Originally Posted by Kevin

They seem to be exempted or invulnerable themselves from being lifeless and Christless.

Originally Posted by aron

I nominate this for quote of the day, especially the last sentence. The whole thing is just displaced anxiety and shame.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The way I see it, it goes back to the steps of Adam and Eve at the fall. They: 1.disobeyed, 2. Hid, 3.lied, 4. Blame-shifted.. WL blamed the rest of christianity for having faults, and created a church system where his followers carry the cost (blame) to protect him from taking responsibility for his errors and faults.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How does it seem to think S Stallone is in a better standing with our Lord than WL, (as far as we can tell?)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

..what about all the internal 'cognitive dissonance' discussed here experienced by some members....and the idea of oneness and no division. The person under oppression from all that leven becomes divided within themselves also, an even deeper, internal division. Tearing down their soul and sanity. So sad to me. .

Originally Posted by SAAggie

Not sure if any of this make sense, but it boils down to the cast system - FT'rs are the higher cast - the working folks are the schlubs and who's purpose is to serve the FT'rs, because we can only be useful to the Lord in that way since we didn't go to the training(so says the FT'r edict).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This may be more an unfortunate 'contradiction' rather than a 'double standard' but...what about all the internal 'cognitive dissonance' discussed here experienced by some members

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The person under oppression from all that leven becomes divided within themselves also, an even deeper, internal division. Tearing down their soul and sanity. So sad to me.

Originally Posted by aron

I was there in the early '90s when the New Way and door-knocking was being replaced by the Campus Work. Even then it was clear that divisions were arising - we were told in the FTTA to go for "typical Americans", and if you were too dense they made it explicit, Caucasians.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are so right about the Full-Timer Caste System. This really took off in the mid-80's in Taipei during the so-called "New Way." Lee constantly extolled his young "Blue Jacket" trainees, and regularly trashed LC elders. Some have said that his tactics were taken from Mao's playbook. Brothers would advance in the system just by their zeal for Lee and his ministry.

Originally Posted by SAAggie

I meet because I enjoy being with the saints I'm connected to, if that makes sense. I have fellowship with them and we can pray about our situations and just enjoy the Lord.

Originally Posted by SAAggie

I meet because I enjoy being with the saints I'm connected to, if that makes sense. I have fellowship with them and we can pray about our situations and just enjoy the Lord. There are even some that have left the LC's I try to stay in contact with that were true friends and brothers and still are as far as I'm concerned , but if the elders in this locality find out I've talked to them, they would consider me poisoned.

Also I have no issue with the ministry, preachers have their ministry, that's how it is. I have issue with putting the ministry before Christ or equating it to the WORD.

We've been meeting for several year and my wife was a "Church Kid" from the 70's/80's (the Lord somehow preserved her since so many in that age group were lost). My kids grew up as "Church Kids", but for some reason the Full Timers think the college aged "Church Kids" are self sufficient, which is totally not true.

I'm fine with students coming to my home, I'm fine with working saints coming to my home - it's the elitist Full Timers that I have the biggest issue with. When we first started meeting - I was older than a "normal piece of fruit" so it wasn't like I was high maintenance either, but I was talking with the Full Timer that was assigned to the home meeting we were with at the time and he told me "I can't pray with you, you'll need to find one of the older brother to pray with". My thought was "Really?! You come to my house, you eat my food, you don't clean up after yourselves, and you can't pray with me?" Anyway I ended up being knitted with some older brothers which worked out fine, but after that situation with the FT'r, I've shied away from any fellowship with Full Timers, nor do I trust them (not sure what they put in the kool-aid at the FTTA...)

Not sure if any of this make sense, but it boils down to the cast system - FT'rs are the higher cast - the working folks are the schlubs and who's purpose is to serve the FT'rs, because we can only be useful to the Lord in that way since we didn't go to the training(so says the FT'r edict).

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Thanks for posting SAAggie (Whoop!)
I recieved a significant amount of attention as a non-college aged student. But I’ll admit this was VERY unusual.
Why do you still meet with the LSM churches?

Originally Posted by SAAggie

I'm new here but have searched the forum for this type of conversation.
1. I Love the Lord
2. I'm a community\working saint (I despise that label)
3. I have no burden for the campus work - not because of the students but because of the Full Time serving ones treating the "community saint" as 2nd class citizens , knowing these folks provide the money for them to do the campus work.
4. Full Timers are lazy and a burden - my opinion only.

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Why do the college students get one level of attention and care, but the aged and infirm another, and the "working saints" and "community saints" another? Doesn't this make divisions, according to Paul's word?

Don't get me wrong, I love college students and am burdened for the young, but wouldn't you rather bring a college student into a church that cared for everybody, not just "good building material"? It's very unbalanced.

Originally Posted by Terry

In reading David Canfield's recent post at http://www.standforthetestimony.org/...ess/#more-1146
I am reminded it's only natural the blended co-workers might react defensively. As if they would say, "he (David) is using the ministry to attack the ministry".

Point is, by referring back to messages Lee spoke in the 60's and 70's, one can point out contradictions from the spoken messages compared to LC practices. Throughout Lee's ministry, there is example after example of double standards.

Originally Posted by Terry

In reading David Canfield's recent post at [link]
I am reminded it's only natural the blended co-workers might react defensively. As if they would say, "he (David) is using the ministry to attack the ministry".

Point is, by referring back to messages Lee spoke in the 60's and 70's, one can point out contradictions from the spoken messages compared to LC practices. Throughout Lee's ministry, there is example after example of double standards.

Originally Posted by Terry

In the LSM/LC fellowship it's loyalty that trumps whatever love may be. The blended brothers for years have been "a noisy gong" as I have a difficult time seeing any love from.
Even locally in the Puget Sound region local elders may verbally express love for one Indiana, but to exhibit love to this brother they cannot even speak to him.
It may be loyalty is considered unconditional. For an elder, to have their loyalty to LSM brought under scrutiny is non-negotiable.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Unfortunately, the precedent that has been set within the LC is that of rewarding loyalty. I don't think members are incapable of loving those outside the LC, but they also know that loyalty to the LC comes first no matter what. If loving someone would interfere with loyalty to the system, then loyalty comes first.

A type of mutual love does exist between LC members, such as what is discussed in Matt 5, but unfortunately, this type of pretentious love and the environment that it creates is often taken to mean something significant, when it's really not.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

That would be the natural response to defend or to excuse sin. However, in Matthew chapter 5, the Lord speaks to us about our everyday living as members of His Body and citizens of His Kingdom. He concludes His sermon by encouraging us to be perfect as our Father is perfect. He makes an emphatic point about love:

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same

In the LSMLC organization there is overwhelming evidence that they love only themselves and those like themselves. I doubt if anyone of them would sincerely tell Steve or anyone else on this forum that they love us and mean it! In their deceived and corrupt way of thinking, we are all Men of Death

Originally Posted by Terry

When the local churches take a name it's for legal purposes. When everyone else does it's to make a distinction, to denominate.

Originally Posted by Terry

Another double standard I'm not sure that's been mentioned on this thread is the matter of taking a name.

When the local churches take a name it's for legal purposes. When everyone else does it's to make a distinction, to denominate.

That way ones meeting in the local churches can claim everyone else is meeting in division. Only we are not meeting in division.

Originally Posted by aron

How about, "We receive in fellowship all redeemed, blood-washed brothers and sisters, provided they do exactly as we say, no questions asked." With that minor stipulation, LSM churches are wide open.

Originally Posted by Terry

We receive all redeemed blood-washed brothers and sisters and in the next sentence receiving is only possible through LSM publications.

Originally Posted by Terry

Same here. For years as an adult meeting with various localities, I've been observant. Observed how brother's spoke. Putting down non-LSM Christians had become an easy way to "get over" with the LC assembly and receive a resounding amen. What behavior is that? Instead of humility, I observed pride. Instead of grace towards brothers who left the recovery, I observed malice.

When I was meeting with the local churches, I didn't care who was an elder or a coworker, but over time I did want to see a right heart towards our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Originally Posted by HERn

I really like the simplicity of the Lord Jesus. He said that wherever 2 or 3 meet together in His name He is there among them. Nothing about the ground, names, or denominations. So simple. Nothing about one trumpet, one ministry, one publishing house, one man. Just wherever 2 or 3 meet together.

