Local Church Discussions - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

10-07-2012 12:46 PM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

"Offending the Body"? Seriously? Which Body are we talking about exactly? Is that the same Body with millions and millions of Christians as members? They're offended by John Ingalls? They're offended by Titus Chu? Is that it?

This term is nothing but a spiritual sounding disguise and when translated out of fake spirituality language into plain English it really means: the centralized leaders of "the work" which is now global are offended because you will not march in lock step with them - which BTW includes accepting even the most minute housekeeping details like when you are allowed to hold a conference. Don't you know that the Body is deeply offended if your conference dates conflict with the LSM?

That's right. This kind of talk must be considered as nothing more than controlling, manipulative, and lording it over the saints.

Firstly, the Blendeds must define the "taste of the body." They regularly speak of how "the body will reject other tastes." In actuality it is they who are defining the "taste of the body," by long-winded, boring and tasteless outlines full of extra-biblical, pseudo-spiritual doctrines specific to the movement. These messages are completely scripted by movement theologians as the content of all their corporate "feasts." Then they mandate that all local gatherings must center on these same blanded topics. This is how LSM defines the "taste" of the "body" -- actually not the body at all, but a small, aberrant sect of adherents.

It then becomes readily apparent that any and all speakers who do not ascribe to LSM's format will "taste" different. Titus Chu has been in the movement longer than any of the Blendeds, yet his ministry somehow "tastes different." Then they misapply I Tim 1.3 declaring he "teaches differently" from God's economy. Next they accuse him of "offending" the body. No single member was ever offended, yet supposedly the entire "body" was offended. Just incredible!

10-07-2012 10:58 AM

TLFisher

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

A quote spoken to a brother locally in 2004 by a blended co-worker:

“not right with God or with the Body”

10-05-2012 06:37 PM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

For the good of the Body...

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2s79dac&s=6

Good one Igzy ....

10-05-2012 04:50 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Don't you know that the Body is deeply offended if your conference dates conflict with the LSM?

10-05-2012 04:42 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

For the good of the Body...

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2s79dac&s=6

10-05-2012 02:27 PM

alwayslearning

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

It stems from the deputy authority teaching and practice. The phase "offending the body" is utilized to somehow make a preferred opinion legitimate and to discredit or discount a contrasting point of view.

When Witness Lee and those coworkers he surrounded himself with used this as a license to oust people I could hardly believe they had started scraping the bottom of the barrel so soon. Surely they must have a more tenable position for their excommunicating actions. I think they used the same argument in Whistler against Titus Chu.

"Offending the Body"? Seriously? Which Body are we talking about exactly? Is that the same Body with millions and millions of Christians as members? They're offended by John Ingalls? They're offended by Titus Chu? Is that it?

How about the Church in Cleveland? Did they oust Titus Chu because they are the Body he offended? How about the GLA churches? Are they the Body that was offended?

This term is nothing but a spiritual sounding disguise and when translated out of fake spirituality language into plain English it really means: the centralized leaders of "the work" which is now global are offended because you will not march in lock step with them - which BTW includes accepting even the most minute housekeeping details like when you are allowed to hold a conference. Don't you know that the Body is deeply offended if your conference dates conflict with the LSM?

10-05-2012 12:58 PM

TLFisher

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Since I was going to snip at the position, I needed to make it clear that it was not to be presumed as a snip at you, just at the position. A lurker would have no idea.

Of course. I'll have to see if I can retrieve a transcript from about 10 years ago which relates to this thread.

10-05-2012 04:56 AM

OBW

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

The thing that is problematic as we talk about some of these kinds of issues is that it is sometimes difficult to keep straight what is the position of the writer v what is simply a presumed position of the LRC when the position given is clearly the latter but not certainly the former.

In other words, as I have been saying elsewhere, I have been noting that from almost all of our keyboards, including mine at times, I read things that are somehow defaulting back to LRC dogma that we don't always recognize. Since you essentially gave this particular one unlabeled, I could not tell whether you were simply giving the LRC position as a matter of fact, or stating that it is what you thought should stand as true.

And I commented back the way I did because I doubted you would agree with it. But there have been stranger things on this forum than you, me, or anyone else still holding to a position that we have not yet thought through. Since I was going to snip at the position, I needed to make it clear that it was not to be presumed as a snip at you, just at the position. A lurker would have no idea.

10-04-2012 10:18 PM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Let's call it what it is : Offending the body was taken straight out of a cult toolbox ; not from the Bible. The leaders were grabbing for anything to have and keep power over the saints.

10-04-2012 09:49 PM

TLFisher

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

As for your definition of "offending the body," I must disagree. If the 199 are not offended, the body is not suddenly deemed offended just because one is offended. That is a misapplication of some kind of "unity of the body" theory or teaching. And maybe it was not your definition, but simply a description of what you thought Mel might have been thinking. But even if the one out of 200 is an elder, that does not automatically constitute "offending the body."

10-04-2012 01:07 PM

OBW

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Can anyone tell that I am bored at work right now?

10-04-2012 01:06 PM

OBW

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Where does the Bible ever suggest that "offending the Body" is something to worry about, anyway? I mean, talk about a pretext to manipulation! "Offending the Body" is one of those mushy concepts, like "the Recovery," that the LC movement leverages to bully people.

You "offended the Body." In the 1600s they just would have said "you practiced witchcraft."

That is the better question. I accepted that it be considered at least a possible position that needs definition. You question whether it should even exist as a point of discussion.

I think your point is the most "on point." And at the same time, simply questioning what should be meant by this fabricated term is also a weapon to use against them.

It's a twofer.

10-04-2012 12:45 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

"Offending the body"

10-04-2012 12:35 PM

OBW

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Awareness, my point is this all it would take is for Mel to be offended by Gene and that would equate to offending the body.
Hypothetically, suppose this locality had 200 attending on any given Lords Day. It doesn't matter that 199 had no offense with Gene.

Now why would it be a big mistake for Mel to have gone after Gene? Did that stir up some saints?

"Going after" someone is a big mistake. Period. End of discussion.

The very nature of the thing being discussed is outside the realm of acceptable Christian behavior. Not saying that it is outside the realm of human behavior, and that we, even as Christians, sometimes exhibit behavior that is truly human and not acceptably Christian.

But there is a process provided for this kind of disciplining. It starts with direct contact, not with "telling it to the church." Now it may be true that the church actually had no idea what they had just been told. But it was still an end-run around the process. It got the whole stirred-up in a way that would generate the desired result if and when there actually was something brought in front of them. They were now like tracking dogs waiting for that item of clothing to be brought to them so they could run out to corner the miscreant in a tree. awareness has the humility to accept that he might have been worthy of being tracked-down. But not Gene.

As for your definition of "offending the body," I must disagree. If the 199 are not offended, the body is not suddenly deemed offended just because one is offended. That is a misapplication of some kind of "unity of the body" theory or teaching. And maybe it was not your definition, but simply a description of what you thought Mel might have been thinking. But even if the one out of 200 is an elder, that does not automatically constitute "offending the body."

10-04-2012 12:03 PM

TLFisher

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't think Gene offended anyone. Everyone loved Gene because Gene was lovable.
But it can be said with certainty that, Mel Porter was out of his mind. Coming after me, and Hosepipe, was one thing. But going after Gene was a big mistake.

10-04-2012 09:41 AM

alwayslearning

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

While at the time, things were not so clearly known, looking back from our present vantage, we can readily discern that WL's many "flows" and "new ways" subtly were designed to bring the entire recovery under subjection.

Absolutely but maybe not so subtly! IMHO Witness Lee controlled the LC system using 4 main methods:

1. Appointing the elders i.e. local leaders who will be loyal to him.

2. Selecting and rejecting coworkers based on their loyalty to him.

3. Providing the mandatory curriculum i.e. conferences, trainings, books, etc.

4. Using wide-sweeping "flows" and "new ways" as acid tests of being "one with the Body"/him and his plans.

While doing the above he would insist: "I am not controlling. What local church do I have in my hand?"

