Originally Posted by Steel

I've been reading about Witness Lee, the Living Stream Ministry, and the Local Church from I first came in contact with all three... A part of my professional requirement is research, and I'm very good at it... One of the reasons being that I am, and have always been, very detailed oriented. It's one of the things people have a love/hate relationship with me for... I have always been able to spot what others miss. Which often makes me very hard to deal with on forums like this.

Originally Posted by Steel

I know from my own experience that his ministry has... And I fully believe that if you're honest... You will admit that, in one way or another, and to one degree or another, it's the same for you.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Are you implying that to continue your walk with the Lord that you must involve the ministry of Witness Lee?

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I fully believe I can read the Bible, and the Bible ALONE and be constituted.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Many believe this.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

We don't need WL's ministry.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If parts of it help you, fine.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

But there's no denying the accusations against him might make you carefully examine what you're reading from him.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I'm not here to judge whether or not he did or didn't contribute. But, no one is without sin- Abraham, Moses, David, even Paul.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Witness Lee fell short in some areas, as we all have.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

His ministry is not the word of God, the Bible is.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If he helps some believers, great! But so do many other people.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Did he contribute? Maybe... But to hang your Christian walk on a man is wrong.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Jesus is the way, not WL.

Originally Posted by kumbaya

If he contributed, that's great. But reading his ministry is not NEEDED for Christians to 1) have a relationship with Jesus 2) allow HIS leading 3) fellowship with other Christians and preach the gospel.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Witness Lee does not own the truth.

Originally Posted by Steel

So you will not be eating from the tree of life anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

And what about prophesying — speaking for the Lord and speaking forth the Lord — will you not be prophesying anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

If a believer is constituted with Christ... Then this believer is constituted with truth.

And there is without a doubt... Much truth being revealed in the ministry of Witness Lee.

And to say there isn't is to deny what scripture tells us... And to deny the work of the Spirit of God.

And these are two things no believer should endeavor to pursue.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Lifting up a man and a ministry has caused turmoil and division in the churches. They need to back off and be found boasting in the Lord alone. A people rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ will have the man and ministry as their ground of meeting. And will be unable to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace with other believers. The sectarian oneness in the Local Churches is not what pleases God's heart the most. They are not lined up with their own teachings meant to protect them within the sphere of the New Testament oneness of the Body of Christ.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Are you also disputing those legendary stories about Ray Graver?

He was called "X-Ray" Graver because he could just look at the brothers and know they were "in the flesh."

Originally Posted by Steel

So you will not be eating from the tree of life anymore... Since this is clearly spoken to in the ministry you are "...chucking..." that is.

Originally Posted by JJ

I’m chucking all of their books (finally!) and am looking for ministers and ministries that have borne the fruits of the Spirit. In another analogy, throw out the leavened lump, get rid of the leaven and start making a new unleavened loaf.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Looking back at the LSM Office during the "New Way," Philip Lee was rightly excommunicated by the elders in Anaheim for molesting the sisters and corrupting the young brothers.

These victimized young men and women should have been temporarily quarantined to make sure they had not become sick due to their contact with Philip Lee.

Since Philip Lee never repented, nor had he shown any remorse over his actions, he should never have been restored to the fellowship by those toadies appointed by his father to replace the rightful elders.

Originally Posted by HERn

Ron Kangas said he can scan or read the saints. Not much different from the corner palm reader.

Originally Posted by awareness

Take it from me. Ron Kangas is not all that. He's just a scribe of Witness Lee.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Many leaders in our nation's Capitol downplay the seriousness of a major expose' involving them, the leaders of our nation, past and present; and spiritually, on a much higher level, the well-documented serious record of divisive behavior by LSM has been downplayed vigorously by governing authorities in our own D. C., (Anaheim).

As a reminder to Ron Kangas I have some things against you:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Lifting up a man and a ministry has caused turmoil and division in the churches. They need to back off and be found boasting in the Lord alone. A people rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ will have the man and ministry as their ground of meeting. And will be unable to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace with other believers. The sectarian oneness in the Local Churches is not what pleases God's heart the most. They are not lined up with their own teachings meant to protect them within the sphere of the New Testament oneness of the Body of Christ.

Originally Posted by JJ

Indiana, I recently reread the first chapter of 1 Corinthians http://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/1.htm in which Paul chides the Corinthians who were picking their favorite apostle (including him, Peter, and Christ) to meet in their names and exclude others who didn't, and were boasting of their wisdom.

In the middle of the chapter Paul says "The foolishness of God is wiser than man". He also says "He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord".

It sickens me to hear such boasting "Witness Lee the wise master builder". Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord!

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great! I think many of us on this forum wondered what the error was? Some take the view that every word from WL's ministry is suspect.

Instead I would recommend taking the attitude of the church in Ephesus, test the prophets and determine which are false. But, and this is the big but, do not leave your first love. Jesus went to the cross so that we might all be saved, regardless of how "clear our vision is". We need to follow the Lord to the cross with the same attitude.

To me, when we accepted the condemnation of other Christians and gatherings that was the fork in the road where we left our first love.

Originally Posted by Terry

Or none at all. Quarantines and discipline are more based on one's opinions and concepts than it being a matter of gross sin.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

LSM's use of the terms "quarantine" and "discipline" to my understanding have a very flimsy spiritual basis.

Originally Posted by Terry

In every sense of the word by definition it was Phillip Lee who was treated as if quarantined. Having someone to check up on him providing care until he was "restored". While it was the quarantined brothers who were treated as if they were excommunicated.

If we use scripture as a picture regarding quarantines, Miriam was put outside the camp during her quarantine and the Israelites did not move until she was healthy to be brought back in.

Originally Posted by Ohio

According to definitions, quarantines are for healthy people, so that their health can be monitored for a time, usually 21 days.

Excommunication is for the morally repugnant ones like Philip Lee, according to I Cor. 5.

Originally Posted by Terry

Quarantine versus excommunication. What the difference? If you go by scripture it's not intended to be permanent. In local church practice quarantine and excommunication are the same thing. Otherwise, how come no one ever checked up on the brothers who were quarantined?
Real or imagined, when FTTA trainees allegedly knocked on the door of a quarantined brother and when word allegedly reached Ron Kangas, why should he be upset about it? Instead of reacting with anger, he should have reacted with joy.
I do believe the real issue quarantine is used instead of excommunication is legal. Concerns of being sued for slander.

Originally Posted by Terry

I do believe the real issue quarantine is used instead of excommunication is legal. Concerns of being sued for slander.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, Your use of QUARANTINE is such a farce. Wikipedia says this ...



Supposedly Lee was isolating "ill persons" from the other saints because they were sick. He really didn't even know what the word "quarantine" really meant. Quarantine is used for healthy people in order to determine if they are sick. So he got the whole thong backwards, as usual, in some twisted attempt to label his actions other than "excomunication."

In reality, Lee copied his heretical practice of expelling potential rivals and whistleblowers from Amish shunning and the Exclusive Brthren.

Originally Posted by Drake

Quarantine is not excommunication.... though it probably feels like it on the quarantined end.

Drake

Originally Posted by OBW

Indy,

...In short, even though I appreciate all the research you did into the various problems that exist within the system, it is probably time to (mostly) abandon them and seek to be established within a good Christian assembly. Almost any will do. I know that you are not just isolated as a Christian. But your constant desire to return to the LRC suggests that you are not really one with whoever it is you are meeting with. Your heart is elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Indiana

That is the issue. Making things right in the Body.

Originally Posted by Indiana

This case with Ron Kangas is not just about he and I; it is on another level and manifests the deep-rooted problem of LSM inspired authoritarian leadership whose debilitating ways ought to be broadcast and confronted.

Originally Posted by Drake

The co-workers are alive still and so are we so there is time to reconcile if that ever occurs to someone still holding an offense.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brothers! You speak as if I have NOT experienced what you are now saying I should do.

This case with Ron Kangas is not just about he and I; it is on another level and manifests the deep-rooted problem of LSM inspired authoritarian leadership whose debilitating ways ought to be broadcast and confronted.

Some have the following perspective.

"In some limited sense, I'm not so sure Isitt and Luther are so different. Luther did have other options, joining others outside the RCC, but like Isitt, he grew up with the belief that his church was the only true church, standing on the proper ground of truth and oneness, with a leader who had the proper lineage of authority.