Originally Posted by JJ

The question I have is whether or not the Lord has blessed these local churches who don't embrace LSM leadership with his presence, annointing, and blessing or not. I don't care who takes the lead, as long as the Lord Spirit pours his abundant blessing upon us. I waited for that to happen in my locality and region where LSM leadership is embraced so I could happily also embrace it, and was only frustrated. What was stunning to me is I found more of the Spirit's outpouring and abundant blessing outside TLR , I think because the Word of God is held as the ultimate authority versus a given preacher's interpretation.

Originally Posted by JJ

The question I have is whether or not the Lord has blessed these local churches who don't embrace LSM leadership with his presence, annointing, and blessing or not. I don't care who takes the lead, as long as the Lord Spirit pours his abundant blessing upon us.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Over the years, I heard vague references to these types of situations where there is an 'independent' group in a city alongside an LSM church, and they both call themselves the church in their city, and each have their own Lord's table meeting. Of course, LCers think nothing of having 5 or more separate Lord's tables meetings in districts in the same city. However, the minute a group not associated with LSM has a Lord's table meeting apart from LSM churches, it is labeled as 'divisive'. Oh the hypocrisy!

Originally Posted by Freedom

Over the years, I heard vague references to these types of situations where there is an 'independent' group in a city alongside an LSM church, and they both call themselves the church in their city, and each have their own Lord's table meeting. Of course, LCers think nothing of having 5 or more separate Lord's tables meetings in districts in the same city. However, the minute a group not associated with LSM has a Lord's table meeting apart from LSM churches, it is labeled as 'divisive'. Oh the hypocrisy!

Originally Posted by Freedom

Over the years, I heard vague references to these types of situations where there is an 'independent' group in a city alongside an LSM church, and they both call themselves the church in their city, and each have their own Lord's table meeting. Of course, LCers think nothing of having 5 or more separate Lord's tables meetings in districts in the same city. However, the minute a group not associated with LSM has a Lord's table meeting apart from LSM churches, it is labeled as 'divisive'. Oh the hypocrisy!

Originally Posted by Ohio

IIRC there are something like 3 or 4 LC's in Toronto, with each on the "ground of oneness." Each "storm" brings another.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's still mind-boggling to me how the LC could have fallen to the point where they will do something like form a business partnership in order to "take the ground" in a city. If there is a church in Toronto already in existence, then it goes against their very doctrine to form a new church in Toronto. If nothing else, the whole episode demonstrates some of the underlying problems with the ground doctrine, but the fact that they are willing to bend the rules is indicative of a large amount of hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's still mind-boggling to me how the LC could have fallen to the point where they will do something like form a business partnership in order to "take the ground" in a city. If there is a church in Toronto already in existence, then it goes against their very doctrine to form a new church in Toronto. If nothing else, the whole episode demonstrates some of the underlying problems with the ground doctrine, but the fact that they are willing to bend the rules is indicative of a large amount of hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Terry

If the ground is so important why were so many GLA localities sued or at the minimum pro-LSM members going to form their own church/business association? I believe it was Minoru who likened these localities to leprosy- infected that needed to be torn down. In that sense he's addressing the condition of the church and ignoring the ground.

Originally Posted by Freedom

In the above two excerpts WL makes some statements about religion and Christianity, regarding a condition that he perceives. He also likens Christianity to the "present evil age". On another thread, I posted a quote where WL states that standing is more important than condition. Here in-lies another double standard. WL wouldn't give any amount of consideration to the condition of the LC, and even some of those who have questioned the condition have been excommunicated. With respect to other Christians, there was no end to the criticism of their supposed condition. The condition was perceived to be so bad that WL stated that all bridges to Christianity had been burned, and 'evil' is a word that WL would use to describe Christians.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

How can anyone trust DCP?

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

How can anyone trust DCP?

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

FYI Two of Count Melton's associates are also heavily steeped in this demonic garbage. Introvigne is also head of a Dracula chapter in Italy, and like his fellow vampire buddy is a cult expert that excuses every abhorrent group or practice as "beneficial". He is an interesting study if you are so inclined to google him. Countess Elizabeth specializes as an expert in Bram Stoker's Dracula
http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller/elizabeth_miller.html.
Why someone would find this an exciting career is suspect in itself.

How can anyone trust DCP? What they hoped you would not notice is that Melton and his friends generally think that all groups/sects/cults have their positive side. To get their approval just pay up with the saints' money and your good to go. Why not? The saints have been duped before. What a shame to the Lord's Holy Name. May the righteous Judge have mercy!

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Just in case some of you have any doubts about Ohio's claim:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Vampire-Bo.../dp/157859281X

Originally Posted by Freedom

Considering this, isn't it ironic that LC leaders would be willing to involve themselves with other Christians for the sake of improving the image of the LC?

Originally Posted by Freedom

Because I grew up in the LC, I really took to heart many of these various admonitions, thinking that doing things like disregarding doctrine really meant something special. As I later came to discover, leaders only wanted members to that, they were very much interested in defending WL's teachings.

Originally Posted by Ohio

According to probably accurate reports, WL began his ministry in the US after a time of repentance. He definitely was a gifted, learned, and productive minister. By all accounts, he was himself morally sound, unlike his sons, and who can fault a man for that since many others like Eli the priest and the prophet Samuel suffered similar failures with their sons.

Had Lee simply trusted in the Lord's provision for his ministry as he often claimed, and not padded it with exclusive teachings, outrageous claims, rotten business deals, etc. and kept his reprobate sons completely out of the picture, adding a dose of humility in his service, perhaps this forum and the sordid LC history would never have existed.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Every time I open this thread I re - realize how blinded I/ we were.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I have found it beneficial to discuss all these double standards. It seems that many of what were believed to be positive attributes of the LC are rooted in double standards, or even worse, straw man fallacies that they have constructed.

Originally Posted by OBW

In other words, "We don't care for doctrine or theology, but if you diss ours we will sue your pants off."

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Every time I open this thread I re - realize how blinded I/ we were.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Has anyone here visited the lsm run bookstores? I recall they carry a variety of authors liberally sprinkled among lsm stuff.

Originally Posted by aron

Anyone else who tried to function in his LC kingdom was seen as an ambitious usurper, "drawing others after themselves", etc. Everyone else had to sublimate their gifts ..."Each one has" of 1 Cor 14 became, in his hands, each one standing after the lecture of Lee-ism and speaking 3 sentences of how wonderful and enjoyable and enlightening it was. Lee nullified the function of the members of the Body more thoroughly than any clergy-laity system of Christianity ever did.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was part of the team of saints which migrated in 1977 to begin the churchlife in Columbus. That thriving, joyful, fruitful church was nearly decimated in the early 80's by the harsh abuse and damages inflicted upon Phil Comfort by Titus Chu. Years ago most of us just did not understand how abusive and manipulative Titus Chu could be towards other workers, elders, and churches. There is absolutely no justification in the scriptures for the "management style" which he exhibits over the GLA. Where is one verse which promotes his public shaming? Where is one verse which permits the mistreatment other brothers are forced to endure?

The church in Columbus was thriving for years under the leadership of John Myer. The blessings they enjoyed were envied and copied around the GLA. For example, John Myer read The Purpose Driven Church by Rich Warren, and soon the whole GLA was reading the book. After what has transpired in recent years, one can easily see that the exact same spirit of intolerance and manipulation exhibited by Anaheim can be seen in Cleveland. As John has written, "I will be questioned and found guilty," and in the end it is the church that suffers. Just a repeat of history in the church in Columbus.

Let me speak plainly for those who still wonder what happened. Neither Phil Comfort nor John Myer have ever been accused of anything even remotely bordering on inappropriate behavior. Nothing at all, nothing whatsoever. Ironically they both lived in the same meager ranch house on church property. Though separated in time by some 20+ years, both were well-loved and appreciated by the saints in Columbus. Both had a jovial, personal disposition which well-respected the brothers around them. Both were dedicated workers which gave out much more than they took in. Both were passionate in their ministry and had a positive impact upon the saints.

Thus they both had the same problem. They posed a serious risk to the prevailing power structure in Cleveland headquarters, and hence they needed to "know their place," which can only be accomplished by being beat down in front of others. Titus Chu would never share his glory with anyone, at least not within the limits of his reach. Saints can suffer loss, churches can be devastated, and workers can be disposed of, just as long as every brother pays the necessary homage to "the brother who raised us up."