10-04-2012 08:16 AM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I did not stand up for my friends, because, they were accused of something about which I had no first hand factual knowledge. I felt very conflicted about this. The allegation itself was left vague in the meeting. What exactly was meant by poisoning was not clarified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I think it is because so many had only rumors, and no knowledge, about the things going on in Anaheim.

I wish I could express this with the clarity it deserves.

Perhaps I can use the excommunication meeting as an example, as a microcosm of a more universal and widespread practice.

In the excommunication meeting the saints were worked up into a fever-pitched frenzy, with the whole meeting up on their feet, pump the air with their fists, and shouting, "IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US GET OUT," over and over again.

But in truth, except for a couple of hands-full at most, most had no idea what was really going on ; they in fact had no clue. They were blind zealots.

They heard "poison" from #1elder, but not what the poison was. They heard "destroy Witness Lee's works," but no explanation. And they weren't even told the identity of those accused ; those they were chanting and pumping against.

They were, just the way Mel Porter wanted them to be : fervent idiots.

And that is a universal machination in Witness Lee's local churches. In it resides the mechanics of a cult : blind zealot followers, that don't have a clue of what's really going on.

Hiding information is a cult manipulation. That's why exists such a thing known as "The Hidden History of Witness Lee, and the Local Churches.

10-04-2012 07:14 AM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

You could have a higher level of fellowship with Gene than with most. But he was too independent for Mel's comfort.

The local church of Witness Lee couldn't/can't truck very well with the independent types. Those of critical self thinking wasn't/isn't going to last in the local churches of Witness Lee (Leeites). Only those at the top get to be thinkers. Only those at the top don't have to get out of their mind.

The book of Galatians highlights these same dangers facing Apostle Paul. Whether these present day ministry zealots were bringing "new flows" from Anaheim, or the early church Judaizers were bringing Jewish customs to the people of Galatia, their motives were the same. By removing us from Him who called us (1.6), they stole our freedom in Christ, bringing us into slavery and subjection to them (2.4-5). Many used their reputation and their connections with movement leaders (2.6). They appeared to be zealous of us, though wrongly, with the goal that we all would be zealous of a man other than Christ (4.17) and in the end boast in us, not in our love for God, but in our flesh (6.13).

While at the time, things were not so clearly known, looking back from our present vantage, we can readily discern that WL's many "flows" and "new ways" subtly were designed to bring the entire recovery under subjection. Those who left quietly were pitied of pending dooms. Those who voiced opinions, based on their views from the scripture, were often beat into subjection. Those who spoke up loudly were branded rebellious. Those whose protests gathered traction were deserving of public shamings. The endeavor to return to the pure word of God was considered the most dangerous saying of all.

Many times I have asked myself why in the world would a "spiritual" man such as Witness Lee place his own profligate son Philip as 2nd in command, not just of operations at a publishing house, but as a ruler over other workers in "the work." The answer appears simple. Philip was a ruthless, unprincipled man whose chief talent was to beat others into submission. Ray Graver basically testified as to this, "when Philip beats you down, you just have to get up, and then go back to him again for more." In this way Witness Lee played the classic "good guy, bad guy" with the Recovery. One thing was for certain, Philip was just hired on as a thug. Remember Philip's gleeful response after tape recording his father's telecon tongue-lashing of Titus Chu, "now I got him."

10-04-2012 03:12 AM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

It may be Gene only offended one, two, or three out of the locality. Also Ohio, "if" implies elder #1 or elder #2 having to go to Gene (who many not have served in the capacity of a responsible brother) about the offense.
Not going to happen. Understand double-standards exist in the church regarding offenses and repentance. An #1 elder can offend a brother and he doesn't have to do anything about the offense. However if a brother or sister offends a #1 elder, if they want to go on in the church, they will be required to repent.

I don't think Gene offended anyone. Everyone loved Gene because Gene was lovable.

But bro Zeek pointed out something yesterday on the phone : Bro Gene had a stable independent relationship with the Lord. He came to meetings, but not all of them. He was cavalier about the meetings. But he was committed. He brought his coin collection to his first burning ... Kangas (elders) glommed it (illegal to damage money), it was a bucket of money. He had his own walk with the Lord and the Bible. You could have a higher level of fellowship with Gene than with most. But he was too independent for Mel's comfort.

The local church of Witness Lee couldn't/can't truck very well with the independent types. Those of critical self thinking wasn't/isn't going to last in the local churches of Witness Lee (Leeites). Only those at the top get to be thinkers. Only those at the top don't have to get out of their mind.

But it can be said with certainty that, Mel Porter was out of his mind. Coming after me, and Hosepipe, was one thing. But going after Gene was a big mistake.

10-03-2012 08:03 PM

TLFisher

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So Gene, in the desire to submit to his leader and to be completely reconciled with each of the saints, acquiesces to Mel Porter's demands and publicly repents, "[COLOR=Blue]If I have offended anyone in word or deed please come to me after the meeting.[COLOR=Black]" Gene is only attempting to act according to the Lord's word in Matthew, "if your brother offend you, go to him." But the problem is that none of the saints were ever offended by Gene, rather they all loved him. They all go along thinking that Gene's word is for someone else.

To the ministry zealots, however, this is totally unacceptable. How dare you say "if," and then, how dare you attempt to connect with the saints individually after the meeting! There is no "if," and there will be no contact with the saints!

10-03-2012 12:46 PM

OBW

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Things really went down hill after I left. The Lord really saved me from all that.

I'm surprised anyone is left in the local churches ...

I think it is because so many had only rumors, and no knowledge, about the things going on in Anaheim.

It is most interesting to me that in the midst of all the fallout in Anaheim, they chose to abandon the potential alternative HQ they had in Irving and focus on making the hotbed of trouble the focal point of the group. It is like placing the microscope on Anaheim as the source of purity while trying to hide whatever high-count bacteria that microscope might show.

A guess stupid is as stupid does.

Beam me up, Scotty!!

10-03-2012 10:14 AM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Two letters here.

First one is the PL reinstatement letter of 1993 signed by Anaheim elders. IIRC, PL rejected the initial letter because it was unsigned.

Second is the WL allegiance letter of 1986 signed by all elders.

Things really went down hill after I left. The Lord really saved me from all that.

I'm surprised anyone is left in the local churches ...

10-03-2012 10:09 AM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I thought a large number (400?) of elders endorsed (signed?) the letter.

10-03-2012 09:19 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I think you may be thinking of the letter which was signed by over 400 elders and coworkers saying that Witness Lee was indispensable to their oneness and expressing their undying loyalty to him. (Circa 1986)

Ah. That might be it.

10-03-2012 09:13 AM

alwayslearning

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I thought a large number (400?) of elders endorsed (signed?) the letter.

10-03-2012 09:03 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, he didn't.

The signatories were:

Carl Althaus, Ed Marks, Daniel Sun, David Koo, Eugene Gruhler, Francis Ball, Albert Lim, Eric Lee, and Moses Kuo

I thought a large number (400?) of elders endorsed (signed?) the letter.

10-03-2012 09:01 AM

ZNPaaneah

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I was wondering if anyone knew whether Jackson put his name to that noxious letter about Philip Lee. And if so I was wondering what his son thinks about that.

No, he didn't.

The signatories were:

Carl Althaus, Ed Marks, Daniel Sun, David Koo, Eugene Gruhler, Francis Ball, Albert Lim, Eric Lee, and Moses Kuo

10-03-2012 08:09 AM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then Mel Porter tried out his new control technique on awareness ...

Yes, Mel came back from an Anaheim meeting with the new "The Flow of Oneness" doctrine, that started the whole mess. I disagreed with that weird doctrine -- that Witness Lee was the apostle and authority on the earth -- and the rest is history.

in the middle of it, Kangas called me from Anaheim trying to talk me into leaving Ft. Lauderdale and moving to Anaheim, even crying for me on the phone.

He made one mistake. He told me of a new flow in Anaheim. And he said some brothers were getting on board with it, but many not. My first thought was : if it was a flow of the Lord it would have included all the brothers and sisters.