Both Luther and Isitt, when examining their core ideology, had no intention of leaving their roots. Both worked tirelessly to reform apparent errors and return their church back to its former days of "glory." We can stand back and look at both of them and "laugh," knowing that they are fighting an overwhelming and hopeless battle, but frankly it's none of our business.

Personally, I like to let each one man serve God according to conscience. Who am I to know whether or not the Lord is not directing their very steps? I am convinced that the Lord does direct some to stay in the LC in relative silence, He has directed others to leave the LC in silence, and He has directed some others to speak out long and loud to expose the errors of their ways. Who are we to judge? God's ways are higher than our ways."
(Ohio, 2011)

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>* Do you understand, brother Drake? It's not a small thing to blow up a small member, and the truth he brings; then to ignore him, as if he and his message is nothing.”

I absolutely agree Indiana. What I am saying is that the One you need to tell this to and the One you need to turn it over to once and for all is the Lord. The incident has greatly affected you Brother and you need to be unshackled from it.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

I absolutely agree Indiana. What I am saying is that the One you need to tell this to and the One you need to turn it over to once and for all is the Lord. The incident has greatly affected you Brother and you need to be unshackled from it.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Do you understand, brother Drake? It's not a small thing to blow up a small member, and the truth he brings; then to ignore him, as if he and his message is nothing.

Originally Posted by Drake

I don't see it that way at all.

There are ways to approach and then there are other ways. Some work and some don't. So far, it hasn't.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

I already explained why Indiana's approach would never work. LSM leaders behave like the Gentiles. (Matt 18.15-17) They rule the LC's as the Gentiles do. (Matt 20.25-26)

Originally Posted by Drake

No, I don't believe the brother's approach remotely meets the spirit, attitude, or procedure in Matthew 18. Nor does it meet the 70 X 7 forgiveness threshold.

In any case, I said if his objective was to get answers then apparently his approach is not working. Isn't that obvious?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps, Drake is right, since Indiana is using the instructions given by the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 18, and the Ron Kangas and the Blendeds can only respond according to Lee's instructions.

And since Lee is gone ...

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>"They have clearly deviated from the path they began on and will not answer questions put to them."

Indiana, If that is your objective then maybe your approach is wrong.

Just saying.

Drake

Originally Posted by Indiana

Hello brother Drake. Thank you for pointing out my error.

You actually help me to know the truth you speak of, that the "Brother We" reference by a blending brother was actually referring to all the saints. I can confirm that aspect of their meaning of "we", because I saw in my last video training Ron Kangas did share in an intimate ending to S of S fellowship, that "Brother Lee" is no longer with us, now it is up to the Shulamite, all the saints, the little ones, pursuing the Lord together (we). Sounds very good to me.

Ron Kangas was as soft and humble and pleasant as could be for those precious minutes of his sharing in the Son with all the little members, including himself as one of them, and all the leaders of the churches. In that rather moving scene there was no one lifted up but the One, the Lord Jesus, with members of His Body. But that was Brother Ron talking (theoretically, as a theorist).

Soon "Brother We" would be back into their movement according to the "vision of the age", as the collective "minister of the age" as global authorities, uplifting "Brother Lee" and "Brother Nee", in "the ministry of the age" - producing, to be sure, ministry churches of the ages of those surviving the purge and the cookie cutter.

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>“the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches"......

This is false.]

Yet, please provide a reference where the blended coworkers “assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,”

The reference to include the bold points above.

You know Indiana, it is my observation that few here lend an ounce of credibility to Watchman Nees teaching on the church....his stock goes up slightly if you use him to bash Witness Lee or fellow coworkers. Are you currently in a local church that follows his teachings concerning the church? Are you a theorist or a
practitioner?

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Maybe the book triggered the demons already in them to react.

Originally Posted by Drake

I do like the Spiritual Man. However, your post reminded me of the warning the author issued with it.

“The reader of this book should also be careful that he does not take the knowledge he has acquired from this book as a tool for criticizing others. ...
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

...
The vision that governs me is not Brother Lee’s vision or any elder’s vision. It is the vision imparted to me by the Holy Spirit.
...
This vision carried me through turbulence in the church life not unlike that found in the Corinthian church. Outwardly, it a mess, nevertheless, the vision speaks it is still the church of God in Corinth. All in Asia forsook Paul yet Paul was faithful to the heavenly vision.
...
And just to calm any angst about what I mean, I condemn and have condemned the actions of Philip Lee and have stated that someone should have called the cops but he does not define what LSM is or their total contribution to the work of ministry. Still, even if a LSM were to publish Harry Potter books it does not affect the vision that guides me because I did not receive it from LSM.
...

Originally Posted by awareness

OMG!!! You didn't say that! When I was in the LC they warned against reading that book. They claimed that some brothers had actually become demon possessed by reading it.

I read it anyway, and agree. It should come with a skull and crossbones on the cover.


That explains my LC experience. We were living by the soul. Lee was living by the soul, and eventually admitted it.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You like Spititual Man? Let's see what Nee said...

Often Satan injects pride into the believer’s spirit, evoking in him an attitude of self-importance and of self-conceit. He causes him to esteem himself a very outstanding person, one who is indispensable in God’s work. Such a spirit constitutes one of the major reasons for the fall of believers: “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16.18).

Seems quite applicable to the MOTA.

Originally Posted by A little brother

You like Spititual Man? Let's see what Nee said...

Often Satan injects pride into the believer’s spirit, evoking in him an attitude of self-importance and of self-conceit. He causes him to esteem himself a very outstanding person, one who is indispensable in God’s work. Such a spirit constitutes one of the major reasons for the fall of believers: “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16.18).

Seems quite applicable to the MOTA.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not denying delusion Im disagreeing with what that site says about it.

If I came across such a website I would know they are not relible to speak of delusion for the aforementioned reasons..they clearly dont have the solution as they are all praying to dead ones.

A better resource is Nees the spiritual man.

Originally Posted by EvanG

When a person lives by the soul they get counterfeit spiritual experiences.

Originally Posted by Drake

Thank you Evangelical. This is an excellent summary of the subject “delusion” and as was discussed here. Your due diligence sourcing reference material is commendable.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I'm not aware of Lee quoting the RCC. He did acknowledge its positives and that there are genuine believers in it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I am not denying delusion Im disagreeing with what that site says about it.

If I came across such a website I would know they are not relible to speak of delusion for the aforementioned reasons..they clearly dont have the solution as they are all praying to dead ones.

A better resource is Nees the spiritual man.

Tip- the cause and solution for delusion is not sin and repentence but the inability to discern between the soul and spirit. Catholic and orthodox are repenting all the time even whipping themselves but they still pray to the dead.

When a person lives by the soul they get counterfeit spiritual experiences. This is what saint worship is.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Didn't WL quote ideas from the RCC and Protestants? He must be trusting the evil religious Babylon, right?

Brother, think twice before deploying your shoot the messenger tactics.

Last but not least, didn't I indicate I just went into that web site and hadn't spent further time on the details? I don't quite understand why you are in such a haste to try deny delusion. Are you afraid that it might be true?

----------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:9-10 Who can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin? Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are an abomination to Jehovah.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Didn't WL quote from the RCC too? He must be trusting the evil religious Babylon, right?

Brother, think twice before deploying your shoot the messanger tactics.

Last but not least, didn't I indicate I just went into that web site and hadn't spent further time on the details?

----------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 20:9-10 Who can say, I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin? Differing weights and differing measures, Both of them are an abomination to Jehovah.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By quoting this website you are trusting those who pray to demons and are deluded into thinking they are truly in touch with Mary and the saints when those demons respond with counterfeit signs and wonders, feelings,visions etc.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I do not believe in prayer to saints.



Does the person's belief in something we don't agree with prevent him/her from presenting other facts we can agree with?

Originally Posted by Drake

Nope. You do not have to believe those things to quote the reference you did.

That is why I am asking. Do you believe what was written in that section?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The irony is that the person you quoted about delusions believes that prayer to saints is a cure for delusion...which in itself is delusional. Prayer to saints is delusional because dead saints arent listening only demons.

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do I have to in order to agree with what I quoted? That site contains contents from different sources. What Evangelical quoted is from a different section.

BTW, did you yourself look into it? Or just reading those quotes from me and Evangelical?