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Consider this excerpt from the book “The Practice of the Church Life according to the God-ordained Way"

"We have been greatly influenced by Christianity to think that among all the saints, only a few are useful ...and most were not useful or capable. This is the reason that the majority in Christianity have accepted the concept that not all Christians can serve God. Thus, most Christian groups select only a small group of believers and send them to a seminary to become educated according to their theology. Then they build these up as a system, the so-called clerical system, which has become a hierarchy in Christianity.."

Originally Posted by Freedom

In response to both micah6v8 and OBW, I completely agree. Meetings have different purposes, and there is value in both small group meetings, and large "single speaker" meetings. Unfortunately, WL thought he could make all meetings conform to his cookie-cutter model.

At the heart of the issue, WL assigned a function (gift) of prophesying to every member. That was a big problem, because the Bible explicitly states that each member has a different function. So this caused two problems 1) If forced people to function outside of their individual gifts and 2) It devalued the gifts for those who really were prophets of God.

WL's misinterpretation of "all can prophecy" led to free-for-all meetings that offered little to no value. I've stated before on other threads, I've heard plenty of people speak in the LC who should have best kept quiet. Things like dumping personal problems on everyone are not acceptable in a large group setting, and this is exactly why virtually all churches have an assigned speaker for such gatherings. If LC elders ever wonder why their meetings constantly go over time, well it's because they try to give the floor to more people that it's logistically possible for the set amount of time.

Originally Posted by aron

I googled "Witness Lee annul function body members" and found nearly identical quotes from "The Intrinsic View of the Body of Christ", and from "The Lord's New Way and His Ministry Today", and from "The Mystery of the Universe and the Meaning of Human Life", and from "The Basic Principles for the Practice of the God-ordained Way", and from "The World Situation and the Direction of the Lord's Move", all books from circa 1989-91. There were several more, like HWFMR and "Conclusion of the New Testament", but probably those were recycled.

What's so striking is that you get the same phraseology, repeated ad nauseum, and you wonder how many people had to sit through meeting after meeting, hearing the essentially the same word from the same minister, over and over again. Everytime pretending that it's fresh bread from heaven.

It's too ironic that this particular speaking is about how "Christianity annuls the function of the members of the Body", when you have such a blatant display of that very annulment happening right in front of you.

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL's misinterpretation of "all can prophecy" led to free-for-all meetings that offered little to no value. I've stated before on other threads, I've heard plenty of people speak in the LC who should have best kept quiet. Things like dumping personal problems on everyone are not acceptable in a large group setting, and this is exactly why virtually all churches have an assigned speaker for such gatherings. If LC elders ever wonder why their meetings constantly go over time, well it's because they try to give the floor to more people that it's logistically possible for the set amount of time.

Originally Posted by aron

What's so striking is that you get the same phraseology, repeated ad nauseum, and you wonder how many people had to sit through meeting after meeting, hearing the essentially the same word from the same minister, over and over again. Every time pretending that it's fresh bread from heaven.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Of course, WL would never apply the same criticism to himself. He gave thousands of messages. In trainings, audience members were forced to sit in their assigned seats for 2 or more hours at a time. If there was any truth the WL's criticism of Christians, then how much more could the same be said about the LC.

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

When you have light, you have the seeing power, the view, and the vision. When you have light, you have knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. This gives you utterance, and you cannot be dumb. None of the tourists who visit Disneyland in Anaheim are dumb. When they see all the sights that are there, they are bubbling. Once you get into Disneyland, how could you be dumb? Even the little children, who cannot speak well, will have utterance because they see so many things.

Why do the pew members in the Christian denominations sit dumbly in their pews during the Sunday eleven o'clock service? Because they are short of light and see nothing. When you are in darkness, it is very difficult to speak. Try to speak when you are in darkness. You will be dumb because you see nothing. You will have nothing to say. If I am blind and you ask me to speak, I will have nothing to say. How different it is when we are in the light! When light comes, you have a great deal to say because you see so much. You see so many people, places, and things. You see so much that you speak spontaneously.

Light produces seeing, and seeing produces utterance. Why are all the church members so bubbling when they come to the meetings? Because they all have seen something and have something to say as a result. What we see spontaneously comes out in our utterance. There is no need to think of something to say. We talk about what we see. Light produces sight. Light comes from the Word. When you have the Word, you have light.

LS Hewbrews, Msg. 2

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

We all know that Christianity gathers a group of people for a church service. They hire a speaker who has theological knowledge, who is very eloquent and capable, and who is able to run an organization and bring people together. Such persons are rare in Taiwan but quite common in the United States. They are all well-known persons in Christianity, but the work of these well-known persons has "killed" every one of their church members. On the one hand, these church members have been brought to the Lord through them, but on the other hand, their speaking has "killed" these church members. Some may say that kill is too strong an expression, but at least we can say that the members have become accustomed to listening to messages; they have become drugged and become numb. They only know that a Christian should be a proper and good person and that he should attend the church service every Lord's Day; that is good enough. However, from the perspective of the spiritual supply of life, such a way completely annuls the members' function.

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"

11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't think anyone really knows how much these blendeds are todays Pharisees.

Originally Posted by Freedom

As one of the FTTT trainers put it: If the local brothers would practice in this way to carry out their burden, it would be a hierarchy and control. But if this is practiced to carry out the ministry’s burden, it is not hierarchy or control.

The underlying message of that statement is that locally, brothers must adhere to what WL taught. For those involved with LSM, anything goes. Imagine if any local church dropped the practice of prophesying and went back to having a single speaker in meetings. The BB's would be up in arms about that. But for many of the meetings BB's go to, it's meetings where they are the speaker. Sorry to say, they are a bunch of hypocrites.

Originally Posted by aron

In Christianity, you have pastors, reverends and preachers who give sermons at church service. In the LC, you have blendeds, serving ones, and co-workers who give messages at meetings. Now, which one is so superior, and normal, and which one is defective, distorted, and nullifying the function of the body members? Terminology aside, what's the difference?

I think one example of hypocrisy is, to say "If you do it, it's bad; but when I do it, it's okay." That is arguably textbook double standard, and subjectivism run amok. Welcome to the LC fantasy factory.

Originally Posted by Freedom

For some of these BB's, sermonizing is what they thrive by doing. If that opportunity was taken away from them, who knows if they would even stay in the LC. I think RK has been quoted as saying that he "won't step aside for anyone", in reference to his place at the podium.

What I always found a bit humorous was that in meetings where everyone was allocated a certain amount of time to speak, everyone would start moaning and groaning as soon as someone went over time. When a BB or elder goes 30 minutes too long, no one would give it a second thought. It just goes to show the kind of regard the BB's get as opposed to the average Joe.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I remember one of the BB's (he's very tall, thin, glasses, stern) who was so inspired by some point(I remember not) during a YP meeting during a conference in San Jose that he help all of us squirmy HS students for another 30mins-1 hr after we were supposed to be dismissed. Most of us were disappointed we didn't get to use the pool or whatever. That is an excellent double standard you just brought to light.

Originally Posted by micah6v8

I could add an 11th item to Freedom's list of 10 examples of "Double-Standards"

11) When a non-LSM church pastor gives a "sermon", it is frowned upon because "the congregation becomes non-functioning". Yet when a Blended Brother gives a one and a half hour "Message" in a conference, no one frowns upon the fact that the congregation is also passive/non-functioning during the one and a half hour.
Apart from the labels, a sermon and a message are the same thing. What may differ is simply the contents of the message/sermon.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The "feeling of the Body" touted by LSM leadership for years, really has nothing to do with either the Head nor the actual body of Christ. It is simply a self-serving agenda pushed on the saints by their pseudo-leaders and hirelings.

I have witnessed literally dozens of occasions when the real feeling of the actual members of Christ was in direct opposition to the latest directive from headquarters. LC leaders spend so little actual time with her members that they have not a clue what the members feel.

Originally Posted by aron

Any emissary who begins to presume for him/herself pride of place becomes separated from the light. And when the light turns to darkness, how great is the darkness!