I was tired of new flows, especially exclusive flows so, I didn't move to Anaheim. And the rest is history.

10-03-2012 07:47 AM

zeek

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

I don't know.

Quote:

As far as I know Mel Porter was removed from the eldership in Miami and after the controversy of the late 1980s was reinstated when being a Witness Lee fanatic became more fashionable.

I was in the church of Miami when he was removed. I know of his reinstatement only via hearsay.

Quote:

BTW I assume Bill Mallon moved to Miami to help stabilize things around the time you were kicked out. Of course down the road he was ousted too when he refused to accept Philip Lee as Witness Lee's top coworker, etc.

That occurred several years after Awareness's expulsion. I left the church after Bill Mallon came to Miami at that time.

Incidentally I considered Awareness, Gene, and another brother Bill who stood up in the meeting and said he could not accept Witness Lee to be the "Apostle of the Age" to be personal friends. Bill also left church shortly after that.

I did not stand up for my friends, because, they were accused of something about which I had no first hand factual knowledge. I felt very conflicted about this. The allegation itself was left vague in the meeting. What exactly was meant by poisoning was not clarified. Although Bill seemed to be aware of the exact nature of the poisoning i.e. denial of WL's unique apostolic status, I don't recall that being explicitly stated as the infraction in the meeting.

I was shocked and hurt by this attack on my friends. The challenge came for me next when I was labeled as a negative brother because I refused to approve of or support a lawsuit against Christians in California. Porter met weekly to pray with my wife and the wives of other brothers labeled as negative. I considered this an intrusion on the boundary of my marriage. Eventually I persuaded my wife to stop going to those meetings.

10-03-2012 07:09 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

Dale Jackson moved to Anaheim and if I'm not mistaken became an elder after Philip Lee was excommunicated. I think he may have even been one of the signatories on the repentance letter to Philip Lee which the new elders sent after John Ingalls, Al Knoch and Godfred Otuteye left.

As far as I know Mel Porter was removed from the eldership in Miami and after the controversy of the late 1980s was reinstated when being a Witness Lee fanatic became more fashionable.

BTW I assume Bill Mallon moved to Miami to help stabilize things around the time you were kicked out. Of course down the road he was ousted too when he refused to accept Philip Lee as Witness Lee's top coworker, etc.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.

I was wondering if anyone knew whether Jackson put his name to that noxious letter about Philip Lee. And if so I was wondering what his son thinks about that.

10-03-2012 06:21 AM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The three brothers were, myself, Hosepipe, and Gene. Gene was a Jewish brother that converted to Jesus. He was well read in the scriptures. He was a gentle humble brother. He was a Specials-Reading instructor for the state corrections system. He freely gave away his gift and time to help children of saints that were having reading difficulties. He had three problems for Mel ; 1) He didn't accept Lee as an apostle according to his understanding of scripture. 2) He was friends with me. 3) He was friends with Hosepipe.

Of the three only Gene stood up in a meeting to repent. But it wasn't accepted, because he stood up and said, "If I have offended anyone in word or deed please come to me after the meeting." The "if" was rejected.

This is absolutely classic Witness Lee manipulation to bring others under forced subjection. First Mel Porter informs Gene that he has "offended the body," and then demands Gene to "repent to the body." Gene, who was only desiring to follow the Lord and act according to his conscience, has no clue how he has "offended the body." Simultaneously "the body" had not an inkling that they had ever been offended by brother Gene. During the recent quarantines, the Blendeds regularly spoke of ones who have "offended the body." It is only the leaders in Anaheim who truly can know the "feeling of the body," and who it is who has "offended the body."

So Gene, in the desire to submit to his leader and to be completely reconciled with each of the saints, acquiesces to Mel Porter's demands and publicly repents, "If I have offended anyone in word or deed please come to me after the meeting." Gene is only attempting to act according to the Lord's word in Matthew, "if your brother offend you, go to him." But the problem is that none of the saints were ever offended by Gene, rather they all loved him. They all go along thinking that Gene's word is for someone else.

To the ministry zealots, however, this is totally unacceptable. How dare you say "if," and then, how dare you attempt to connect with the saints individually after the meeting! There is no "if," and there will be no contact with the saints! Don't you get it?!?

Why all the disconnect? Simple. Witness Lee, by this time, had successfully introduced into the Recovery new demands upon the saints, totally foreign to the Bible, in order to bring the whole under subjection to him. Obviously only Mel Porter and a few other local lackeys were on board with these new demands. The rest of the congregation was still stuck in their old "Biblical mindset" of placing Christ first, and only Christ! Imagine that! Mel Porter used brother Gene to "educate" the rest of the saints. He had probably just learned this technique on one of his many visits to Anaheim -- watching Witness Lee beat brothers into subjection so that they all may learn.

Classic Witness Lee control scheme! Mel Porter had learned this from "the master," and now was feeling pretty good about himself. The lust for power does that to a person.

Then Mel Porter tried out his new control technique on awareness ...

10-03-2012 06:12 AM

alwayslearning

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, I would love to hear from Dale. If he got up the guts to jump in I'm sure he'd apologize. It's not like I'm the only one that was there.

Mel and Dale may still be in the LC, but the two elders that were with Mel have since left. Pretty much the same thing that happened to me happened to them. And one of the elders, Stan Erhler (sp) apologized to me for being part of the private "take my personality" meeting.

The other elder, Don O'born, hasn't apologized, tho he's had many chances. I guess he feels that since the same thing happened to him that happened to me we're even. I love Don. Have known him since Detroit. Helped him repair his roof, after hurricane Andrew.

10-03-2012 05:51 AM

alwayslearning

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hey Legalguide, are you wearing your Perry Mason secret decoder ring?

Priceless!

10-03-2012 04:44 AM

ZNPaaneah

Re: Group Think

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

In any normal Christian church-life, what Gene said was reasonable and logical. What could be offensive to Mel, could not be offensive to another brother or sister. As I understand, if a person or persons were offended by something Gene said, Gene was making himself available for the specifc offense be brought to his attention.
As I see the problem Awareness brought forth, it is the conditional word "if". "If" Gene had done something to offend. Considering the era of the recovery, we took brothers at their word. There was no reason for skepticism. Unfortunately for Gene, the word "if" does not correspond with group think.
In the group think reality there is no conditional "if". The offense is unconditional. In the local church context, the local leadership is the group think. There is no room for contrasting points of view. Maybe it doesn't apply to every locality, but based on awareness' experience, this does seem to be the case.
Back to what I was saying, in this particular point in time what is offending Mel, as the #1 elder can say this offends the local church. A #1 elder can say this knowing the other elders and deacons know nothing about the situation. (Word given in the past "the church is not a democracy".) It can be said knowing a good portion of the local church have not been offended by anything awareness said. Has this scenario happened since? You better believe it has.

Relevant to the thread on obeying and submitting to an elder they give a definition of the authority of an elder:

"The authority of Church officers is not original, but subordinate and delegated: that is, as they are His servants, and act under His commission, and in His name, they have power only to declare what the Scriptures reveal as His will, and to pronounce sentence accordingly. If they attempt to establish any other terms of communion than those which His Word warrants; or to undertake to exercise authority in a manner which He has not authorized, they incur guilt, and have no right to exact obedience."

10-03-2012 04:41 AM

ZNPaaneah

Re: Group Think

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

This definition was from the article.

Groupthink is a mode of thinking that occurs when a homogenous, highly cohesive group (e.g., a church session, ruling board, committee, congregation) is so concerned with maintaining unanimity (i.e., striving for
agreement) that they fail to evaluate all of their alternatives and options. Sins of omission and commission occur when elders or parishioners, while isolated as a group and under either stress or pressure, engage in
groupthink and see agreement and strong solidarity as the norm. Church elders who are suffering from groupthink on a discipline issue consciously and subconsciously see the motivation to belong to the group
and to conform to its rules as paramount. The covert and overt pressure to agree becomes the stealth temptation that leads group members, as well as the group as a whole, into irrational, unethical, and even sinful behavior leading to sinful conclusions and judgments.