Originally Posted by A little brother

Do I have to in order to agree with what I quoted? That site contains contents from different sources. What Evangelical quoted is from a different section.

BTW, did you yourself look into it? Or just reading those quotes from me and Evangelical?

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

You don’t actually believe all this stuff, do you?

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Originally Posted by Drake

You don’t actually believe all this stuff, do you?

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The site even says which saints to pray to....


When recovering from spiritual delusion and mental illness, Orthodox Christians resort to the powers of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Saints and Angels: the Mother of God, Michael the Archangel, Saint Nicolas and other Saints, to the Grace of the Sacred Mysteries: Holy Communion, Confession and Unction. Also it is helpful to pray to the Saints that already helped the particular person in other situations. Also it is necessary to take the medications prescribed by the doctor. Often a natural mental disease originate from the passion of pride and is also accompanied by spiritual delusion. An example is the ancient king Nebuchadnezzar who got mad because of his pride.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The site even says which saints to pray to....


When recovering from spiritual delusion and mental illness, Orthodox Christians resort to the powers of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Saints and Angels: the Mother of God, Michael the Archangel, Saint Nicolas and other Saints, to the Grace of the Sacred Mysteries: Holy Communion, Confession and Unction. Also it is helpful to pray to the Saints that already helped the particular person in other situations. Also it is necessary to take the medications prescribed by the doctor. Often a natural mental disease originate from the passion of pride and is also accompanied by spiritual delusion. An example is the ancient king Nebuchadnezzar who got mad because of his pride.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I came across the following web site today... an entire site talking about spiritual delusion. Seems to have some valid points. Probably worth spending time to further read...
http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-i...itual-delusion

Originally Posted by awareness

We can only look at them with hope and prayers. Reason won't reach them. They didn't get there with reason, and reason won't pull them out.

Maybe love will.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”If it's not in one of your ministry books, then it can't be true?”

Brother Ohio,

It is not about whether it is in a ministry book, it is whether it exists anywhere!

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Hmmmm...

So if I take the weekend off, collect myself, then after the weekend i look at this again, then I will see things differently, maybe the way you do..... then all will be well.

Nah... I think it is reasonable for someone to provide a reference for an accusation involving world domination.

Thanks and have a calm, collective, and safe weekend,
Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Brother Drake - may I suggest you take the weekend and collect yourself? James 1:19

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry brother. It does not validate the accusation. That does not even meet the minimum standard.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Okay, you don’t have a reference. Therefore, it is what it is. Just another example of an accusation made without a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

Originally Posted by Drake

-2>”Drake should be more concerned about violating God's word and stumbling His children, than some supposed "ad hominem" that hurt his feelings.”

Brother Ohio

Don’t concern yourself about my feelings. I can assure they are not hurt.

However, I am very concerned about the brazen violation of Gods Word on display in this forum in attacking brothers and sisters in the Lords Recovery. I am also concerned about the stumbling of His children that also goes on here day by day. Case in point, someone accuses coworkers of making assertions to establish and maintain global control over the local churches and cannot provide a single instance of the so-called assertion!

Now, that is pathetic!

Drake

Originally Posted by A little brother

I came across the following web site today... an entire site talking about spiritual delusion. Seems to have some valid points. Probably worth spending time to further read...
http://oprelesti.ru/index.php/what-i...itual-delusion

Originally Posted by A little brother

I spoke what I have to. It's up to you to hear or not.

Pardon my ignorance. I have to look up Ad Hominem from wikipedia. I don't think that's what I intended. But anyway, interesting definition, especially the last part...

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ohio,

Let me make sure I got this down accurately.

Originally Posted by A little brother

I spoke what I have to. It's up to you to hear or not.

Originally Posted by Drake

Alb,

It is relevant for every follower of a Christ, just not relevant as part of an argument the way you were using it.

The delusion in this case would be accepting the Fallacy in Argumentum (aka the False Analogy) as being valid.

Your Ad Hominem argument requires no further explanation.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, you are so silly!

Ron Kangas graduated from Princeton. He knows better than to put that stuff in writing. Why do you think no one was ever permitted to record the meetings?

Originally Posted by A little brother

On the contrary, I think it is relevant for every follower of Christ.

But I am not surprised by your response. Yeh, why would someone led by God's divine vision for 40 years fall into such simple trap of delusion?

Originally Posted by Ohio

So funny. Looks like you have recovered from your little Oz "setback."

When I was little, those monkeys were the scariest things I ever saw.

To this day I'm still traumatized when surrounded by flying monkeys.

Originally Posted by Drake

Indiana>“the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,

This is false.

Yet, please provide a reference where the blended coworkers “assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,”

The reference to include the bold points above.

Originally Posted by Drake

-2

Alb,

Totally irrelevant. I could apply the same quotes to this forum.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Ohio,

If you also tell me you were captured by hordes of flying monkeys I can handle that. Nevertheless, I will harbor doubts about what really happened to you.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your reaction here actually shows the opposite is true, and now you project your feelings on me. Sorry but it is you now playing games.

That video clip is a classic piece depicting those held in gripping fear suddenly realizing they were had by a con.

Sorry if you can't handle our personal experiences of being released out thru the Door of the sheep. (John 10.7)

Originally Posted by Drake

I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?

Originally Posted by Drake

... confirming my assessment that you have no interest in comparing or examining Brother Lee’s teachings with scripture. Furthermore, your last post indicates something very different... it is all about sport, perhaps some kind of entertainment. In that regard, there is no distinction between those in this forum who have departed the faith and those who still claim it. Both behave the same and have found an alliance in each other against a common enemy... Brother Lee and anyone who refuses to accept the charges against him no matter how frivolous or unfounded.

I have never asked nor will ask for a pass for myself or Brother Lee. For you to suggest I have is simply another diversion. In fact, it is I that have pressed for a scriptural examination again and again on allegation after allegation. No takers. Rather, the arguments offered to my requests appear to pivot on irrelevant things.... like Wizard of Oz movie clips.

I understand the purpose of this forum is not seek out and establish truth, but I can only hope.

Drake

Originally Posted by Indiana

"[I]Whenever a special leader, or a specific doctrine, or some experience, or creed, or organization, becomes a center for drawing together the believers of different places, then because the center of such a church federation is other than Christ, it follows that its sphere will be other than local.

Originally Posted by Drake

Your objections are about circumstantial matters, things temporal. Yet, the NT vision is not circumstantial or temporal. Ministers will come and go, ages will begin and end. Local churches will pass away.... for they are procedural. But the NT vision belongs to God, it is His desire, His purpose, His creation. It fulfills what He is after. It is an eternal matter. That is why Witness Lee detractors can carry on and on for years complaining about him, his son, and Blended brothers, and all the bad things that happened to them and others, ad nauseum, and yet never realizing that the thing that guides the members in the local churches by and large, is not a man, but a God-given vision. Some have said when Witness Lee died so did the NT vision..... what a concept! Did you defend the eternal integrity of the NT vision when that was stated or were you in the crowd that considers the best place for the NT vision is nailed in the coffin with Brother Lee? Where is your line in the sand on that matter? Do we stand on truth or do we permit profaning of our Lord's words by secularists to enjoin our narrative just because someone uses it as a point of attack on Brother Lee? Where is our line in the sand on that?

This is what I mean Brother Ohio. Ephraim is a cake un-turned. It is burnt on one side and uncooked on the other. Your argument about the NT vision was just that.... I asked you if you disagree with the description of the NT vision imparted to me and you immediately flip the cake over to the burnt side to burn it some more. I opened the door for you to agree or disagree with some or all of the NT vision I have received but the burnt side of the cake is preferable because heaven forbid if we find some points of agreement, some truth we can stand side by side on, lines we both agree to not cross... well, that would not fit the dominant narrative of this forum that if Witness Lee believed it must be bad for you and if you disagree with Witness Lee then any fallacious argument will do.

So, no, I am not equivocating, I am not being dishonest, and I am not delusional. those are all ad hominem attack tactics.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

I do distinguish these... but apparently you don't. Here is what I mean.

You (collectively) . In the process of condemning everything related to Witness Lee, a man hated by most on this forum in person and deed, you also make no defense of the NT vision.... not so much as to even articulate what it is or confirm what about it you agree with when it is defined as I have done with my viewpoint. Brother Ohio, you do not speak for everyone in this forum when you say no one disparages the NT vision. Most will not even acknowledge it exists because of some apparent psychology that suggests to agree with the NT vision is to agree with Witness Lee... and what a tragedy that would be!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here you are equivocating.