Thus, the safety in the well-worn paths of old, and the peril in striking out anew. Anyone offering new and better teachings should be suspect. Especially when these new doctrines are essentially held as a contravention of our behavior. As if works were dead, and "eating Jesus" or somesuch were sufficient. I see this as teaching something novel and without scriptural basis, that being hearers (or eaters) of the word were enough. As if saying, "I am becoming God" or saying anything (reciting, declaring, chanting, pray-reading etc), would make it reality itself...

Originally Posted by Terry

My interpretation even if the material providing response of former leading ones has merit, those elders/co-workers will defer to the senior blendeds as if they possess "feeling of the Body". So whatever the brother's opinion might be, and especially if it's contrary to groupthink, that opinion will stay between his ears.

Originally Posted by HERn

I believe it is the cogent truth-filled comments on this forum that prevents any of the LSM senior blendeds from participating in a continued meaningful discussion here. It's one thing to parrot back WL's teaching to other blendeds, or perfect the young trainees whose minds are not mature enough to mount up a defense, or pummel straw men in the A&C journal, but when they face the mature minds of intelligent and assertive lovers of Jesus it seems they quickly withdraw back into their LSM cave to prepare for the next training.

Originally Posted by HERn

I believe it is the cogent truth-filled comments on this forum that prevents any of the LSM senior blendeds from participating in a continued meaningful discussion here. It's one thing to parrot back WL's teaching to other blendeds, or perfect the young trainees whose minds are not mature enough to mount up a defense, or pummel straw men in the A&C journal, but when they face the mature minds of intelligent and assertive lovers of Jesus it seems they quickly withdraw back into their LSM cave to prepare for the next training.

Originally Posted by aron

God is good and wonderful, and emanates His goodness and wonder throughout all of His creation. "The heavens declare the glory of God..." How much more, we who were made in His image...

Originally Posted by aron

Thus, the safety in the well-worn paths of old, and the peril in striking out anew. Anyone offering new and better teachings should be suspect. Especially when these new doctrines are essentially held as a contravention of our behavior. As if works were dead, and "eating Jesus" or somesuch were sufficient. I see this as teaching something novel and without scriptural basis, that being hearers (or eaters) of the word were enough. As if saying, "I am becoming God" or saying anything (reciting, declaring, chanting, pray-reading etc), would make it reality itself. No, it is the living that is the true testimony. Our faith is indeed in the teachings of Jesus, but not because they were cleverly presented, but because His living was pleasing to the Father, who furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead.

Jesus taught, "Do not be hearers of the word only, but be doers of the word". If your theology merely tickles the fancy without the transformative power of the divine command - e.g. "Love your neighbor" - then what is it but distracting speculation? No value..

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I accept that the phrase "God became man to make man god" does not occur in the Bible, Ohio, but what would yourself make of man and his destiny in the universe?

Otherwise, what, in your humble opinion, would you call the grand purpose of man? What was in God's heart and mind in His creation of human beings?

It seems to me that there is an important and underlying point of tension here that serves as a significant point of departure between the bedrock of LSM belief and whatever winds of teaching its detractors now embrace.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The more important issue at hand is the nature of God. As we all know, WL claimed that we can become God "in life and nature". So please consider just exactly what this means, and what the implications of such a statement are. One element of God's nature (His essence) is that He is light (1 John 1:5). We are not light... Do you see the problem that WL created?

Originally Posted by John Nelson Darby in his Synopsis of 2 Peter

Originally Posted by Freedom

Partaking of the divine nature can result in God-likeness or resemblance to God. Just look at the context of 2 Peter 1. It speaks of godliness and godly virtues. You don't need to be God to express godliness.tor.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Dear Freedom, oh dear me...
...
So, anyway, what do you make of the following words? How would you reconcile them with the astute observation you have made above?

"His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may [partake of] the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1: 3-4) NIV

(n.b. words in parenthesis are from KJV)

Originally Posted by Ohio

No one here loathes the Recovery Version as you suppose. I use it every day.

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

..."In the epistle to the church in Ephesus we see the all-inclusive Christ as the One who holds the seven 'stars' in His right hand (Rev.2:1). The brothers who are taking the lead in the churches as the messengers (Gk. angels - Rev 1:20) are held in this One's hand. This One is the holder of all church leaders. However, some of the so-called church leaders may not be held by Him. He 'only holds those He recognizes'. To be held by Him, 'you must be recognized by Him' first. We must realize that the leading ones in the churches in the Lord's recovery are held in His hand.....This One who holds the leaders in His hand and who walks in the midst of the churches is the all-inclusive, excellent, marvellous, mysterious, and wonderful One.....When we come to the book of Revelation, however, we 'primarily' need to 'care' for [this wonderful One who is holding all] the 'church leaders' in His right hand and who is walking in the midst of all the churches. A number of times some of the saints came to me and told me that it seemed to them that I never became disappointed or discouraged. They wanted to know why this was the case. The reason for this is that by His mercy, I have seen this marvelous One and I have seen that I AM IN HIS HANDS. To see this strengthens me to the uttermost....This is why the opening word in Revelation 2 says, ' "These things says He who holds the SEVEN STARS IN HIS RIGHT HAND, who walks in the midst of the seven golden lampstands" '..."

(The seven spirits (3), chp 22, pp238-240, God's New Testament Economy, 1986, Living Stream Ministry)..

Originally Posted by Unregistered

However, I have a humble quotation of my own, nothing much, just a few words from a poor, old, ignorant fisherman. In fact, that you may not lay a charge before our brother, I won't even quote that fisherman with that version you loathe so much (RcV); no, let me dust off an old and humble edition of the NIV and take the words directly out of there; I guess that should steady the needle on your cult-o-meter...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

However, I have a humble quotation of my own, nothing much, just a few words from a poor, old, ignorant fisherman. In fact, that you may not lay a charge before our brother, I won't even quote that fisherman with that version you loathe so much (RcV); no, let me dust off an old and humble edition of the NIV and take the words directly out of there; I guess that should steady the needle on your cult-o-meter...

So, anyway, what do you make of the following words? How would you reconcile them with the astute observation you have made above?

"His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may [partake of] the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1: 3-4) NIV

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So, anyway, what do you make of the following words? How would you reconcile them with the astute observation you have made above?

"His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may [partake of] the divine nature..." (2 Peter 1: 3-4) NIV

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Dear Freedom, oh dear me...

Thank you for your insightful quotation from the Bible proving that Witness Lee was egregiously wrong about God intending man to share his life and nature. Very scholarly.....

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would use the N.T. to describe man's destiny, specifically the destiny of God's children. For example, I John 3.2 says, "It has not yet been manifested what we will be ... we shall be like him, for we shall see Him as He is." We also know that we shall become glorified sons of God, conformed to the image of His Firstborn Son. (Romans 8.29-30)

As far as being "made god," I reject it for several reasons. Firstly, because the Bible does not specifically say it, and it had ample opportunity to do so, either thru Paul, Peter, or John. We do become real sons of God partaking of His divine nature, but do not "become god in life and nature." Isn't that enough anyway? Aren't the plain words of scripture enough to satisfy you?"

Secondly, the rest of the body of Christ has not embraced this either. An obscure translated phrase from Athanasius in the early part of the 4th century is not adequate, to the greater body of Christ, to rise to the level of the canon.

Thirdly, this so-called "high peak" expression was introduced to the Recovery by Witness Lee following a pathetic coverup of unrighteous activities at LSM. It is highly unlikely to me (and to many others) that God would "recover" such a long-lost "truth" at a time when Witness Lee and his son Phillip should have been repenting to the churches for all the damage they had wrought throughout the era of the "new way."

Fourthly, the saying has never produced good fruit, rather many of its adherents have exhibited a boastful arrogance, contrary to God's nature, and has brought shame to the Lord's name. Instead of benefiting the children of God, Laodicea has resulted. A generation of young people have been taught to judge their brethren outside the Recovery for not knowing this great "truth."

Fifthly, this phrase connects its supporters to other aberrant cults and damages the simple message of the good news of the cross of Christ. Instead of dropping this extra-biblical expression, which only serves to divide His body, LSM has been forced to litigate other ministries in a failed attempt to save face.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some Christians believe in evolution. The LCMers must believe in devolution.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Unregistered,
A passage I’ve referenced before, which I believe casts a shadow of doubt on WL’s doctrine of deification is Acts 14:11-16
11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, 16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. (NKJV)

Notice how Paul and Barnabas were very quick to clear up the misconception that they were anything but human beings, they emphasized that were “men with the same nature as you”. How does this compare with what WL taught, that we could become God in life and nature? Needless to say, I believe that it is presumptuous for those in the LC to do things like go around declaring that they are “god-men”. Paul and Barnabas would have nothing to do with that. Neither should those in the LC. I think that ultimately, WL found support for his teachings and quickly disregarded anything in the scripture that detracted from his teachings.