Reading this article it seemed he was talking directly about the LRC and the issues we have been discussing and yet it was clear he was talking about Christianity as a whole, or at the very least the reformed movement of Christianity.

What may seem to be discussions specific to the LRC may actually concern a disease infecting all Christian churches.

10-02-2012 10:38 PM

awareness

Re: Group Think

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Unfortunately . . . the word "if" does not correspond with group think.
In the group think reality there is no conditional "if". The offense is unconditional. In the local church context, the local leadership is the group think.

Considering "get out of your mind, turn to your spirit" the local church is an example of Group Unthink. Which is what Group Think really is.

Thanx, Terry, fer the link/pdf. Saved it for reading on the go ...

10-02-2012 08:58 PM

TLFisher

Group Think

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

But back to this crazy meeting. After Mel got a real lather worked up in the meeting (a froth really), he then revealed that there were three brothers ("you know who you are," he said) offending Lee's works, and they had a week to stand up in a church meeting and confess and repent before all, or be excommunicated.

The three brothers were, myself, Hosepipe, and Gene. Gene was a Jewish brother that converted to Jesus. He was well read in the scriptures. He was a gentle humble brother. He was a Specials-Reading instructor for the state corrections system. He freely gave away his gift and time to help children of saints that were having reading difficulties. He had three problems for Mel ; 1) He didn't accept Lee as an apostle according to his understanding of scripture. 2) He was friends with me. 3) He was friends with Hosepipe.

Of the three only Gene stood up in a meeting to repent. But it wasn't accepted, because he stood up and said, "If I have offended anyone in word or deed please come to me after the meeting." The "if" was rejected.

10-02-2012 07:26 PM

zeek

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

I made a correction to the previous post regarding Mr. Jackson. I do not know for a fact that Porter instructed Jackson to accuse Awareness. It just seemed as if they were colluding together at the time. Mel already had a group of young brother coordinating behind the scenes to direct the "flow" of the meetings. Jackson, although technically an "elder" was clearly subservient to Porter as long as Porter remained in Miami. I don't know how they could have known what Awareness said to the couple he supposedly had "poisoned" since they weren't present unless the couple informed them. Any way they were violating the ground of oneness since they made participation contingent on acceptance of Witness Lee as the apostle of the age. It was his refusal to accept that claim that got Awareness blacklisted.

10-02-2012 06:07 PM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

That's about the most concise yet true thing I've heard in a while.

Yes, I agree. To be honest with everyone I know that was once in the local church, including my self, the local church experience permanently "bent our tree."

10-02-2012 05:00 PM

Peter Debelak

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Existential disappointment can do that to a person.

That's about the most concise yet true thing I've heard in a while.

10-02-2012 01:08 PM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

The Local Church @ 1980 was a totalitarian bubble in the sea that was the American liberal democracy. So to understand Dale's actions one must imagine the social context. Dale probably accepted Mel's description of the facts as absolute truth. Therefore, Mel's command that awareness accuse him of the same was as justified as if he had been a first hand witness. Dale might believe that he witnessed awareness's transgression with his own eyes. That's the way the authoritarian mind works when in a subordinate position. The leader's word is Truth. That Dale was a part of a totalitarian system, makes him less personally culpable. The problem was not with Dale, but with the system of which he was a part.

Reminds me of Jesus' word to Pilate on the night He was betrayed, "He who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." -- Jn 19.11

10-02-2012 12:43 PM

zeek

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

You, on the other hand, are ranting and raving on an internet forum about comments alleged from 30+ years ago.

Existential disappointment can do that to a person.

10-02-2012 12:39 PM

zeek

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

The Local Church @ 1980 was a totalitarian bubble in the sea that was the American liberal democracy. So to understand Dale's actions one must imagine the social context. Dale probably accepted Mel's description of the facts as absolute truth. Therefore, Mel's command that he accuse awareness of the same would have been as justified as if he had been a first hand witness. Dale might believe that he witnessed awareness's transgression with his own eyes. That's the way the authoritarian mind works when in a subordinate position. The leader's word is Truth. That Dale was a part of a totalitarian system, makes him less personally culpable. The problem was not with Dale, but with the system of which he was a part.

10-02-2012 12:18 PM

zeek

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Generally speaking, when you're a brother or sister who sees no reason to play politics, nor will cowtow to anyone; anyone who associates with you will be viewed as being poisoned.
In my own experience, that explains some things....why there is no objectivity to concerns, matters, and issues.

I agree.

10-02-2012 12:15 PM

zeek

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

I agree with the facts except for the Detroit part. Jackson was not from Detroit according to my memory. Mel Porter advised me in a face to face conversation that "WE need more brothers like Dale who has a knack for making a lot of money."

Quote:

When I was in the process of being excommunicated by Mel Porter it was Dale Jackson that stood up in a fanatical meeting and accused me of poisoning a couple my wife and I had had lunch with earlier in the day ; an outright lie.

That's right; I was there.

Quote:

Beside being told by Mel that if I were to go on in the church I'd have to, "take his personality as my personality, and, if I needed to blow my nose I had to ask him which side first," Mel also told me I had to stand up and confess my sin of rejection of Witness Lee's apostleship in a meeting. When I said Dale Jackson had to also admit in a meeting that he told a lie about me, Mel said "no, Dale doesn't have to confess anything."

I was not a party to this conversation.

Quote:

So as far as I'm concerned Dale Jackson is a chump, and deserves is name to be dragged out in public. The fact that he's still in the LC speaks volumes about him, and his lack of sound mind.

If his kids are in the LC I feel sorry for them.

Apparently you see him as an enemy. Therefore, if you are still following Jesus, you are called to love him.

10-02-2012 11:51 AM

TLFisher

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The Sunday morning meeting of the excommunication evening meeting nothing significant happened. After the meeting Danny and Kathy invited my wife and I to have lunch at their house. We knew them since the C. in Santa Cruz, Ca. where we all came into the LC. Danny and Kathy were sweet saints, and were not involved in any controversy going on at the time. And it stayed that way during lunch and fellowship afterwords. The only strange thing that happened was when we went out to enjoy the beautiful South Florida day. We noticed about a half a dozen brothers out on their porch about 5 houses down across the street. They were pointing our way. We waved at them and shouted Praise the Lord, with no response from them. We thought nothing of it.

But it made sense in the evening meeting. The evening meeting started off like any other meeting. There was no sign that before it was over the whole place would turn into bizarre-o-land.

A few brothers gave some testimonies and then Dale Jackson stood up. He said something along the line of : "Today a brother had lunch at Danny and Kathy's house and he poisoned them against Witness Lee. And this brother should stand up and confess and repent before the whole church." My name wasn't mentioned, but those close to Danny and Kathy, and my wife and I, knew who Dale was talking about ... and certainly we knew who he was talking about.

Still, I didn't stand up and confess because I had nothing to confess. There was no truth at all in what Dale said. Plus, there was no way he could have known what went on at lunch unless Danny and/or Kathy told, or my wife had told. And they would have had nothing on the order of poisoning to tell. Nothing like that happened in any way shape or form. I was dumbfounded.

10-02-2012 08:28 AM

ZNPaaneah

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

A PM is not necessary. I'm sure he is checking the site and, of course, he and Dale are welcome to respond. I'm sure we would all like to hear Dale's side of the story. But if history is any teacher, we won't get it.

Also, I believe awareness would be open to a direct PM from the Jackson camp.

In general, I would encourage reconciliation. But that requires being honest about one's offenses.

Requesting a response is standard practice for any reputable publisher (NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News, etc). There is little extra effort, and then if there is no response you have eliminated the "I didn't see it response" so you raise the credibility. Not responding is considered a de facto acknowledgement of the truth, just as "No contest" is treated similarly to pleading guilty.

10-02-2012 07:34 AM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

10-02-2012 07:17 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is it safe to assume that the relevant parties in South Florida are aware of this thread and that a lack of response is a de facto admission to the basic facts? Perhaps a PM by the moderator to Plenteous inviting them to respond would be warranted?