You say "the vision is not about a man," yet immediately go on to say that you are "always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision."

No one on this form disparages the N.T. vision.

We only point out the failures of leaders at LSM who have damaged the children of God.

Sorry that you are not honest enough to distinguish these.

Originally Posted by Drake

This came up in another thread so posting here for further discussion as the more appropriate thread. I described in that note the vision imparted to me. What if anything about what I have written do folks disagree with?


“The vision is not about one man's viewpoint about himself, his understanding of the bible, or even a vision one might have received of the Ezekiel genre. The vision is not about any one servant , a viewpoint, or a doctrine about vision. It is not a movement or about a movement.

The vision we speak of is given by the Holy Spirit, is the heavenly vision of the New Testament, and it is an experience of the Holy Spirit imparting something of Himself into those He wills and those who are willing and able to receive it. It is a vision of the Body of Christ, building up that Body, the corporate Christ, and aligning our lives with His purpose to bring Him back and close this age. It is a vision of a Bride, a warrior Bride, those that love Him so, that will return with Him to overcome the forces of evil. It is a vision to give Him the ruling position in our lives as the stepping stone to His rule over the whole earth. In the simplest terms it is about cooperating with the Spirit on a daily basis both individually and corporately. No, brother, the vision is not about a man, a fallible man, or even a servant to be commended though not a flawless one. It is a spiritual experience not unlike what you experienced in becoming regenerated. And yet, once it lays hold of you and you lay hold of it then it will govern you and it matters not what others say or do about this vision...... it cannot be denied.

I am always amazed at the tenacity of those who would disparage and deny the NT vision not only for themselves but for those of us who have received it and regard it as a central part of our lives. Even more, I am humbled that the Lord should shed His mercy and to reveal to me the matter that is closest to His heart since I consider many in this forum would be much better proprietors should they possess it themselves......”

Grace to you,
Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If there is a Vision of Age then it must be related to the vision given to us in the Word of God, and most specifically the New Testament.
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

When it comes to strong biblical support the brothers at afaithfulword.org are found wanting. They are found wanting because the man who taught them these human constructs was found wanting himself.
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think ZNP, and maybe some others, have made a good case that these three terms, Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age and Minister of the Age are simply man-made constructs that are being misapplied to a mere human minister and to his personal vision and ministry.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The question that we have asked repeatedly is for a Biblical basis to say that there is "The Minister of The Age".

Originally Posted by Drake

There is no minister of the age without its starting point the vision of the age. Not everyone in this forum agrees that there is such a thing as a vision or ministry of the age. And those that agree that there are such a things do not agree on what they are. For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age. Under those conditions we would all be asking ....Noah was a minister according to what?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Working definition of MOTA -- "The minister of the age is the person God raises up as the channel through whom the vision of the age is released and who takes the lead in carrying out the ministry of the age."

Originally Posted by Drake

For instance if someone has already dismissed that in Noah’s age he was following a vision or what the vision was then it is pointless to describe Noah as a minister of the age.

Originally Posted by Drake

All that is factual.

It is a matter of the work. I love and respect Brother Titus and he has helped me personally and some of the things he ministered decades ago have stuck with me all these years.

Yet, there was something going on there that was not in coordination and fellowship as a co-worker with other co-workers. That never works out and it didn't then either. In the NT the work needed a lot of fellowship and oftentimes it just did not work out as the accounts of contention in the work clearly demonstrate. Titus was not opposed to Brother Lee, nor with the role of Brother Lee's ministry, rather..... there was a disagreement between Titus and the other brothers regarding the work and frankly a schism was festering that could have damaged all the churches. It had to be addressed and many attempts were made to do just that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Bro awareness,

Brother Née did a really thorough explanation of that... I try to find the link...

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP>”You did not give any details, nor did you point to a specific post....... However, this response of yours popped up after I referenced the quarantine letter, which was the context of your response. Unless it was a non sequitur, in which case how is anyone to know what you are talking about?”

The specific post was your post plainly quoted in my post #490.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-2>”It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.”

ZNP,

That is not what I said and this is a good example of how you change what I said to fit a narrative of your own creation.

First, my comments about “imagination” were not about the letter .... what was I referring to when I made those comments ZNP?

Originally Posted by Drake

Second, I never objected to anyone responding, asking questions, or putting forth of a defense of the letter..... exactly what was my objection?

Originally Posted by Drake

Third, you quoted me wrong and you quoted me out of text... we were not discussing if it were a response from the Lord. Quote me correctly and what was the context?

You are a person that demands righteousness from others.... then how about accurately representing what I stated.

Thanks,
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-2>”It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.”

ZNP,

That is not what I said and this is a good example of how you change what I said to fit a narrative of your own creation.

First, my comments about “imagination” were not about the letter .... what was I referring to when I made those comments ZNP?

Second, I never objected to anyone responding, asking questions, or putting forth of a defense of the letter..... exactly what was my objection?

Third, you quoted me wrong and you quoted me out of text... we were not discussing if it were a response from the Lord. Quote me correctly and what was the context?

You are a person that demands righteousness from others.... then how about accurately representing what I stated.

Thanks,
Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3 Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment.

It is interesting that this letter condemning Titus was made public by the BBs, yet if anyone responds, questions, or puts forth a defense then "it is beyond imagination" that this response is of the Lord.

They accuse me of having an agenda based on "The content, frequency and citing of decades old offenses". Perhaps they should look at the letter they wrote concerning the quarantine of Titus.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bible readers for centuries have been citing David's sins.

Better to be cited in this age than the next.

Should not we also learn from all the failures of Witness Lee and his sons?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is it that when you take the stand you do you are "being faithful to the vision the Lord has given you"?

Yet when others "are faithful to the vision the Lord has given them" you set yourself up to judge them that they aren't?

I will stand before the Lord. My stand will be on the Lord's blood. I am not examining others, I am examining the teachings, the doctrines, the damnable heresies.

Yes, it is true I continually cite sins that are decades old, but that is because they are decades old and still have not been dealt with.

Originally Posted by Drake

Quarantine is not excommunication.... though it probably feels like it on the quarantined end.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Quarantine is not excommunication.... though it probably feels like it on the quarantined end.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is it a basis for excommunication that you are not seeking to "be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee"?

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Sorry brother. According to your posts, their content and frequency, and the continual citing of decades old offenses.... you have not moved on, you have not forgiven those that offended you, and your approach of besmirching others for their failures, sins, and shortcomings of others is not "contending for the faith" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you have examined yourself and found yourself to be without sins, failures, or shortcomings on what basis do you flip the Apostle's charge to examining others day in and day out?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

All that is factual.

Originally Posted by Drake

All that is factual.

Originally Posted by Drake

All that is factual.

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Then why did that elder sign?

418 automatons and one conscientious objecting elder who was forced to hold a pen in his hand while the other 418 stared him down?

C'mon...

Originally Posted by Drake

All that is factual.

Originally Posted by Drake

The table is a serious thing that could lead to sickness and it is not Brother Ray who first said it. What does Paul say about it?

Still brother, if you will not receive Evangelical's lengthy investment of time and research then you will not receive mine either. So I recommend that you pick this back up with Evangelical if he is still willing.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Then why did that elder sign?

418 automatons and one conscientious objecting elder who was forced to hold a pen in his hand while the other 418 stared him down?

C'mon...

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Sorry brother. According to your posts, their content and frequency, and the continual citing of decades old offenses.... you have not moved on, you have not forgiven those that offended you, and your approach of besmirching others for their failures, sins, and shortcomings of others is not "contending for the faith" by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you have examined yourself and found yourself to be without sins, failures, or shortcomings on what basis do you flip the Apostle's charge to examining others day in and day out?

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That was my opinion as well until I read the Blended's explanation for the quarantine of Titus Chu.

Let's look at what they said were some of the reasons for the quarantine.

1. The “blended brothers” allege that Titus Chu & his co-workers are “separating themselves from the vast majority of the churches, saints, leading brothers, and coworkers throughout the whole earth who are seeking to be faithful to the entire ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, which is the New Testament Ministry”.