Originally Posted by aron

One tells us that, "I'm proud to be an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand", and another puts his hands on his eyes and ears and says, "I'm a monkey". Is that the transformation we'd expect? Is that, really, the purpose of man? That's the best we can do? That's why we came here?

Originally Posted by aron

... perhaps Lee's plan for humanity created 99 frustrated Christians for every one that somehow managed to maintain continual abject servility to "the ministry", in spite of its obvious flaws. That was Lee's plan all along, rhetoric aside.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'd agree with what others have posted already... I view the purpose of man as being ultimately to glorify God. Consider Jesus’ words in Matt 5:16 - Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Here is a simple verse that helps Christians to realize their purpose on earth..

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I accept that the phrase "God became man to make man god" does not occur in the Bible, Ohio, but what would yourself make of man and his destiny in the universe? what, in your humble opinion, would you call the grand purpose of man? What was in God's heart and mind in His creation of human beings?

It seems to me that there is an important and underlying point of tension here that serves as a significant point of departure between the bedrock of LSM belief and whatever winds of teaching its detractors now embrace.

...Please feel free to 'be in your minds'...

Originally Posted by HERn

We've been reading Piper's book in SS and about half the class has dropped out. He's pretty ballsy messing around with one of the confessions. Several of the first chapters are a difficult read, not to mention his push for Christian hedonism! Some of what he preaches seems to map onto what Lee taught (made me wonder if Piper has been reading "THE MINISTRY"!). I don't think I want to spend time advancing Piper's Christian hedonism thesis here because I'm a bit skeptical. But, it's an interesting read and I have received some benefit. So far no one in class is calling him the MOTA, oracle, or the last Apostle!

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that this is not exactly what the old catechism/confession says (maybe the Westminster??) but it sort of is what it says.

And I have asked on more than one occasion whether there is anything substantial that makes "by enjoying Him forever" more than a really nice sounding statement. Is there more than inference from a verse or two, or is this something that can be founded in a substantial manner? I will be honest to say that I do not have the inclination to say that it is right or wrong, or to do the research to establish it one way or the other. Instead, I think that anyone who wants to say that it is simply true needs to establish that it really is true through more than declaring it to be so.

I have no problem with the idea of enjoyment — even experience. But when it is declared without qualifier or explanation that "the chief purpose of man is . . ." I really want more than "it's there in the Westminster Confession," or "Augustine [or whoever] said it." Neither of those are the source of truth, just repeaters of it when they are understanding truth rightly.

And the reason that I ask this question is because I wonder whether we (all of us in the majority of Evangelical Christianity, if not others as well) have focused too much of our attention on activities in this life that are not really the primary focus just because we have bought "the chief purpose of man . . ." or some other human oversimplification. Have we missed the real purpose because of it?

Surely the Children of Israel enjoyed the benefits of God's actions. But they also were left to live out the commands without a lot of intervention. And I don't think it was just for the purpose of proving that we couldn't do it. I think God expected obedience. And at some level they began to obey more once they got really battered by the period of captivity. But it was true that the kind of obedience that was truly called for generally requires more than a strong will. It also requires that something of the pre-fall existence be restored. Therefore salvation. But the purpose of that is not "to enjoy Him" but to reflect Him. I find that one in the Bible. Not sure about the other.

Originally Posted by micah6v8

Hi Unregistered

This is in response to the question you posed above:- What would one “call the grand purpose of man? What was in God's heart and mind in His creation of human beings?”

My response would be, to quote the theologian John Piper, “For the glory of God”. As he puts it,

“When the first chapter of the Bible says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27), what is the point? The point of an image is to image. Images are erected to display the original. Point to the original. Glorify the original. God made humans in his image so that the world would be filled with reflectors of God. Images of God.”


Everything that took place from Genesis, in one way or another, displays the glory of God. Even (or should I say "Especially") when we see man’s fall into sin, we learn that God is merciful and longsuffering. Ultimately, we see God's love in dying for us on the Cross.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I accept that the phrase "God became man to make man god" does not occur in the Bible, Ohio, but what would yourself make of man and his destiny in the universe? Does it really seem entirely implausible to you that at some level (and there is Scripture to support this view) God desires men to receive His 'own' actual, divine, and eternal life, that they might assume His nature (as legitimate sons ought to), and share His glory?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I accept that the phrase "God became man to make man god" does not occur in the Bible, Ohio, but what would yourself make of man and his destiny in the universe? Does it really seem entirely implausible to you that at some level (and there is Scripture to support this view) God desires men to receive His 'own' actual, divine, and eternal life, that they might assume His nature (as legitimate sons ought to), and share His glory?

Otherwise, what, in your humble opinion, would you call the grand purpose of man? What was in God's heart and mind in His creation of human beings? Did He create them just to be, for example, good, moral people...to keep the ten commandments...to feed the hungry...to clothe the naked...to give to charity...to uphold human rights?

It seems to me that there is an important and underlying point of tension here that serves as a significant point of departure between the bedrock of LSM belief and whatever winds of teaching its detractors now embrace. While I wouldn't label it 'double standards' I would, however, note that there seems to be 'two distinct standards' (as evidenced on this forum) in the approach to this question of 'Who and What is Man?'.

I would very much be interested to hear your lucid and carefully considered 'opinion' on this topic. What do you believe, Ohio? (or IntotheWind, or Awareness, or OBW, or HERn, or Freedom, or Aron, or Terry, etc, etc)...Perhaps if there is a resolution to this question, it might give insight into the roots of the problems of other concerns raised on here. (Much like if the Arabs and the Jews could agree on which of Abraham's sons was actually directed to be sacrificed on Mt. Moriah: Ishmael or Isaac? then 'possibly' it might lead to more amiable and fruitful discussions and negotiations between them).

...Please feel free to 'be in your minds'...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's so-called "high peak" (God became man to make man god.) was never in the Bible in the first place, so how could it get recovered?

Originally Posted by Terry

You would think....More likely what happened; ignore your conscience, treat the signature as a check endorsement, and just be one with the brothers and go on positively.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Is that a fair assumption to make? I would only hope someone signing a letter would carefully read everything and discuss with everyone involved...

Originally Posted by Terry

Another double standard is in regard to criticism of brothers that results in quarantines. Those of us who have met with the local churches are quote familiar what happened in 1990 and 2005/2006.
For example the geographic area that I was raised in Southern California, brothers are so quick to sign quarantine letters they know very little (if at all) about.
Yet if you were to question them about unrighteous matters than happened in Ontario, Ca they would likely say "I don't know. I don't know anything about what happened in that locality."

Originally Posted by Freedom

I think it's fair to say that Ron knows very well what took place in the late 80's. If nothing else, he presumes to know since he wrote a book about it. But look at what he spoke in Ecuador. It's full of rhetorical questions. Nothing solid is stated, even though he played a role in providing the official narrative during that time period. The underlying implication with what he spoke in Ecuador is that all the talk about past events is just rumors because WL isn't here to verify it. It's interesting that he didn't presume to dispel what he believes to be "rumors".

It goes without saying that there are many brothers, still alive, that know what took place in the late 80's, and have chosen to keep their mouths shut. So there are no rumors in regards to the major events that took place. There are obviously little details that can't be verified, but the more important things can be verified by multiple witnesses. It is also significant that no one has ever refuted that certain things happened.

Originally Posted by Terry

Even more labeling as rumors if you say or insinuate current coworkers knew about it and did nothing.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm willing to bet that such information would be a shock to most LC members. Maybe even hard to believe. It wouldn't surprise me if that is why such things get labeled as "rumors".

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let me clarify that hastily written last sentence in my previous post ...

"Imagine my shock when I first learned about Philip Lee as the profligate 'Office Manager' at LSM while I was reading John Ingalls' book STTIL for the first time.