10-02-2012 05:56 AM

ZNPaaneah

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

10-02-2012 05:37 AM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

That said, awareness' story should not be buried simply because Jackson or his family object to his name being mentioned on the Internet in an unflattering way. Jackson was a leader of a church and he used his authority to aid in the unrighteous public discipline of a brother in Christ. This should not be surprising at all because it has happened so many times in the history of this movement. The only people who don't seem to realize that are the people still in it.

If awareness' story, now told in detail, is even close to being true, the action against him carried out by Mel Porter with the aid of Jackson is inexcusable and should be recorded publicly as yet another instance of the demented, abusive religious state of the LC movement in those days--a state which, though more refined in the current day, is no less dangerous, as those abused by the movement in the 21st century can testify.

People deserve to be warned about this movement. History also should record these matters so that others can better appreciate and understand the failings of closed, controlling, hyper-zealous, secretive, hubristic religious societies like the Local Church movement.

It is ironic to me that Jackson's son claimed awareness was "wild" and "ranting and raving" in his mentions of Jackson. Given awareness' calm and even good-natured detailed recollection of the mess he was subject to in Miami, that seems to be a false reading.

It seems to me it was the leadership in Miami, led by Porter and Jackson, which were the ones wildly ranting and raving, back when it was easier to get away with such things because there was no Internet on which to report it.

Where's that little button that says "I approve of this post"?

10-01-2012 10:05 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

I've separated the early posts from the Dale Jackson thread. Please leave that thread to the intent of the original poster, which was to simply exchange personal information about Jackson. Dale Jackson's name has been removed from the thread title and post titles of this new thread. I believe that is reasonable.

That said, awareness' story should not be buried simply because Jackson or his family object to his name being mentioned on the Internet in an unflattering way. Jackson was a leader of a church and he used his authority to aid in the unrighteous public discipline of a brother in Christ. This should not be surprising at all because it has happened so many times in the history of this movement. The only people who don't seem to realize that are the people still in it.

If awareness' story, now told in detail, is even close to being true, the action against him carried out by Mel Porter with the aid of Jackson is inexcusable and should be recorded publicly as yet another instance of the demented, abusive religious state of the LC movement in those days--a state which, though more refined in the current day, is no less dangerous, as those abused by the movement in the 21st century can testify.

People deserve to be warned about this movement. History also should record these matters so that others can better appreciate and understand the failings of closed, controlling, hyper-zealous, secretive, hubristic religious societies like the Local Church movement.

It is ironic to me that Jackson's son claimed awareness was "wild" and "ranting and raving" in his mentions of Jackson. Given awareness' calm and even good-natured detailed recollection of the mess he was subject to in Miami, that seems to be a false reading.

It seems to me it was the leadership in Miami, led by Porter and Jackson, which were the ones wildly ranting and raving, back when it was easier to get away with such things because there was no Internet on which to report it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Anyway, Mel got worked up, and started proclaiming, "If you are not with us then get out." And he was pumping his fist in the air, repeating it over and over. Then the whole meeting went into bizarre-o-land, and the whole church (except for me) were up on their feet proclaiming what Mel said while pumping the air ... "IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, THEN GET OUT ... IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, THEN GET OUT ..." It was a frenzy right before my eyes. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The light came on and revealed a cult. It killed any fondness I had for the local church. It broke whatever was in me that made me believe in the local church.

10-01-2012 03:32 PM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legalguide

Please bear in mind that post#6 would be considered libelous by US law. They would be considered assertion of fact, not opinion. The person in question would not be considered a public figure. And the burden of proof on the factual veracity of those statements in post #6 would be on the person who said them. The person, or in this case persons libeled are not responsible to prove the statement is false, only that they are harmed by it. The person making the statement would have to prove the statement is true in order to reduce or eliminate any court judgement. Also, the objection made by the parties that have been named is sufficient in the eyes of the legal system to constitute a request for a retraction. Publishing a retraction will also reduce a court judgement, but failing to do so would also be considered in determining damages.

Also, the general rule is that anyone who repeats a defamatory statement is just as liable as the person who originally made it.

Best,

LG

Just one more indicator that Living Stream Ministry churches are a cult ; like Scientology they're sue happy.

10-01-2012 01:16 PM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

So awareness, just so we're all clear. Now that you've refreshed your memory, what exactly did Dale Jackson do to you specifically that you consider abusive? (Here I siding with Peter, asking for more facts.)

Okay, here's how it went down. This was near the end of 1980.

The elders were meeting for prayer before the Sunday morning meetings. I asked Mel if the prayer meeting was open or closed. He told me it was open. So I was meeting with them.

I had made it very public that I disagreed with "The Flow of Oneness" which was that the river if life flowed from Christ on the throne, carrying the authority of the throne, to the apostle on the earth, Witness Lee. The Flow of Oneness was being pushed very hard by Mel Porter. In the Sunday morning prayer meeting, when the elders prayed for the flow of oneness, I countered with a prayer for the oneness in the Spirit, and the oneness in Christ. I did the same in the meetings when testimony was given for the flow of oneness. I got plenty of amen's when doing so. Who can disagree with the oneness in Spirit/Christ?

But Mel caught on to what I meant ; that I was speaking of the oneness in Spirit as opposed to oneness by following Witness Lee.

So Mel started an assault on me, and things were heating up. The week before this excommunication meeting I came to pray with the elders on Sunday morning. The meeting hall was empty, but I could hear the Tape/Recording service group meeting behind closed doors. And as I ascended the stairs to the elders meeting I could hear them praying against me specifically by name. I stood and listened amused for a minute or so, laughed, and went on my way not thinking much of it ; not realizing that things were soon coming to a head for me.

The Sunday morning meeting of the excommunication evening meeting nothing significant happened. After the meeting Danny and Kathy invited my wife and I to have lunch at their house. We knew them since the C. in Santa Cruz, Ca. where we all came into the LC. Danny and Kathy were sweet saints, and were not involved in any controversy going on at the time. And it stayed that way during lunch and fellowship afterwords. The only strange thing that happened was when we went out to enjoy the beautiful South Florida day. We noticed about a half a dozen brothers out on their porch about 5 houses down across the street. They were pointing our way. We waved at them and shouted Praise the Lord, with no response from them. We thought nothing of it.

But it made sense in the evening meeting. The evening meeting started off like any other meeting. There was no sign that before it was over the whole place would turn into bizarre-o-land.

A few brothers gave some testimonies and then Dale Jackson stood up. He said something along the line of : "Today a brother had lunch at Danny and Kathy's house and he poisoned them against Witness Lee. And this brother should stand up and confess and repent before the whole church." My name wasn't mentioned, but those close to Danny and Kathy, and my wife and I, knew who Dale was talking about ... and certainly we knew who he was talking about.

Still, I didn't stand up and confess because I had nothing to confess. There was no truth at all in what Dale said. Plus, there was no way he could have known what went on at lunch unless Danny and/or Kathy told, or my wife had told. And they would have had nothing on the order of poisoning to tell. Nothing like that happened in any way shape or form. I was dumbfounded. Why would Dale claim such a thing?

Then Mel stood up, and said something on the order of : "There are brothers in the church that are trying to destroy Witness Lee's works. They are even using Witness Lee's works to try and destroy Witness Lee's works" (if that logic doesn't cause you to go cross-eyed I don't know what will).

Anyway, Mel got worked up, and started proclaiming, "If you are not with us then get out." And he was pumping his fist in the air, repeating it over and over. Then the whole meeting went into bizarre-o-land, and the whole church (except for me) were up on their feet proclaiming what Mel said while pumping the air ... "IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, THEN GET OUT ... IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US, THEN GET OUT ..." It was a frenzy right before my eyes. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The light came on and revealed a cult. It killed any fondness I had for the local church. It broke whatever was in me that made me believe in the local church.

But back to this crazy meeting. After Mel got a real lather worked up in the meeting (a froth really), he then revealed that there were three brothers ("you know who you are," he said) offending Lee's works, and they had a week to stand up in a church meeting and confess and repent before all, or be excommunicated.