2. Point 2a –Titus & some of his co-workers are allegedly “challenging and rejecting the teaching of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee”.

3. Titus & co. are accused of “slandering Living Stream Ministry...declaring that Living Stream Ministry is a headquarters exercising control over the churches throughout the earth.” [Point 2b]

7. The “Warning Letter” says Titus opposes the practice of “One Publication,” which is not an item of the common faith, but a matter of “one trumpet sound of the ministry.” [Point 2f]

8. Titus & his co-workers are condemned for “promoting their own publications” [Point 2g.]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I heard this in Houston. Ray Graver taught us that if we took the Lord's table outside of the Local Church you could get sick and die. He actually gave examples of people who did get sick.

When I talked to others they also heard this teaching, so much so that I felt my experience was commonplace.

Witness Lee has taught in great detail about the sins of every other group including free groups and that their table is not a legitimate one.

Yes we have heard Evangelical claim that you have to choose where to meet, and that some places would be better than others for the table. But that isn't the question. In the LRC we were regularly warned against taking the table in other churches, they realize that we might visit family, go to funerals, weddings, etc. That was obviously necessary, so long as we don't take the table.

That is what I am asking, why is that condemned?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

One elder that was there testified that he was.

There are numerous testimonies from elders about how they were driven out due to their "not being one with the ministry". For example, consider the "quarantine of Titus Chu". The letter written by the Blendeds over this is a powerful witness that elders were required to be loyal to Witness Lee or else they would be removed.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have no offenses with anyone in the LRC.

Why did I move on? Because I examined myself.

However, this discussion is not about offenses, it is about "contending for the faith" which we have been charged to do.

Originally Posted by Drake

1. Is the doctrine of MOTA lifting up another name besides Jesus?

NO.

2. Is the MOTA a mediator of the covenant in addition to Jesus?

NO.

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

However, let's find some point of agreement here. Paul says we should examine ourselves. Therefore, why do you spend so much time examining others? How about you take the Apostle's charge seriously and the Lord's charge of forgiving offenses 70 X 7?

Drake
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So are you going to answer the question? Or squiggle over semantics?

For the record, I don’t have an argument for which church Peter and Paul would attend. It is a ridiculous question, you asked it.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP,

Its a useless exercise to try to answer questions like that because there is no answer that satisfies the underlying issue you have.

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>"2. These seek out the lost sheep. This includes the warning not to stumble one of these little ones, better to tie a grinding stone to your neck and be tossed into the sea. (As it turns out a "rock fetch" exercise that Drake was calling our examination is simply trying to find these grinding stones at the bottom of the sea)."

No. A rock fetch is asking questions that presume guilt for which there is no answer that can satisfy the questioner because of outstanding offenses that have never been dealt with before God and man.

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is it ridiculous? Why would the apostles warn us of false brethren who sneak in to bring us into captivity if it were not true? We see the Judaizers in Acts, we see references to this by James, and Peter and Paul. In the book of Revelation we see the 7 churches, almost all with major deficiencies.

This is clearly the central issue to Evangelical and to many who are in the LRC. They came from "churches" that were deficient and they are seeking "the true church". If you want to have a conversation with them over this subject then you have to address their concern.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

So are you going to answer the question? Or squiggle over semantics?

For the record, I don’t have an argument for which church Peter and Paul would attend. It is a ridiculous question, you asked it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A person quibbling over semantics indicates a person who doesn't have an argument. You haven't actually written anything yet in relation to the topic.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Agree but don't forget that they had no denominational affiliation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age,

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Wow. Just wow.

So the past tense “met” is the same as “would meet”? No wonder you’ve been suckered. I’m usually embarrassed for you after reading your posts, but this one may take the cake.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are contradicting yourself. In your first sentence you said the question wasn't where they met. In your last sentence you asked "where would they meet".

Anyway I am sure that they would not meet or identify with any of the denominations existing today. They would be thinking of the church in Corinth, church Ephesus etc, not the "Roman Catholic church at blah blah" and "lutheran church at blah blah".

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Then, which one would be the One Publication--Paul's publishing house, or LSM?

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Then, which one would be the One Publication--Paul's publishing house, or LSM?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would say there are three things that distinguish the closest disciples of the Lord:

1. What things soever they shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever they shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

2. If two of them agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father who is in heaven.

3. The Lord Jesus is in the midst of them.

Would you agree with this?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think my point is that Jesus was "in the midst" of many people. Just because Jesus was in their midst does not make them the kind of people we should desire to be part of.

I think some people use the "Jesus hung out with sinners" argument to almost justify or imply that we should be sinners. But Jesus hung out with Pharisees and devils as well.

The Lord's table was something reserved for his closest disciples and not something offered just to any person.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul would have his own publishing house, surely.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, and I'm not going to attend the Catholic church over there but find a church which is the church in < city name >".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, and I'm not going to attend the Catholic church over there but find a church which is the church in < city name >".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We only have to look in the Bible for which Lord's Table's Peter and Paul met with:

2 Corinthians 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. 2 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Corinthians 4:21.


Which church did you meet with last Sunday? The church in the city like Peter and Paul, or some denomination?

No where did Paul or Peter say "I am coming to the blah blah denomination"

If there were other "Lord's tables" happening at the time, perhaps a Judaistic one or a gnostic one, I am sure Peter and Paul would have not visited.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, would Paul be a speaker in the seven feasts? Would he be an editor at LSM?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Based on the bible, why would Paul not answer, "yes, I am the minister of the age, I don't identify with those who deny my gospel, and I'm not going to attend the Catholic church over there but find a church which is the church in < city name >".

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Evangelical, I'm sorry to tell you this, but, you don't have a clue what Peter and Paul would do today.

Peter was charged with the circumcision, and Paul with the uncircumcised.

So Peter would likely work with the Jews, and Paul with the gentiles. I don't think they'd care a bit about the denominations, or the local church. And would probably bust out laughing at The Vision of the Age, Ministry of the Age, and Minister of the age.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are contradicting yourself. In your first sentence you said the question wasn't where they met. In your last sentence you asked "where would they meet".

Anyway I am sure that they would not meet or identify with any of the denominations existing today. They would be thinking of the church in Corinth, church Ephesus etc, not the "Roman Catholic church at blah blah" and "lutheran church at blah blah".

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The question (remember...this was your question) wasn't where Peter and Paul met, but "With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why."

So where would they meet buddy boy - you seem to have all the answers (wink)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We only have to look in the Bible for which Lord's Table's Peter and Paul met with:

2 Corinthians 13:1 “This is the third time I am coming to you. 2 Corinthians 10:2, 1 Corinthians 4:21.


Which church did you meet with last Sunday? The church in the city like Peter and Paul, or some denomination?

No where did Paul or Peter say "I am coming to the blah blah denomination"

If there were other "Lord's tables" happening at the time, perhaps a Judaistic one or a gnostic one, I am sure Peter and Paul would have not visited.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course not. Jesus was the right person. If Jesus is in your midst that is the only thing that matters. This concept opens the door to the flesh, racism, sexism, bias based on social standing, money, etc.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was in the Episcopal denomination as a child. When I was 12 or 13 I took the catechism class and when that was over we were permitted to take the Lord's table.

I was too young at the time and too green to know exactly what we were being taught. It seemed they were teaching us the basic truths of the Bible and I have no recollection of having to make any pledge to the Episcopal church. I do recall being tested on the creeds. So yes, I would agree with you that this might be a violation, but this may simply be something that they do to help 12/13 year olds make the transition from child to adult. What I don't know is what happens with adults. Do they question them or do they simply instruct them that if they have received Christ as their savior they are welcome to the table. I am no expert on how the various denominations are handling this.

However, it has been my experience that over the last 50 years that all the various groups I have met with understand that the Lord's table is open to all believers who have received Christ as their savior, regardless of where they meet.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Classy.

Care to answer your own question there champ?

"please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why."

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even the Jewish leaders realize that these Galileans were not the "right people" because they were unlearned and unlettered. According to LSM's current standards, none of the original apostles could qualify for the FTTA.

During the Peter Training, Witness Lee even claimed he got an ulcer trying to understand Peter's epistles. Good reason for putting Greek classes on the FTTA qualifications list.