Originally Posted by Terry

Really? It is a shock.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Imagine my shock when I finally learned about his kids reading Ingalls' STTIL.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The following quote was brought to my attention:
This is something WL spoke on not tolerating sin, both in the context of personal sins and in the context of 1 Cor 5. This is something WN spoke about as well. When the opportunity came for this to be put into practice (with WL's sinning son), those who felt PL's actions should not be tolerated became the very ones who weren't tolerated within the LC. Talk about a double standard.

It seems that WL had the habit of speaking what everyone wanted to hear, then when it came to put things into practice, everything changed.

Originally Posted by Terry

This is why there is such a strong comparison from Matthew 23 towards the LSM leadership. Everything they do is done for people to see.

Originally Posted by Freedom

It seems that WL had the habit of speaking what everyone wanted to hear, then when it came to put things into practice, everything changed.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I wonder if the resemblance of witness to a well known cult is why he is usually calked bro. Lee

Not bro. Witness

Originally Posted by Intothewind

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010...am-ministries/

I don't have the patience nor discernment to look into the word this way anymore. Do read the comments and note how easy it is to pick out lc members

Originally Posted by Intothewind

The same way as people may reluctantly include outsiders into the so called "Lord's Recovery". It is beyond annoying how Lee cherry picked which aspects of church history were surely "in the Lords Move" naturally culminating with Nee and Lee and the local churches.

I remember one of the blendeds drawing this out on a map of the world as he recited the LC version of church history. He went on and was about to concluded and suddenly clamoring was heard from the crowd.

"You forgot Australia!"

"What?"

"What about the saints in Australia?"

Turns to map
-draws quick line from China to Australia

"Ah yes, and the Lord spread to Australia and New Zealand too"

The end

Originally Posted by aron

Readers will be familiar with my occasionally waxing poetic over the Church Fathers, an area of textual reference vastly overlooked and underutilized in the Protestant tradition. The 'sola scriptora' folk will say, "But it's not in the Bible" if one leans too heavily upon, or gives too much credence to the teachings and interpretations of the ancients.

Lee was fully in this Calvinistic vein: if one waved ideas "not from the Bible" before him, they were summarily dismissed as the imaginations of men. Paradoxically, Lee then pinned his so-called high peak theology on one of these Fathers, not on scripture. Talk about a double-standard!

I do appreciate the Fathers much more today than previously, and hold them to a standard of great admiration, respect, and reference them as those having access to oral traditions and private teachings that were lost over time. Thus they open a window into the past, otherwise inaccessible. But I could present many, many teachings and sayings of the Fathers which the LC people wouldn't have even the slightest interest in, because, "it's not in the Bible"...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's so-called "high peak" (God became man to make man god.) was never in the Bible in the first place, so how could it get recovered? Lee skirted that problem by citing a quotation from Athanasius. Thus what he proposed was a "recovery" of the church fathers, not of the scripture.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's so-called "high peak" (God became man to make man god.) was never in the Bible in the first place, so how could it get recovered? Lee skirted that problem by citing a quotation from Athanasius. Thus what he proposed was a "recovery" of the church fathers, not of the scripture.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Yes the Lord's Recovery is a meaningless statement.

A brother recently explained it to me that it was a group of people "solely for God's purpose". He further clarified that certainly not all members of the Local Church are "in the Recovery". He conceded that perhaps some outsiders are in it. He claimed that only the Recovery really cares for God's purpose.

The context clues were unfortunately damning...slipping up in referring to those gathered at a conference as the Lord's Recovery-therein solidifying the elitism of the local church.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why is it that those in the LC still call themselves "the Lord's recovery"? In saying that they've reached the high peak of the divine revelation, that implies there's nothing more to "recover", so the name is meaningless (not to say it had meaning to begin with).

Originally Posted by Intothewind

A brother recently explained it to me that it was a group of people "solely for God's purpose". He further clarified that certainly not all members of the Local Church are "in the Recovery". He conceded that perhaps some outsiders are in it. He claimed that only the Recovery really cares for God's purpose.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why is it that those in the LC still call themselves "the Lord's recovery"? In saying that they've reached the high peak of the divine revelation, that implies there's nothing more to "recover", so the name is meaningless (not to say it had meaning to begin with).

Originally Posted by Freedom

Another double standard: why is it that Lee could teach that Satan indwells the body of the believer yet also teach that man becomes God in life and nature? How is it that man can become God in life and nature, yet also have Satan indwelling the body simultaneously? Is that not blasphemy? Don't forget that the phrase "god-man" is applied to LCers in the present tense.

Originally Posted by Unsure

I found this using web.archive.com

http://web.archive.org/web/200212011....org/info.html

Is this what you were looking for?

Originally Posted by aron

This is textbook double standard. "When we do it, it's okay, because we're correcting, rebuking, and perfecting. When others do it, it's not okay, because they're being critical, attacking and accusing." The loaded terminology reveals the subjective nature of the person speaking.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The blendeds think they have the right to affirm and critique others, but the minute someone critiques them, they get up in arms.

Originally Posted by aron

The idea of innately rejecting all opinions as fallen doesn't stand up to the NT testimony. The Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem had all those present able to air their thoughts, feelings, and understandings without fear of intimidation. Look at v. 7: "after much discussion" Peter stood up and addressed the group (NIV). Where in the LC's vaunted "church life" do you see the opportunity for "much discussion"? Nowhere is where. The Deputy God has issued a pronouncement from the podium, and that's it. Get out of your mind, don't think, just be one with the latest speaking. No discussion, no consideration, no thought -- be "one" with Anaheim.

Originally Posted by Freedom

... much of what is taught in the LC represents a dangerous mindset... much of the LC ministry material, especially the HWMR booklets serve to promote a particular style of thinking. ... certain themes such as: "we are nothing", "our opinions don't count", "we shouldn't act independently", "our natural abilities mean nothing", etc, etc. The underlying message is twofold, #1 is don't dare be independent and #2 don't dare assert yourself. The main problem with this is it leaves the door wide open for leaders to come in and start controlling. ...Just as importantly, the mindset closes the door to reasonably address any concerns when they arise..

Originally Posted by HERn

Moran. I remember it. Had some original stuff on there. Somebody must have made screen shots or cached a copy of the website. Anybody know where to find that stuff?

Originally Posted by HERn

Moran. I remember it. Had some original stuff on there. Somebody must have made screen shots or cached a copy of the website. Anybody know where to find that stuff?

Originally Posted by Intothewind

How about the cloudy history of silencing dissent? Who was the guy who posted a bunch of "bad things" on the internet and then passed away...whereupon the LC somehow got control of the website and was able to take it down? It must have been in the late 90's to early 2000's...I remember even as a kid that kind of raised concerns.

Originally Posted by aron

WL recounted that Japanese occupiers in China during WWII would kill a person just like killing a chicken. But something similar could be said about the Chinese, today: people are killed there for their body parts - they're worth more as kidney and liver donors than as living humans. It's a culture that can't evaluate individual worth outside the contribution to the Party/State/People. The Collective rules both the individual consciousnesses and the shared value system.

This isn't inferior to the Western thought-world, in which the Whole is built out of individual, atomistic Parts. Both have advantages, and weaknesses. But it's worth noting here that the oriental 'holistic' view may involve dismissal of Parts which don't fit the purported Whole, which in the LC not only means suppressing individuals, classes (women), and passages of scripture that aren't useful to the Cause at present. When you see the source of these thoughts, teachings, and behaviors, there's really no contradiction at all. There's no double standard, rather there's only one standard: the cause. Call it whatever you want: The ministry of the age, or the vision of the age, or the building up of the body, or the church of Christ's deep longing, or the central lane of the divine economy. Whatever label you want. Even the turmoils and storms, in this light, are seen as purifying fires. Too bad that so many got wiped out, but that's an unfortunate aspect of advancing the cause. As RK put it, sometimes you have to cut off the LCs to save the Body.... sail on!