The three brothers were, myself, Hosepipe, and Gene. Gene was a Jewish brother that converted to Jesus. He was well read in the scriptures. He was a gentle humble brother. He was a Specials-Reading instructor for the state corrections system. He freely gave away his gift and time to help children of saints that were having reading difficulties. He had three problems for Mel ; 1) He didn't accept Lee as an apostle according to his understanding of scripture. 2) He was friends with me. 3) He was friends with Hosepipe.

Of the three only Gene stood up in a meeting to repent. But it wasn't accepted, because he stood up and said, "If I have offended anyone in word or deed please come to me after the meeting." The "if" was rejected.

Hosepipe hadn't been to a meeting in a couple of months. He didn't have a clue that he had something to repent of, and didn't care if they excommunicated him.

I wasn't convicted in my conscience that I had done anything wrong and therefore wasn't going to repent for anything. I had been using Witness works (books writings) to point out where we had gone wrong.

When the week was up, a couple of hours before the evening meeting, the elders showed up at my door. They asked my wife to leave and then I found out what was really going on.

Mel started out by telling me that there were two churches in Ft. Lauderdale. He was the leader of one, and I was the leader of the other half. This was clearly delusional on Mel's part. There wasn't a shred of evidence that I was leading anyone, and I told him so. But Mel was obviously suffering from paranoia. He saw me as an insurrectionist against his authority. So in his mind I had to be dealt with and demonized.

The process started with me being accused of poisoning others. And when it was all over Mel told everyone not to fellowship or having anything to do with me because, I was a snake that would poison them.

And Dale Jackson was used by Mel to target me, and begin the process of demonizing me. If he's guilty of anything it was being Mels' patsy.

I did find out one positive thing about Dale Jackson. Yesterday I was talking to a brother I've know since the C. in Detroit. He stayed in the LC for another three years after I left. He was in Miami when Dale was an elder under Mel. He said, compared to Mel, Dale was a breath of fresh air. He said, at least when Dale gave a sermon it was coherent. While Mel's sermons were so incoherent that you couldn't understand what he was saying.

Mel was, and prolly still is, a mental case. He's local church crazy. Putting any kind of power in his hands is insane. He's an abuser.

09-30-2012 07:54 PM

UntoHim

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Hey Legalguide,
#1 Whatever law school you went to, you need to hurry up up and get a refund before they go out of business.

#2 "Public Figure" is equal to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If the Admin of this forum considers you a public figure then you are a public figure. The previous Admin (moi) and now the current Admin, has considered an Elder or Ministry leader (Co-Worker, LSM official, Blender brother, etc, etc...) to be a public figure. If you don't want to be a public figure then don't get up in public and denounce others in a public manner - which is exactly what awareness claims was done to him. If the public figure (in question) wants to defend the actions that he did in a public manner, then he is perfectly welcome to come on this public forum and give his side of the story. He will not be censored (except for foul language or using names of non-public figures.)

#3 Man up, since (errr...if) you are a registered member why don't you just post under that name so we can all understand where you are coming from.
Just sayin....

09-30-2012 03:34 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legalguide

Hey Legalguide, are you wearing your Perry Mason secret decoder ring?

09-30-2012 01:31 PM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legalguide

Dale Jackson is an church elder, and therefore a public figure. His wife's name, however, should be deleted.

It is highly doubtful that opinions of former members posted on obscure religious boards would rise to the level of being considered "assertion of fact." Do not our 1st amendment rights provide us protections to speak of past painful experiences of church involvement, especially since any such discussions are regularly shut down within the movement.

If discussions like these by anonymous former members can be litigated, how about the defamation activities regularly performed by LSM during their very public quarantines?

What LegalGuide should have advised us on is how a class action suit could be initiated by all the former members represented here.

LegalGuide are you connected with LSM's Defense and Confirmation Project?

09-30-2012 11:52 AM

Peter Debelak

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legalguide

LG:

There is a robust community of people here, who come from various perspectives and experiences. There is a very good amount of self-policing, and plenty of apologizing.

Given that there's been some intense hurt of those who emerged from the LC, there is bound to be heightened feelings and opinions. But, I think it is notable how well the group pursues truth, challenges one another on opinion and fact, and how often such inquiries result in either apologies or real revelations of fact.

In light of that, I'm not sure what your purpose is here. You aren't a regular commentator, dipping into your professional experience to aid the group. You've come out of no where to issue what can only be construed as a borderline threat. I doubt it would be taken as a threat if you had established a report of being interested in the dialogue here. But given that your ONLY post is regarding legal liability, its hard to read otherwise.

That said, I won't leave things to my deductions and I'll just ask: What's your interest here?

Thanks.

In Love,

Peter

09-30-2012 06:35 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

09-29-2012 07:45 PM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Plenteous, we're not talking about two different Dale Jackson's. The problem is me and my bad memory.

Since being questioned about Dale and Detroit I've been racking my brain. I even talked to a brother and sister that were in the C of Detroit and they couldn't help me sort it out. Hosepipe told me he didn't think Dale came from Detroit ... but couldn't be certain.

During all this mental activity I took a nap. I awoke like my memory had been flashed during sleep.

And I was wrong about Dale and Detroit. The brother I was thinking of was Dennis (can't give last name - he was never an elder). He worked for Asplundh Tree Service in Detroit, and transferred when the C in Detroit, under orders from On High-headquarters-Witness Lee, migrated to Ft. Lauderdale. In Ft. Lauderdale, he left Asplundh and worked a crew for Doyle Young's Tree Service. I think that's where my wires got crossed, cuz both Dennis and Dale worked for Doyle.

Other memories came back too. Like Dale was the son of a Baptist preacher, and had a preachers' sounding voice.

So I apologize to brother Plenteous for that error.

And I apologize also for being so rough on Dale. We were all young and dumb back then. And did stupid things. It's like we were in the dark looking for the light switch and were told Witness Lee was the switch ... and we went all freaky and irrational about it. I know I did, well, as long as I believed that I was in God's move on the earth. Mel Porter made it obvious that I was actually in man's movement on the earth, dressed to appear as God.

And I do feel sorry for those still in the LC -- like I feel sorry for those in Scientology -- especially the leaders ... and especially for what use to be my good friend Ron Kangas. I really loved him. Why he became the brewer of the kool-aid is beyond my understanding. I can't even put it together in my imagination. It's like Kangas lost all his intelligence. And he's smart, or was.

But that's because God blessed me by forcing it in my face, with that fanatical excommunication meeting, and ridiculous stipulation made by Mel Porter (Mel never had any sense anyway - and wasn't an elder because he was smart or spiritually mature. He was an elder because he was blindly loyal to Lee & Co... that was clearly the requirement for Lee to elect you as an elder.)

So I saw unambiguously, with no shadows, that the local church was/is a cult. Actually all that I know that left the LC, best friends still today, have no doubt that they were in a cult, and openly admit it. Some, like me, as a result, have an obsession with cults. I've read about many of them ... and continue to do so today. Cults usurp critical thinking, and self determination and personal responsibly ... putting it on the group and leader. They produce a mental disorder, such as we see in Tom Cruse. I was mental back then. One of my dear friends had to leave the local church to keep his sanity. He was literally going crazy ... but had sense enough to stop drinking the kool-aid ... and sober up.

Ya can't be sober in the LC. You can only pretend to be sober. Kangas was a gifted pretender, and learned the value of feigning sincerity. Can't you see it in his body language, and hear it in his voice. It's there. His wife saw thru it, even back in Detroit.

Oh, it's not obvious while drunk on the kool-aid.

09-29-2012 11:18 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Plenteous,

I don't know the total history of your father, but I do know that if he was as decent as you claim he would have had severe reservations about the Local Church movement. Either that, or he remained ignorant about what was really going on in it.

Either way, I truly hope for your sake that there are two Dale Jacksons. In that case, it's simply an unfortunate misunderstanding and you can move on, knowing that there is still the possibility your father was not abusive, even though there was never a doubt he signed onto a movement that is.