So ... what point have you proven?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You sound smart but you aren't so smart really because weren't Peter, James, John and the 12 disciples the "right people"? It seems to me that Jesus hung out with these 12 the most. So yes while Jesus hung out with sinners and even religious people (pharisees etc) I think it's better to be part of the disciples am I right? So my point is proven.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You sound smart but you aren't so smart really because...So my point is proven.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Okay so we can rule out Roman Catholic, Orthodox and many denominations.

Glad we agree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You sound smart but you aren't so smart really because weren't Peter, James, John and the 12 disciples the "right people"? It seems to me that Jesus hung out with these 12 the most. So yes while Jesus hung out with sinners and even religious people (pharisees etc) I think it's better to be part of the disciples am I right? So my point is proven.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If any group requires more than Baptism to receive a brother or sister at the Lord's table then yes, I agree.

Originally Posted by zeek

What difference does it make? Do you suppose meeting with the "right" people with the "right" words is going to bring you closer to God? Jesus hung out with and ate freely with all kinds of sinners and was condemned for it by the religious people of his day. It seems to me you might have fallen into a similar trap as Jesus' detractors with the "local church" doctrine.

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Surely, Peter, Paul would recognize Witness Lee as the present and final MOTA. Maybe the Blended Brothers would even let them join their coworkers' meetings.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Peter, and John too, are definitely OUT since they were unlearned and unlettered. (Acts 4.13) They both totally flunked the "Good Material" qualifying exams. In addition, Peter was the first Pope. Three strikes he is OUT. If he disagrees, there is a Whistler Resort holiday in his future.

Paul, however, was definitely "Good Material." He had a PHD from Princeton or Dallas Theological. He would get a handshake from Ron Kangas, and a front row seat with Benson at the Seven Feasts.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The obvious answer (to you) would be that they would identify with the LSM churches? Or am I presupposing?

If this is true, how would Peter or Paul know about the church unless they were considered "good material"? What if Peter and Paul never went to undergrad?

Originally Posted by zeek

What difference does it make? Do you suppose meeting with the "right" people with the "right" words is going to bring you closer to God? Jesus hung out with and ate freely with all kinds of sinners and was condemned for it by the religious people of his day. It seems to me you might have fallen into a similar trap as Jesus' detractors with the "local church" doctrine.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Good point, this is completely the wrong attitude. Paul said to examine ourselves, not others.

Originally Posted by zeek

What difference does it make? Do you suppose meeting with the "right" people with the "right" words is going to bring you closer to God? Jesus hung out with and ate freely with all kinds of sinners and was condemned for it by the religious people of his day. It seems to me you might have fallen into a similar trap as Jesus' detractors with the "local church" doctrine.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks ... you're a peach.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With hundreds of different churches meeting every Sunday please tell us which one or ones are the Lords Table that Peter or Paul would identify with and why.

Originally Posted by Drake

Bro awareness,

Brother Née did a really thorough explanation of that... I try to find the link...

Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know bro Drake, but surely you can you provide a list of the MOTA's from at least Luther.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Hi ZNP,

I will leave it for you and others to deal with those questions. Personally for me they look like rock fetch questions, questions of presumption, and they are superficial since there is no answer to the questions that would satisfy your disagreements with the Lords Recovery.

Others here really like questions like that so you should look to them to support your viewpoints and they will gladly.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Hi ZNP,

I will leave it for you and others to deal with those questions. Personally for me they look like rock fetch questions, questions of presumption, and they are superficial since there is no answer to the questions that would satisfy your disagreements with the Lords Recovery.

Others here really like questions like that so you should look to them to support your viewpoints and they will gladly.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

I asked awhile back for an official list of all the MOTA's down thru the ages.

You've revealed that, they don't have one.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To do this they need the smoke and mirrors of innumerable "ages" which they do not in any way illuminate other than to refer to Peter, Paul and Martin Luther. They rely on the laziness of the hearers that they are not willing to study church history so will simply take this on face value.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Therefore my interpretation that these elders were forced out and replaced with yes men can appear paranoid and conspiratorial.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP,

I understand that you see those events differently than I do. You see them all part and parcel to a big conspiracy. I don’t. I evaluate each event on its own merits in their time and place. I do not say that mistakes were not made, they were, but not everything that happened can be attributed to a common initiative other than they happened in the Lords Recovery in that era.

Life goes on brother and so does the Lords Recovery. I only hope you find the peace you seek after all these years.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP,

I understand that you see those events differently than I do. You see them all part and parcel to a big conspiracy. I don’t. I evaluate each event on its own merits in their time and place. I do not say that mistakes were not made, they were, but not everything that happened can be attributed to a common initiative other than they happened in the Lords Recovery in that era.

Life goes on brother and so does the Lords Recovery. I only hope you find the peace you seek after all these years.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

In my opinion, I believe it was circumstances that drove the need. Brother Lee did not demand it but 419 elders felt the situation of disunity merited it. However, I believe his response was even more relevant. It’s clear where his heart was about not following a man.

The NEw Testament reveals more than Baptism and the Table. Still, if you don’t think so then be at peace and allow others follow what the Lord has shown them too.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If that is the case why do do special churches aka denominations exist. Baptism and Lord's table should be sufficient.

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim,

If my explanation was an accurate representation of what you and this forum believe then that is superb. Thanks for agreeing where we can agree.

However, in your second paragraph above you have fallen into the old dissenters and opposers habit of mischaracterization at best. Old habits die hard as they say but if you allow yourself to listen and consider others with differing points of view and experience you might find other areas we can agree on.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If this is the case then why do we need a special loyalty pledge to Witness Lee? If the vision is the same as the NT then Baptism and the Lord's table should be sufficient.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If this is the case then why do we need a special loyalty pledge to Witness Lee? If the vision is the same as the NT then Baptism and the Lord's table should be sufficient.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently our beloved brothers Drake and Evangelical have never read the article you linked here from LSM's own website. Ironically even the website anticipated brothers like Drake and Evangelical would attempt to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms," and included the following:

They love to hide behind this "governing vision" caveat, but that is only window dressing for casual bystanders. Insiders, especially the leaders, know full well all the ramifications that accompany the "actual leadership." Pay attention to another quote from this informative article:

Can anyone really believe that in the 17th century all those throughout the globe who served God with a vision had to join themselves to a solitary nun in France. Unbelievable! Classical historical revisionism! A totally self-serving distortion of church history! It's no wonder that LC members are not permitted to read others' books.

Originally Posted by Drake

UntoHim>". The OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED POSITION of the OFFICIAL leadership in the Local Church Movement is that there is ONE, SINGLE Vision of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Ministry of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Minister of the Age. All roads lead to Mr. Witness Lee."

Why, I absolutely agree with this statement! (well,...without the CAPS). That is what I have been saying all along...... as follows:

The starting point is the vision of the age... the vision presented in the New Testament which becomes a governing vision and a vision to obey to whom it is revealed. The ministry of the age is for the vision of the age. Ministry follows vision as the means to fulfill the vision. Paul was captured by the vision of Christ and the Church and he became a minister of Spirit and life to build the Body of Christ. Paul in the 1st century was the lead in the ministry of the age. He was in his time and place the minister of the age and established local churches as testimonies and visible expressions of the one unique universal Body of Christ.

The vision Paul dedicated his life to is still the same New Testament vision today. The ministry of Spirit and life is still the same ministry of the age today. God works through men to carry out his ministry and for 2000 years and in any given place and time He works through vessels of mercy of His choosing. Church history shows this clearly. All those that God works through are imperfect vessels, nevertheless, He chooses whomsoever He wills. Luther was imperfect yet God worked through him to recover the Bible for the common man and the truth of justification by faith. Many servants to numerous to name here God worked through to restore something lost since the first century. They were not perfect men but nevertheless, they were useful and important in their place and time. In the past century the Lord worked through two brothers to lead and recover the practice of the church life to build the Body of Christ through the local churches to facilitate His return and establish His kingdom on earth. Like the men God used before them they too were imperfect. Nevertheless, God uses whomever He wills and these two servants from China were faithful to their special calling from the Lord. Through them many have seen the New Testament vision and the ministry that can fulfill that vision, And yes, if the Lord shows someone that the vision of the age is to build the Body of Christ, and if they believe that ministry of the age is to use local churches to accomplish the vision, then either logic, history, or revelation from God will also show that brothers Watchman Nee and Witness Lee were the two vessels that He selected for that special calling. If someone disagrees with the vision or that there is one, if someone disagrees with our defintion of the ministry of the New Testament to accomplish the vision, or if someone disagrees that brothers Watchman Nee or Witness Lee were servants used by God for this purpose then that is between them and the Lord. If someone is without sin and perfect then before the Lord let them cast stones at God's imperfect servants. That also is a matter between them and the Lord that will be settled at His Bema.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

If someone disagrees with the vision or that there is one, if someone disagrees with our defintion of the ministry of the New Testament to accomplish the vision, or if someone disagrees that brothers Watchman Nee or Witness Lee were servants used by God for this purpose then that is between them and the Lord. If someone is without sin and perfect then before the Lord let them cast stones at God's imperfect servants. That also is a matter between them and the Lord that will be settled at His Bema.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Here is Brother Lee's response the letter as mentioned. Highlights mine,

"The Brothers attending the February 1986
Elders’ Training

Dear Brothers:

Thank you for your letter dated February 21, 1986 with the list of signatures. I feel very sorry that I could not have time to acknowledge, with appreciation, what you have expressed in your letter and through your signatures until now.