Originally Posted by aron

WN was trained by women, and had female co-workers, and counted them as spiritual forebears (e.g. Penn-Lewis, Guyon, McDonough). But once WL got the reins, suddenly 1 Tim 3:12 was "recovered"... How well do you think a McDonough or Penn-Lewis would do in the LC today? They wouldn't survive a month. I remember RK saying sarcastically that he didn't know which was worse, a rebellious brother or a spiritual sister. What would he do if a Madam Jean Guyon suddenly popped up in one of his beloved localities? He'd have a coronary event.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Witness Lees youngest daughter, Mrs Lim, wife of Albert Lim, was solidly in the church in 1985. She went to the first FTT and I hardly heard of her later. She was in the church in Irving with all the appearances of a sound Christian woman. One of BP's girls was named after her. I think there might have been one other daughter in Elden Hall but not certain of this. I have a friend who was in Elden giving this info. Sure enough Phillip never was in meetings and there was real question about his salvation experience. Above I should have mentioned I met with Lee's daughter and Albert Lim for several years in Irving, TX. Since the Chineese met separately, I didn't see her that much. Albert was a very good translator. I thought he became a near BB. just an observation
Lisbon

Originally Posted by Freedom

It would seem Witness Lee was exempt from 1 Tim 3:4-5. His family was a huge shortcoming...

Originally Posted by Freedom

That's the difference between Nee and Lee. It seems Nee had a strong affinity for working with women...

Originally Posted by Freedom

It would seem Witness Lee was exempt from 1 Tim 3:4-5. His family was a huge shortcoming. I do realize that he had no way of controlling his adult children, but he really should have kept them far away from his ministry, not give them jobs and allow so many LCers to experience things like the temper of Philip.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

Witness Lees youngest daughter, Mrs Lim, wife of Albert Lim, was solidly in the church in 1985. She went to the first FTT and I hardly heard of her later. She was in the church in Irving with all the appearances of a sound Christian woman. One of BP's girls was named after her. I think there might have been one other daughter in Elden Hall but not certain of this. I have a friend who was in Elden giving this info. Sure enough Phillip never was in meetings and there was real question about his salvation experience. Above I should have mentioned I met with Lee's daughter and Albert Lim for several years in Irving, TX. Since the Chineese met separately, I didn't see her that much. Albert was a very good translator. I thought he became a near BB. just an observation
Lisbon

Originally Posted by Unsure

Up until I came onto this board, I didn't even know Witness Lee had a family. Then again, I never thought to ask...

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's interesting how Lee's family amounted to nothing in terms of appreciation of his ministry. We are told Lee was the minister of the age, yet his family members couldn't sit through his messages?!? Surprise, surprise.

It is understandable then why his family is shrouded in mystery. It's not something they want members to know too much about.

Originally Posted by Lily Hsu

As far as I can recall, from the time I knew Brother Nee until his arrest, I never saw him attend the Lord’s Table. That was certainly true in 1948, when I stayed in the Guling Training program for several months. All the sermons were given by Brother Nee, yet I never saw him attending the Lord’s Table. The Lord’s Table at Guling was led by Brother Yan Jiale. It strongly suggested a distance and a hindrance of communication between Brother Nee and the Lord for years. (I believe this was due to his secret sin and guilt.)

My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Growing up in the LC I always wondered if Lee had any children...

Originally Posted by HERn

I was in a locality with Lee's grandson. His wife divorced him, one of his children turned gay, and the other two are not meeting with the LSM LC denomination.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Growing up in the LC I always wondered if Lee had any children...

It is an interesting cultural thing-and I wonder if LC families copy this to some respect. My cousins parents got divorced-they simply disappeared from our lives after being frequent playmates when we were younger. I pieced together what happened years later but it was a long time before my Father acknowledged what happened. Still rarely see them-except for my efforts to reach out.

Originally Posted by aron

Why are women being held up as pillars in the LC movement's formative years, yet forbidden to even give a Sunday morning message, today?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apart from Darby Exclusives, what other collection off believers in church history has that much "dirt" on one another? And their chief boast is the "oneness" of the believers? And their chief condemnation of other Christians is their divisions? And what outsiders know about them is not good works or good news, but lawsuits and quarantines?

Originally Posted by Ohio

For years I heard Witness Lee preach from the platform against man-pleasing, hiring family members, mishandling monies, selfish rivalries, unrighteousness, and other associated works of the flesh. Since he publicly opposed any and all fleshly works in the leadership so vigorously from the bully pulpit, all the regular rank and file followers believed that he lived by those same standards, never thinking that he was himself more guilty than any of the ones he constantly criticized.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Titus Chu had thousands of stories about the failures of other brothers. Having been in the Recovery since the early 50's, he had enough "material" to talk days on end.

Apart from Darby Exclusives, what other collection off believers in church history has that much "dirt" on one another? And their chief boast is the "oneness" of the believers? And their chief condemnation of other Christians is their divisions? And what outsiders know about them is not good works or good news, but lawsuits and quarantines?

Originally Posted by Freedom

When I really think about it, I have to wonder, where is the fruit of the Spirit in the LC? It seems they care about proselytizing and having an increase, but what about all the "turmoils", purges, ill treatment of fellow brothers and sisters? Maybe they should work on getting along with each other first.

Originally Posted by OBW

Has anyone ever considered that branches don't bear branches, they bear fruit? And I note that the accounts of fruit in the scripture do not include converts.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Bahaha the college students joked about this so for it to actually have happened is just all the more fascinating. I don't know if I have the heart to dig up all the delightful foot'in mouths old LC pastors of the young flock said to young people with no understanding of current cultural events.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Their is a general willingness to ignore things in newcomers that would not be tolerated among the young people. A guy joins the club, and he brings his girlfriend-great! Two young people are interested in each other-not at all ok to acknowledge. Oh yes, also young person dating someone outside the church life-not ok. Ok...maybe a bit of forgiveness if she ends up coming into the church life.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've been in meetings where someone will introduce a newcomer as their "fruit", a bit odd thing to do IMO. If nothing else, did they ever think for a second that it would make the new person feel uncomfortable? Really the heart of the issue is that there is so much pressure for members to recruit new members, that whenever they actually bring someone to the LC (a somewhat rare occurrence), the goal becomes finding a way to get everyone to notice what they've done.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The post-quanrantine lawsuits in the GLA came down to this simple question: whose fruit are you???

In other words, each and every brother and sister, from Iowa east to Pennsylvania, from Ontario south to Kentucky, had to choose whether he or she belonged to Titus Chu or Witness Lee and his Blendeds.

Personally I decided not to belong to either, and used the opportunity to leave.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The post-quanrantine lawsuits in the GLA came down to this simple question: whose fruit are you???

In other words, each and every brother and sister, from Iowa east to Pennsylvania, from Ontario south to Kentucky, had to choose whether he or she belonged to Titus Chu or Witness Lee and his Blendeds.

Personally I decided not to belong to either, and used the opportunity to leave.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've been in meetings where someone will introduce a newcomer as their "fruit", a bit odd thing to do IMO. If nothing else, did they ever think for a second that it would make the new person feel uncomfortable? Really the heart of the issue is that there is so much pressure for members to recruit new members, that whenever they actually bring someone to the LC (a somewhat rare occurrence), the goal becomes finding a way to get everyone to notice what they've done.

Originally Posted by Terry

There are at least two sides to this problem. One being an insufficient concept that getting people through the doors, the meetings will take care of the rest. For the so-called responsible brothers, shepherding appears to be to difficult a job they don't want to invest their time in. Maybe consider spending x amount of time on person a waste of time?
The other side to the problem is not knowing what brother or sister so and so left. If it is something attributed to practices such as elitist speaking, well they're not going to crack down on elitist speaking during prophesying meetings for the benefit of appeasing one person to return to meetings.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I recall recently a push for fruit bearing and shepherding. Icant remember details on how this was to occur...but the idea of being someones fruit is a tad strange

Originally Posted by Freedom

What was a big point of frustration for me is that leaders always tried to get us stirred up to contact those who hadn't been meeting. Sometimes we actually did this. Sometimes a phone call did the trick, and they started coming to meetings again. But whenever these people were "revived", it was always short-lived, and then it was back to square one.

Originally Posted by Terry

Another double-standard is the LC principle when brothers come to leave, to leave like gentlemen. Yet, when brothers do leave like gentlemen, the same is not reciprocated. Rather comes the generic reasoning why brother so and so left:

• unforgiven offenses
• unfulfilled ambitions
• negative
• opposing
• rebellious
• become cold to the ministry
• lost the vision
• attracted by the world

One of the symptoms is taking it personally when a brother or sister leaves. They're still a brother and sister. Just meeting with a different assembly.