09-29-2012 08:59 AM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plenteous

Awareness, no one in my family has ever lived in Detroit. So, your assertion that you knew my father "from the time he came into the LC in the church in Detroit" is nonsense, and casts doubt on all your other recollections.

Second, even if events occurred as you describe, a person's assertion that you "poisoned a couple" is not an "outright lie;" it is a subjective characterization.

Your attitude is disgusting--calling my father a "chump" and saying that he "deserves his name to be dragged out in public." You may disagree with his views regarding Witness Lee, but my father is a quiet man and a man of high integrity.

Lastly, my brother and I do not need your pity. Everyone in my family is doing well. You, on the other hand, are ranting and raving on an internet forum about comments alleged from 30+ years ago.

Well now, maybe we're talking about two different Dale Jackson's. The Dale I knew worked for Asplundh Tree in Detroit, and for Doyle Young's tree service in Ft. Lauderdale. You could ask Ron Kangas, he was lead elder in Detroit. A dear friend of mine, known out here as Hosepipe, was a close friend of Dale in Ft. Lauderdale, and talked him into applying at an opening at a stock brokerage, cuz Dale was gifted with numbers. That was the best advice for Dale financially. All this was before you were born.

Look, I really liked Dale, in Detroit and in Ft. Lauderdale, until he drank the kool-aid in the LC and changed for the worse. But perhaps it's not Dale's fault. Mel Porter, the lead elder back then, was using brothers as spy's. And he was using 14 brothers to seed the meetings so they would go his way. So much for Spirit led meetings. All this done in secret. And Dale may have fallen for Mel's dirty tricks.

In the end, no matter what Dale said or did, it all goes back to Mel Porter. He was the one brewing the kool-aid in the church in Ft. Lauderdale ; mixing with the real kool-aid brewed by Witness Lee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plenteous

You, on the other hand, are ranting and raving on an internet forum about comments alleged from 30+ years ago.

And there goes another lie we were told in the LC, that, if we left the local church God would strike us dead. I know lots that left the LC back in those days. None of them that I know personally have died.

And Plenteous, sorry if I've bashed your father. To be honest what Dale said about me was a minor concern compared to the meeting he spoke it in. After Dale said what he said Mel Porter stood up and said : "There are those among us that are trying to destroy Witness Lee's works. You know who you are. You have one week to stand up in a meeting and confess your sins, or you will be excommunicated. If you are not for us then get out." Then he pumped his fist in the air and chanted "If you are not for us then get out" ... repeating it until the whole meeting joined him in pumping fists and chanting "if you're not for us get out" over and over again. It was insane.

And for the first time in 10 years I saw that I was in a cult. And within a week Mel told me that if I was to go on the the church I had to take his personality as my own, and if I wanted to blow my nose I had to ask him which side first. And that was it. The final straw. It was clear to me that the local church was/is a cult. I had to get out.

And Plenteous, it doesn't matter if you believe me or not. You have your own cognitive dissonance to deal with.

09-29-2012 07:50 AM

Plenteous

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

One last thing--you seem to be missing the point about "subjective characterization." An "outright lie" means that someone willfully said something he knew to be a falsehood in order to deceive people. Saying that someone "poisoned" someone else, whatever you think of the terminology, is not an "outright lie." It is someone's interpretation. I could say that Awareness slandered my father, and he might say that's an "outright lie" because he thinks he's right. Yet, that doesn't mean it so. I could also say that Awareness told an "outright lie" when he said he knew my father in Detroit. But, again, that doesn't make it an accurate use of the phrase.

And, I'm not making a comment about "poisoning" because it's not even relevant to my point. Saying, "Note that he chose not deny that awareness was accused of poisoning" is a red herring. I didn't deny it because I wasn't there, not because I want to make a "classic LC rationalization."

Please be more careful.

09-29-2012 07:36 AM

Plenteous

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Igzy, what you wrote was, "Though your father may be a good man in many ways, you may have to deal with the fact that he took part in these sorts of things as well."

I have known my father my whole life. Most likely, you had never even heard of him until reading this thread. Yet, you ask me to reassess my understanding of him based on the wild statements of someone who may have known him for one or two years in the 1970s, and who claims to have known him "from the time he came into the LC in the church in Detroit" (which is not even possible).

Peter is right. Clearly, my interest here is not to discuss the local churches "writ large." If it were not for this thread, I would not even be here. What is most disturbing to me is that Awareness directed his nasty posts toward me personally--in order to tear down one of my parents. Then, you defend that and say that I should be apologetic for something we don't even know is true (while calling me a fanatic), and which appears to be refuted by the original poster of the thread. I did not stumble into a discussion that was already taking place. Awareness wrote the way he did purposefully--because he saw that I, the son of a man he thinks offended him before I was even born, was reading it. That is extremely disturbing.

09-29-2012 06:42 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

In other words, it is neither this forum's nor my place to determine guilt or innocence. The purpose of my posts was to remind both sides that they may need to adjust their thinking. I thought I was doing that with my posts. I suggested awareness tone it down and I suggested Plenteous rethink the possibility that his father may have abused members. I think that's reasonable.

09-29-2012 06:38 AM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I did not enter into that. What I said was I have no reason to doubt awareness story. That is, give his story and Plenteous story, I'm inclined to believe awareness, simply because of the tendency of the LC leaders.

Now that does not mean I declare that Dale Jackson is guilty. That's not my place. All I was suggesting that Plenteous realize it's quite possible.

His post, particularly the description of calling "poisoning" a "subjective characterization." was a classic LC rationalization. Note that he chose not deny that awareness was accused of poisoning, but that doing so could be valid according to one's "subjective" registration.

To me it would have been more honest to simply say "I'm sorry if someone accused you of poisoning because that never should have happened."

09-28-2012 10:16 PM

Peter Debelak

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

I, for one, will not enter into "Those guys did it, so that means this guy did it." Especially when the only account from an understandably frustrated person is disputed from both his relative (which should be taken with skeptism) AND another, non-related poster.

That is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. There were many abuses in the LC. The fact that abuses in the LC occurred is NOT an argument, in any way, that a PARTICULAR person committed abuses.

awareness has made some accusations. I don't have any immediate reason to doubt him and, yes, the nature of the LC makes me inclined to believe him. But his assertions have been challenged. Yes, by a relative. But also by another poster - indeed, the author of this thread.

That's enough to ask more questions, let alone refrain from chastizing those who disagree with his assertions, as if it's obviously true that Dale Jackson abused people.

On a forum where the very subject matter is critique, it behooves us to be more vigalent, not less, to hear the other side.

09-28-2012 10:05 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

P.S. This is not a defense of Dale Jackson. But the point is, there has been NO DISCUSSION OF FACTS. What I see is one man's account and other's agreeing simply because similar events may have happened elsewhere. That's shady, in my opinion.

I'll start with this statement of yours first. What do you mean no discussion of facts? Awareness recounted an incident. How much detail would you like there to be to consider it "facts." I have no reason to disbelieve him that the people he names were involved. Though his misrecollection of cities is bothersome.

Quote:

This is a very personal thread that is connected to very specific persons and very specific events.

I can personally attest that an attack on a SPECIFIC man to make an otherwise true GENERAL point about the LC is a very specious approach.

I didn't attack anyone. I said that I had no reason to disbelieve awareness' assertion that the incident he described took place.

Quote:

Make the broad points about the LC abuses on another thread.

The reason I made that "broad point" is that Plenteous tried to defend his father by making the "broad point" that he was a good man. He seemed to either be totally unaware of or conveniently ignoring the fact that abusive disciplinary practices were a way of life in the LC.

Quote:

So far, on this thread, I see awareness being very accusatory and defamatory toward Dale Jackson. There has not been a vetting of the truth of his assertions. The only thing we have is Dale's brother claiming he is wrong and the thread-author (MicahG) agreeing with him. That puts awareness in the hot seat, not Dale Jackson.

Vetting will not happen. It's he said/she said.

My point was that Plenteous showed no sympathy for awareness at all, as if it would be impossible for his father to take part in such things. Given what we know about what's expected of LC leaders, that's a facetious position. Given the history of the LC, it should not be surprising to anyone that any elder took part in such things. From what I saw most if not all of them thought that kind of thing was service to the Lord.

