times that no group is deserving of being dubbed with the label. They also brought forth this somewhat comical idea that since every religion or sect could be considered a cult by somebody (presumably even by just a few people), then every religion or sect is a cult...and therefore since every religion or sect is a cult then nobody's a cult.

Not to over simplify this matter, I think many reasonable Christian people could, or should, ask the following: "Just WHO is calling WHO a cult?". I mean, if the Moonies or Warren Jeffs' polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints calls some local Baptist church a cult, does that make them a cult? Conversely, if Dr. Walter Martin, the foremost cult researcher in the world, hears about Local Church members marching on Moody church/Bible Institute shouting slogans of "Down with Christianity!", then hears about LC members say "we want to be little Witness Lees" and "we are baby gods!", and then confirms some of the aberrant and divisive teachings of Lee, then declares the Local Church to be "a cult of Christianity", is Dr. Martin unreasonable is making such a declaration?

Yes, yes, I understand that our dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church have not marched on Moody church lately. (and let's thank God and some semi-sober minded Local Churchers for this!), and they have cutback quite a bit on the "we are baby gods" nonsense, but neither have they turned away from nor repudiated the excesses in teaching and practices of the past. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on such unbiblical, and yes even neo-cultic, notions as "We are becoming God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead". Neither have they repudiated the notion that Witness Lee was "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Neither have they repudiated the teaching that every Christian church besides the Local Church are "a daughter of the great harlot". And the list goes on and on.

My honest, albeit regretful, assessment is that any group that is properly and legitimately classified as a cult of Christianity, and subsequently refuses to turn away from or repudiate the very teachings and practices which caused the assessment, remains under the veil of an aberrant or even cultic group. Are there worse "cults of Christianity" around? You betcha. Are there worse places for young people and new Christians to get tied into? Absolutely! But many of us have seen and experienced that the Lord can work through godly men and women, and yes, even institutions (gasp) without the need to declare themselves to be the only group through whom God is making his Kingdom come.
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Getting back to the original post of the thread starter, is there any doubt that the Local Church of Witness Lee matches up with most of these points? The only ones that don't fit are the "works prove faith" and "salvation is a big unknown", the rest of them are spot on. I think leastofthese deserves a little more respect and consideration than our responses have been on this thread up till now. We can do better! Let's do this thing!
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

and they have cutback quite a bit on the "we are baby gods" nonsense, but neither have they turned away from nor repudiated the excesses in teaching and practices of the past. In fact, they have actually doubled-down on such unbiblical, and yes even neo-cultic, notions as "We are becoming God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead". Neither have they repudiated the notion that Witness Lee was "the one minister with the one ministry for the age". Neither have they repudiated the teaching that every Christian church besides the Local Church are "a daughter of the great harlot". And the list goes on and on.

My honest, albeit regretful, assessment is that any group that is properly and legitimately classified as a cult of Christianity, and subsequently refuses to turn away from or repudiate the very teachings and practices which caused the assessment, remains under the veil of an aberrant or even cultic group. Are there worse "cults of Christianity" around? You betcha. Are there worse places for young people and new Christians to get tied into? Absolutely! But many of us have seen and experienced that the Lord can work through godly men and women, and yes, even institutions (gasp) without the need to declare themselves to be the only group through whom God is making his Kingdom come.
-

Originally Posted by OBW

I know we have. And if you really read what I said, it was that despite falling deep into the characteristics, using the term is not helpful.

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have had this conversation for years.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was in the Catholic school thru High School. We all wore the same white shirt, green tie, and dark pants. In high school the same sport jacket. Every Mass was the same, every day, all around the world. The LC had nothing that resembled that, at least where I was. Going back to Francis or Erasmus in the RCC is like going back to Elden Hall in the 60's.

Originally Posted by aron

Really?!? Doesnt the Catholic church allow nonconforming groups? Why the the creation of, say the Jesuit order? What of the Franciscans? Etc etc? A free spirit could exist in the Catholic church, publish personal poems of spiritual musings etc. I don't see any such leeway in the LSM LC. They've made that repeatedly clear.

Same with the Eastern Orthodox. One may present one's ideas to the marketplace; some will gain traction, some not. But the marketplace of ideas ultimately decides. The HQ of course may set parameters for discussion. But within the pale of orthodoxy one may pursue spirituality as one (and one's locally-associated peers) see fit.

A Francis of Assisi or a Desiderius Erasmus could survive in the RCC, albeit often barely so. No chance in the LSM LC. And remember that Francis and Erasmus lived in a different era: 400 years ago, you could also be tortured or killed in Protestant-controlled territory for being non-conformist. The separation of church and state began to change things drastically. By contrast, we see that the LSM LC has only gotten more rigid and inflexible over time - look at the LC assemblies today vs 40 years ago!

I think in the Catholic church, they accept that different peoples have different cultures and cultural expressions. That's allowed and even celebrated. In the LSM LC, only one culture is allowed. Supposedly that's a "heavenly culture" and based on the Bible, but we've seen on this forum repeatedly that where the Bible and LSM LC culture clash, the Bible is dropped like a rock. Conformity is always to the HQ and whoever's pulling the reins there.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That to me described the Catholic church I grew up in.

Originally Posted by aron

For me the clearest indicator is rigid conformity. All LSM "local churches" must be "absolutely identical", with "no differences whatsoever". No difference with whom, you ask? With HQ promulgations. If HQ changes week-to-week, so must the rank-and-file in the hinterlands.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

All-knowing leadership. An individual or group of people claims to be sent by God to "rule" the one true religion—which only includes members of that particular cult.

No room for differences. Cult members must believe exactly the same way and in exactly the same things; there is no room for disagreeing with the cult's rules or doctrines.

A new and better way. Cults often claim they've been given a "special revelation" from God that's superior to the Bible, or explains what the Bible is really trying to say.

Down on Christian doctrine. Cults often depict basic Christian doctrines and beliefs (like the Trinity, deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith) as "full of holes" and completely illogical.

Scriptures get an added twist. Bible verses are often taken out of context or twisted to mean something very different than what was originally intended.

"Christians are wrong." Cult members believe God has given their group the job of pointing out "heretical and evil" teachings of Christianity.

Works prove faith. Cult members often claim their good works are superior to those performed by Christians, and they say their works prove their religion is the one-and-only truth.

Salvation is a big unknown. Since cults often teach that salvation is based on performance, cult members can never know if they've done everything necessary to get to heaven.

No exit. Leaving the cult is not an option, and intimidation is often used to keep cult members from even thinking about getting out.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf...n-of-cult.html

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did the article refer to any verses from the New Testament to support this definition? I see many NT verses concerning false prophets and how to recognize them, but the only reference I see to a "cult" is the early church. Wasn't the early church referred to as a cult?

Originally Posted by OBW

And there Z goes again. If the word is not used in the scripture it can't be used.