Originally Posted by Freedom

A few more double standards that I was thinking about:
Why is it that those in the LC go to such great lengths to differentiate between excommunication and quarantine? We know that for all intents and purposes, a LC quarantine is an excommunication.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I recall as a yp they mentioned one of the young brothers lee had written the genesis lifestudies to eventually turned atheist-the point being that everyone must really strive to have a genuine relationship with god. Everyone in the crowd balked in horror...as did I but without first wondering why they still use the life study if it was not particularly effective.

Originally Posted by Intothewind

I also remember a deranged dude running into the conference and up onto stage...held at Alliance Redwoods in sonoma county. Whatever he was saying was delivered in such a vehement manner that the whole congregation began calling on the Lord until some leading brothers wrestled the man off the podium and pushed him out...whatever he was babbling about was apparently not ok. The fact that a whole hall of believers was duped into calling is in hindsight very telling.

Originally Posted by Terry

Based on personal experiences, I would add why are home meetings closed to Christians not in fellowship via Living Stream publications, but open to those who are?

Originally Posted by Freedom

it seems some feel the need to view themselves as if they are a step above the rest.

Originally Posted by aron

"You say that you are rich, but you have nothing: you are poor, wretched, blind, naked."

Originally Posted by aron

Lee could trumpet his 'goodly heritage' in the Baptists, where he was saved, while simultaneously despising them all as harlots, corrupt, Babylon, etc. The best of both worlds!

Lee could wave the 'orthodoxy' credentials of evangelical Protestantism, while denying the legitimacy of any evangelical Protestants except his sect. Because his sect was the true, real heirs of the original church..

Originally Posted by Intothewind

Its all done based on the leading of the spirit. Therefore, right and wrong are out of question since thats obviously divisive and of the wrong tree (ha)...as is questioning.

Originally Posted by Terry

Yet another double standard; "don't make an issue of persons, matter, or things".
back around 2009 prior to meeting with LC in Renton, I was told "don't make an issue of _____ (our poster known as Indiana).
To make such a statement indicates they were making an issue of person.

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Why do the college students get one level of attention and care, but the aged and infirm another, and the "working saints" and "community saints" another? Doesn't this make divisions, according to Paul's word?

Don't get me wrong, I love college students and am burdened for the young, but wouldn't you rather bring a college student into a church that cared for everybody, not just "good building material"? It's very unbalanced.

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Why do the college students get one level of attention and care, but the aged and infirm another, and the "working saints" and "community saints" another? Doesn't this make divisions, according to Paul's word?

Don't get me wrong, I love college students and am burdened for the young, but wouldn't you rather bring a college student into a church that cared for everybody, not just "good building material"? It's very unbalanced.

Originally Posted by aron

1 Corinthians 12:25: "that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another."

Originally Posted by Intothewind

This is an excellent thread.

Originally Posted by aron

And why does a group that blasts everyone else for taking names other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ continually sprout new names, like Bibles for America, Christians on Campus, Defense and Confirmation, Lord's Move to Europe, and so forth?

Is their only defense, "When we do it, it's okay, but when others do it, it's not okay"? Talk about double standards.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Why is it that BFA, a non-profit corporation...

Originally Posted by aron

Another story was from the FTTT Taipei during the New Way, where the organizational scheme was presented, and one of the (American) brothers asked, "But, isn't that a hierarchy?", to which the (Chinese) brother replied, "If others do it, then it's a hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not a hierarchy."

Originally Posted by aron

Another story was from the FTTT Taipei during the New Way, where the organizational scheme was presented, and one of the (American) brothers asked, "But, isn't that a hierarchy?", to which the (Chinese) brother replied, "If others do it, then it's a hierarchy, but if we do it, it's not a hierarchy."

This "When we do it, it's good but when others do it, it's bad" rampant subjectivism of the LC isn't from the Bible, but is entirely consistent with a human culture in which the collective is paramount. If we (the collective) are God's move on the earth, then our leader is God's apostle of the age, the Deputy God, and whatever he says, goes, even if it's contradictory, illogical, or not supported by Scripture. "Whatever Max Brother says is the law of the land" IS the law of the land. And because MaxBro is apparently so focused on building up the collective, everything he does and says is divinely sanctioned. Even when he's illogical he's logical, and when he's wrong he's right. If he skims the till for his family, and sacks his right-hand man for protesting, it's okay, because he's here for the Body. The building needs MaxBro.

When you look at it from the outside it looks nutty, but from the inside it's completely consistent because everything is "for the building of the Body." Double standards are okay because they're within one standard: to build up the collective. What did Lee say, "Sail on! Sail on!"

Originally Posted by aron

The phrase "Witness Lee was the last spiritual giant; the age of spiritual giants is over" is quite telling because there's no Biblical support ... in statements like that, where the veneer of Biblical covering has been abandoned, the roots of this movement are clearly seen. There's a brief opening, and suddenly we can see what's inside: human culture, with all of its fallen earthly values, expectations, and behaviors.

Originally Posted by bearbear

If the LCs are ever struggling it represents a huge problem because it's up to the LC movement to save the rest of the world from fallen Christianity and bring everyone to see the light in Witness Lee's high truths and astounding teachings. Can you really call it the Lord's recovery if the movement is shrinking and after an exodus of Caucasians, is left with no one but Chinese? The result is tremendous pressure on everyone to make the Lord's Recovery happen even when it clearly isn't happening.

And who then is to blame? Never mind DayStar or Linko or all the purges of brothers who stood up to Philip Lee's abuse, It cannot be Witness Lee's fault because he's the mouthpiece of God from which all these profound teachings about God's economy and God man living come forth. The only people left to blame is everyone else. So people in the LC movement accept and are blind to double standards because it fits into their worldview of "the Lord's Recovery" with Witness Lee as their de facto proxy saviour.

Witness Lee put this blame into words in many of his later writings such as the ones related to fellowship concerning vital groups. I remember having to read sections where he assigned blame on everyone but himself for the lack of growth in the LCs escpecially among Caucasians. The tone seemed to be such that it was always someone else's fault but never inherently his own.

This mindset carries over even to the BBs which I recall and is also recounted in Meyer's "A future and a hope". During a semi annual training, Ed Marks expressed how ashamed he would feel if he were to meet Witness Lee in the after life for failing some expectations with leading the Lord's recovery-- as if he were to answer to Lee and not Jesus after death!

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was once told that, "we all can't go back and reinvent the wheel, we'll never get anywhere."

But what we got stuck with was a early 20th century Chinese wagon wheel.

Originally Posted by aron

Why did Lee tell us that the Methodists and Baptists failed by starting churches and hospitals, to heal and educate? He told us, "That's not the mission of the church". Does anyone remember him saying this? (He was teaching us about the Glorious Church, untainted by the world).

Then we find out he started a company, run by his son, making Motor Homes for sale, funded with investment money from the LC "saints", and started, according to DR's testimony, with a young church brother who inherited a large sum of money and laid it at his feet. Dollar signs came into Lee's eyes and a "bleed the Egyptians" scheme was born - luxury motor homes.

How come Baptists and Methodists got critiqued for starting organizations, but Lee could run businesses on the side? Daystar was not the only one - there were chairs, coats, tennis rackets... finally Lee hit on standing orders, and a real money-making scheme stirred into life. My LC had boxes and boxes of the "rainbow booklets", which were ministry messages repackaged in booklet form.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I guess that when I was younger, I never thought to question the whole narrative that only Nee and Lee had the ability to "put everything together". Because I had been told that reading anything else was a "waste of time", I presumed it actually would be a waste of time. It was an easy sell for leaders.

It is quite ironic that Nee and Lee both thought they knew how to sort the wheat and the chaff, but why couldn't rank and file members can't do the same with Nee and Lee's ministries?

Originally Posted by aron

Why could Watchman Nee read all the Christian classics, balancing one against the other, and presenting a most orthodox reading of the faith, while we were supposed to just read Nee and Lee? Why can't we read Lee against others, comparing and removing parts which are unbalanced and impure?

Why did Nee have this special gift of sorting the wheat from the proverbial chaff, but nobody else did? Why can't we sort through the ministries of Lee and Nee just like any other Christian author? Why can't I go through the Christian corpus, just like Nee did, and find wisdom here and there, and put together a vision of my own? Where is the sound of "many waters" in the LC? It is gone.

Originally Posted by aron

Why are LC members called "saints" while others are not?