Being one with the ministry is a crucial matter, and its effects are exceedingly serious. Its proper definition is not to follow any man, any doctrine or any movement, but is to be one with the Lord’s move today according to the Lord’s vision, without any intrinsic element of exalting any person or promoting any work. May the Lord be merciful and gracious to us, that this action would not be misunderstood or misapplied by anyone in a way that would give the enemy Satan ground for utilization, thus frustrating the Lord’s move today, but rather that this action could be properly used by the Lord to swallow up all the germs of discord which have been existing, even among us, for quite a time in the past. May the Lord remember your kind wishes for me and bless your labors in Him.

Your brother in Christ,
Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Koinonia

UntoHim, thank you for pointing this out. Another thing very extreme about the "MOTA" concept--LC members not only believe that Witness Lee is/was the "minister of the age" but the final "minister of the age" and the "minister of the present age," even though he has been dead for 20 years. So, this is not just "POTUS;" it's worse. It is more akin to the North Korean concept of "Eternal President" (and don't forget, the "minister of the age" is also "the acting God").

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Witness Lee's "position" among his followers was something more powerful, more influential and more controlling than that of the POTUS, or President of the United States. The President and his power, influence and control is limited and balanced by two other equal branches of government - the legislative and judicial branches. (Interestingly enough, many Christian denominations have instituted such a leadership structure for the same reasons as the US government - to limit and balance the power, influence and control of the chief executive)

While I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Christian church formally, or even informally, institute such a governmental structure, I would point out the abject inherit dangers for a church group or movement that allows one single person to dictate "The Vision of the Age" through his personal ministry, "The Ministry of the Age", which is headed up solely by himself as "The Minister of the Age". This dynamic in the Local Church couldn't be any more or any less official than is described on the Local Church/LSM official website www.afaithfulword.org :
http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html

Whether or not there is the use of capitol letters is actually quite irrelevant. The OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED POSITION of the OFFICIAL leadership in the Local Church Movement is that there is ONE, SINGLE Vision of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Ministry of the Age, there is ONE, SINGLE Minister of the Age. All roads lead to Mr. Witness Lee. So anyone here is free to haggle, to massage or soften the firm, crystal clear declarations of the movement leaders, or to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms - what they are not free to do is claim that the actual teachings, practices and history in the Local Church are being misrepresented here on this forum.
-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

http://www.afaithfulword.org/article...yMinister.html

So anyone here is free to haggle, to massage or soften the firm, crystal clear declarations of the movement leaers, or to play verbal footsie with these declarations or acronyms - what they are not free to do is claim that the actual teachings, practices and history in the Local Church are being misrepresented here on this forum. -

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe the term “ MOTA “ includes the notion of an official position like POTUS - President of the United States - and that idea of position is mainly found here in this forum, planted here in this forum, and morphed from its original simple descriptor “minister of the age “. Nowhere in the ministry is the term MOTA ever used nor is the position or office of a Minister of the Age ever conveyed.

Originally Posted by Ohio

We also agree to follow your leading as the one who has brought us God's New Testament economy and has led us into its practice. We agree that this leading is indispensable to our oneness and acknowledge the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry and the one wise master builder [this refers to Lee] among us.

Originally Posted by Drake

Right... I reiterate the above... but you said “MOTA”.

I shared several times why I object to the term.

Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #33

"Least,

Ok, You have no definition for minister of the age.

Do you agree that throughout biblical history God has raised up leaders to carry out what He wants to do in that time and place?

Drake"

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He was not a historian but a theologian. Do you know the difference? Ohio and you have different views about Vincent. Ohio said he was wrong, you are trying to avoid saying that. If I say Paul was the head maybe I am being a historian too?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, I am calling him a historian when he refers to Paul as the "apostolic head of Christianity". Read the post.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now you are implying Vincent was an unbeliever for saying Paul was the head?

Cannot Paul be a servant by being the head? The bible says apostles are God's gift to the church.

Originally Posted by Drake

First, I do not agree with the acronym “MOTA” as it has morphed in this forum into something like an office, like POTUS. That conveys the wrong idea. When you ask “how LSM MOTA is/are biblical” I believe our understandings are so different that it would be impossible without first agreeing on a definition. Your second question is a good starting point for that.

Originally Posted by Drake

Gods move in biblical history is revealed when He wants to do something. For instance, God wanted to preserve the human race and creatures so He used Noah to build an ark at that time and place.

Originally Posted by Drake

The ministry of that age was the building of a boat, the minister of that age was Noah, and the vision of that age, Gods coming judgement with a flood, was imparted to Noah from Enoch.

Originally Posted by Drake

That was the ministry (or service) of that age and if you lived in that place at that time and wanted to participate in what God was doing then you joined in with Noah because that is who God was using.

Originally Posted by Drake

If you lived at that time and decided Noah was a crazy old fool for building a big boat and instead choose to build the best rowing boats on the Euphrates then you could do that but you would not be partipating in what God was doing at that time and place with and through Noah.

Originally Posted by Drake

Both would be building boats but only one was according to God’s design for His purpose and the other, though also a boat, swift and streamlined for gliding up and down the river, would not survive the ultimate test... the flood.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why do you say that an esteemed scholar like Vincent is wrong on such a simple thing but you are right.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I never said Paul was the Head but the head. Are not church leaders a head if not what are they?a foot?

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, Vincent was both wrong and distorted by you.

Only Jesus is the servant Head of the church.

I know this comes as a shock to you, but it's for your own good.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Now you are implying Vincent was an unbeliever for saying Paul was the head?

Cannot Paul be a servant by being the head? The bible says apostles are God's gift to the church.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I did not distort anything. The meaning of the first para you quoted is to say that Paul was no less than the others despite not knowing Christ in the flesh. This is strong proof against those that say only the 12 disciples were the real apostles or that Christ stopped calling prominent apostles after His ascension.

The second part is the same portion I quoted.
It still says Paul was the head of Christianity in the city. Note how it refers to the locality and not any particular denomination thus proving that the genuine church in the city can indeed have a human head. Human heads are not merely for religious organizations as some suppose. And to clatify my view of the term head is not the same as the Catholic or Nicolaitan view.

So I dont know what you think you have accomplished since you have just quoted the same thing as I and it shows that Paul was the head in ALL Achaia.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also find this discussion despicable. If I am talking to an unbeliever and they say that Paul is the founder of Christianity I have no issue with that because they have already taken a stand that they do not believe in the resurrected Christ. Likewise with historians.

To a believer the reality of "Christianity" is the Body of Christ. This is the "new creation" and came about at Jesus Resurrection from the dead. We are only required to keep Baptism and the Lord's table -- both instituted by Jesus, not Paul.

Paul was a great apostle, and to an unbeliever they can call him "the head of the church" because their is no confusion with the head of the Body, nor can you insult Jesus the head if you have no faith in Him.

To believers Paul was a gift to the Body so that we could understand the change in the Age and how the New Covenant related to the Old Covenant. He was a servant, not "the head".

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about distortion!

Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.1:

1. Called to be an apostle. See on Rom 1.1. Compare I Tim. 1.1 Not distinguishing him from other apostles. Compare Matt 4.21; John 6.70; but Paul was called no less directly than these by Jesus Christ.

Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.2:

Theirs and ours. The A.V. and Rev. connect with Jesus Christ our Lord. Better with in every place. Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia.

Vincett said that Paul brought the gospel to Corinth and defended his authority as "founder and apostolic head of Christianity in that city," and as such he defended the gospel against the false apostles and false teachings.

I protested the word "head" because folks like Evangelical would yank it out of context, and place this pseudo-crown on Lee.

And that he surely did.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about distortion!

Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.1:

1. Called to be an apostle. See on Rom 1.1. Compare I Tim. 1.1 Not distinguishing him from other apostles. Compare Matt 4.21; John 6.70; but Paul was called no less directly than these by Jesus Christ.

Here is what Marvin Vincent really said about I Cor 1.2:

Theirs and ours. The A.V. and Rev. connect with Jesus Christ our Lord. Better with in every place. Every place in the province where Christians are is our place also. The expression emphasizes the position of Paul as the founder and apostolic head of Christianity in Corinth and in all Achaia.

Vincett said that Paul brought the gospel to Corinth and defended his authority as "founder and apostolic head of Christianity in that city," and as such he defended the gospel against the false apostles and false teachings.

I protested the word "head" because folks like Evangelical would yank it out of context, and place this pseudo-crown on Lee.

And that he surely did.

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP,

You asked, but to be frank it is hard to say how it appeared to Ed or the elders since I am only reading your version and do not have the benefit of the audio to hear the tone or the video to observe the body language. Nevertheless, angst is evident in your text alone.

But I am curious, why you did not discuss with Ed as an acquaintance since you had a history? He apparently considered there to be some basis since he spent time discussing his feelings about the situation with you.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is it about what you said that I distorted?

I quoted Vincent that Paul was the head of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Drake

My take... since you insist....I think you picked the wrong time and place. If you had a relationship with Ed why not reconnect that evening and then ask him if you can call him or email to discuss an important matter. Doing it the way you did on that occasion probably seemed like an ambush....

Originally Posted by Drake

you pulled out a letter about a 30 year old event, he tried to say kindly he hoped that since PL was dead it would be less of an issue, you pressed him apparently wanting to extract something more out of him more than he could provide, he was a guest at the event so he brought it NY elders attention, they apparently thought you were inappropriately taking advantage of the situation. .. so they walked you out the door.

Yeah, I think you could have handled it differently. That's how I see it from your description.


Drake

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You said very clearly that you felt the response by many on this forum was in some way inappropriate.

Therefore I told you how I approached Ed Marks and discussed this with him and the response of both Ed and the church.

I would like you to tell me what the appropriate way would have been to approach Ed Marks.

I had learned that saints had been hurt, offended and in some cases left the recovery over this. Therefore I felt I had a responsibility to take these concerns to Ed.

So please, since you have already critiqued the response of many, tell me what I could have done that would have been more appropriate?

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

Oh, I don’t think most those are questions of inquiry but rather questions of presumption.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is it about what you said that I distorted?

I quoted Vincent that Paul was the head of Christianity.

You said you believe the terminology of "small h head" is insulting.

So you must believe that Vincent's word studies is insulting because he says Paul is the small h head of Christianity.

Are they not the facts of this discussion?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Post #358, #347 and #326 all have questions.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Great example of someone distorting what someone else said and falsely quoting them.

Now why would you have to stoop to such a demeaning style?

Originally Posted by zeek

Read the gospels. Jesus asked questions and answered them. Yes he spoke in parables but not exclusively.

Jesus also used aphorisms and plain speech. He was so open to others that he even answered the questions of demons.

Jesus' wisdom was not the conventional kind. Some times he answered a question with a question. He used parables to provoke thought.

Witness Lee made the mistake of interpreting Jesus' parables as allegories with one correct interpretation. Jesus' parables resist conclusive interpretation. That's what makes them endlessly perplexing and fascinating.

Open your Bible to the gospels on just about any page and you will see examples of what I'm talking about. My Bible is open to Matthew 8:2 to 9:21. Jesus asks the disciples "Why are you afraid?" Two demoniacs ask Jesus "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time? " They ask to be cast into swine and Jesus grants them their request! Jesus asks "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, ' or to say, "Rise and walk." The disciples of John ask "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast." Jesus answers "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? " Again, he provokes them to think rather than giving a dogmatic answer.

Jesus was in a continual dialogue with others. Witness Lee conducted an endless monologue. If you disagreed you got kicked out or sued. Take Drake's advise and follow Jesus.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible seems to say opposite to what you are saying. Rather than being a person open to questions and responding, Jesus often spoke in parables that left even his closest disciples scratching their heads. Rather than give straight answers, Jesus seemed to ignore or defer thus infuriating his questioners.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you believe that Vincent's word studies is insulting to Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To understand the term "unique", consider, why the New Testament is not comprised of one book from each of the 12 disciples and Paul's letters made up almost 50% of the New Testament? There were 12 apostles, were all they all of equal importance? The very composition of our bibles seems to suggestion not. Also, the contributions of Paul seem to outweigh Peter, James and John despite these 3 being more personally acquainted with Christ than Paul.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Can you provide additional context on what you're trying to communicate here?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible seems to say opposite to what you are saying. Rather than being a person open to questions and responding, Jesus often spoke in parables that left even his closest disciples scratching their heads. Rather than give straight answers, Jesus seemed to ignore or defer thus infuriating his questioners.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Paul was an apostle who was commissioned to "complete the word of God".

However, I do not understand this word "unique". There were 12 apostles. There were numerous writers of the NT, in fact many books appear to have been something of a collaborative work.

That said, as much as I appreciate Paul, I do not consider him as a "small h head in the church" as you put it. I find that terminology insulting to the head, Jesus Christ. I also find it incongruous to a basic understanding of biology.

There is only one person, Jesus Christ, that you should be required to confess.

The issue I have with MOTA is not that WL was the leader of your group. I don't even care that you have to pledge allegiance to WL to be in the group. What I do care about is that you portray yourselves as Christians, pretend to be standing on the Bible, and at the very same time that you do that you also require elders to sign a loyalty pledge to Witness Lee and you excommunicate those who have an issue with this.

I care that one of your so called "leaders", Joe Davis, admits that he will not teach anything that Witness Lee doesn't teach, as though Witness Lee is Lord.

I care that another one of your so called leaders, Ed Marks, told me that he signed the apology letter to a sexual predator because "it made Witness Lee happy". I am not here to please man, but your so called leaders are.

I care that another one of your so called leaders, Benjamin Chen (he recently passed), had me removed from the meeting hall because I wanted Ed to explain that letter to me. I went to Ed according to Matt 18, as prescribed by the Lord, yet listening to the Lord is not permitted in the meeting halls of the LRC.

These are three examples of my first hand experience. All three of these experiences are blatantly condemned in the NT by Paul and the other apostles.

Originally Posted by zeek

The Lord didn't merely show me. It's in the gospels for everyone to read. According to the gospels Jesus was a man who asked questions and who responded to questions when asked. Witness Lee was not like that. He discouraged questions. I went to several of his Life-study trainings in Anaheim, CA and in Irvine, Tx. The trainings were structured to digest his teachings through pray-reading and rote memorization. He did not take questions from the trainees. He taught that questions were of the devil. He did not support the kind of independent thinking that you and Evangelical are exhibiting on this website. According to my expereince during 13 years of "church life" Lee's sole emphasis was on the spirited regurgitation of his own teaching.

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek>”Who should I follow?”

Zeek,

Follow the Lord according to what He has shown you.

Drake

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Would you care to share your interpretation of LSM's definition of leader to avoid any confusion?

fyi Witness Lee has been called "our leader" in this thread and I thought the terms MOTA and leader were more or less interchangable. MOTA would be a "unique leader" as Paul was a "unique leader". Of course this does not mean that the MOTA or Lee or Paul was the only leader in the church. Elders are leaders, husbands are leaders over their wives and children/home. Wives are leaders over their children. Anyone who takes the lead in the church is a leader as well, it could be anyone.

As the head of Christianity Paul's messages carried weight and authority.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This thread is about the "Minister of the Age", and "The Ministry of the Age". If you are equating "leaders in the church" with "The Minister of the Age" then your definition is very different from LSM's and your discussion is irrelevant because we are talking about LSM's definition.