This is not to say that all were guilty of this. It's just that I think it's a bit naive to act shocked that any of them might do it.

09-28-2012 09:27 PM

Peter Debelak

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Dear Plenteous,

This is far from the only story I've heard about these kinds of practices. It sounds just like many others I'm heard of, many from first hand reports, and some I've observed myself. The LC engaged in fanatical disciplinary practices which caused serious psychological damage to many.

Although I cringe at and have learned to filter awareness' hyperbole, I don't doubt for a minute that he was abused along the lines he describes. He's either completely crazy or something serious happened to him.

When I say fanatical I mean having a set of values which cause otherwise decent people to do things that are not reasonable. It is not reasonable to consider speaking against Witness Lee as "poisoning." Why put things in such inflammatory, one-sided terms?

I don't have any reason to doubt that you and your father are generally good people and Christians. But the fact is the LC movement made fanatics of us all. It made us do things to people in Christ's name that someday we will be ashamed of in His presence. Though your father may be a good man in many ways, you may have to deal with the fact that he took part in these sorts of things as well.

Igzy,

This is a very personal thread that is connected to very specific persons and very specific events.

I can personally attest that an attack on a SPECIFIC man to make an otherwise true GENERAL point about the LC is a very specious approach.

Make the broad points about the LC abuses on another thread.

So far, on this thread, I see awareness being very accusatory and defamatory toward Dale Jackson. There has not been a vetting of the truth of his assertions. The only thing we have is Dale's brother claiming he is wrong and the thread-author (MicahG) agreeing with him. That puts awareness in the hot seat, not Dale Jackson.

Plenteous was not defending the LC writ large. He was defending his brother. That doesn't mean he agrees with the LC abuses you are arguing against. Just because "these practices" (as you say) occurred, even routinely, in the LC, does not mean that Dale Jackson engaged in them.. You know better.

Peter

P.S. This is not a defense of Dale Jackson. But the point is, there has been NO DISCUSSION OF FACTS. What I see is one man's account and other's agreeing simply because similar events may have happened elsewhere. That's shady, in my opinion.

P.P.S. Awareness: I don't know how to discuss the things you have experienced. My comments here are not meant as a slight to you or the things you have experienced. I know full well the kind of abuse men have suffered in the midst of men-pleasing-group-think. I don't doubt your experience at all. But we do have a conflict of accounts. I've read enough of your posts to know that you get that means another look and some objectivity is necessary.

09-28-2012 09:01 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plenteous

Igzy, Awareness is old enough to be my father (at least). I am a young man. It is difficult for me to respond graciously to someone who would recklessly post this kind of venom:

Please read that again.

In a later post, he compares me and my father to schizophrenics. No one invited these vicious attacks. Now, you have said that I, and/or my father, are brain-washed and fanatical and unable to "engage in balanced, independent thought."

All of this is based on Awareness' uncorroborated account of a meeting decades ago.

How am I expected to respond?

09-28-2012 08:57 PM

MicahG

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

All I wanted was to contact this brother. I am sorry the thread broke out into this controversy. I hesitate to make further remarks but I think it is needed based on the direction this thread has taken. Based on his account I believe I know who awareness is. In those days in Ft Lauderdale he was as rude and troublesome as he is here. His perspective is very skewed. I will not say more than that specifically because I don't think any of this mudslinging is appropriate, but all of you should be cautious before embracing his rhetoric. You do not know the facts.

Actually, since this thread served my original purpose to get in contact with the family, I would rather the thread be deleted now. I don't know if I can do that.

Regarding Mel Porter, Mel was a very authoritarian and controlling brother in Ft. Lauderdale and Miami. That is true. However, he was removed from Miami because of the the saints suffering under this behavior and it was Dale Jackson that helped the saints during that time. The way awareness has painted Dale is really ridiculous if you knew him personally. Dale was always a very mild-mannered and lovely brother and cared for a lot of people in a very genuine way.

09-28-2012 08:40 PM

Plenteous

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Dear Plenteous,

Though I appreciate and respect your instinct to defend your dear father from public accusation, I feel you have zero sympathy for the pain awareness was put through by the inexcusable disciplinary practices of the Local Church movement. This is typical of LC loyalists. They don't give a whit about the pain the movement has caused. That's a sign of fanaticism.

You and I both know what "poisoning" meant in the LC movement. It meant saying something negative about Witness Lee or his teachings. In other words, "poisoning" was to verbally resist the brain-washing of this movement in oneself and others. Calling speaking against Witness Lee "poisoning" is not a subjective characterization--it's a fanatical characterization. Only someone seriously lacking in the ability to engage in balanced, independent thought would put such a thing in such terms.

I don't approve of awaresness' caustic words and I feel he needs to let things go and move on. Life is too short. But your clear lack of sympathy for the suffering this man who Christ died for was put through confirms what I already know about the LC movement. It was about sacrificing many people for one man's vision, and awareness was one of those thrown under the bus for Witness Lee's sake.

Igzy, Awareness is old enough to be my father (at least). I am a young man. It is difficult for me to respond graciously to someone who would recklessly post this kind of venom:

Quote:

Please read that again.

In a later post, he compares me and my father to schizophrenics. No one invited these vicious attacks. Now, you have said that I, and/or my father, are brain-washed and fanatical and unable to "engage in balanced, independent thought."

All of this is based on Awareness' uncorroborated account of a meeting decades ago.

How am I expected to respond?

09-28-2012 08:21 PM

Cal

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plenteous

Dear Plenteous,

Though I appreciate and respect your instinct to defend your dear father from public accusation, I feel you have zero sympathy for the pain awareness was put through by the inexcusable disciplinary practices of the Local Church movement. This is typical of LC loyalists. They don't give a whit about the pain the movement has caused. That's a sign of fanaticism.

You and I both know what "poisoning" meant in the LC movement. It meant saying something negative about Witness Lee or his teachings. In other words, "poisoning" was to verbally resist the brain-washing of this movement in oneself and others. Calling speaking against Witness Lee "poisoning" is not a subjective characterization--it's a fanatical characterization. Only someone seriously lacking in the ability to engage in balanced, independent thought would put such a thing in such terms.

I don't approve of awaresness' caustic words and I feel he needs to let things go and move on. Life is too short. But your clear lack of sympathy for the suffering this man whom Christ died for was put through confirms what I already know about the LC movement. It was about sacrificing many people for one man's vision, and awareness was one of those thrown under the bus for Witness Lee's sake.

09-28-2012 06:57 PM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plenteous

Second, even if events occurred as you describe, a person's assertion that you "poisoned a couple" is not an "outright lie;" it is a subjective characterization.

I really don't know the circumstances surrounding these events, but I did think it was interesting that what one person calls an "outright lie," another labels a "subjective characterization." Can someone parse out the finer nuances for me?

09-28-2012 03:46 PM

Plenteous

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

09-28-2012 01:02 PM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Thanks bro Ohio for your kind, considerate, and wise words ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like the Roman Catholic Church, and their reasoning's for covering up the pedophile priests. And like a local conservative Southern Baptist church here, who's preacher got caught and confessed to stealing from church members, and raping a single sister. Did they call local authorities? No, they fired him and sent him on his way with, a letter of good recommendation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, they did serve to help you depart, but the bitterness we experienced can eat at us if we do not forgive them from the heart as the Lord has forgiven us. If we don't forgive, then we become enslaved to the poison of betrayal, like a Judas' kiss, which can eat at us for decades.

Everyone I know that has left the local church admits that the LC had a lasting effect upon their lives -- most negative -- that it permanently "bent the tree." And that is true for both, those that forgive, and those that don't

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord has instructed us to willingly forgive as He has, and allow Him to deal with His children as He desires, as He has said, "vengeance is Mine, I will repay." Ours, however, is to love, as He has loved us and proved how much He loved us by opening up His arms to us on the cross.

Doesn't Jesus love way more than we are capable? Would he really seek vengeance over such a minor matter?

I'm a victim of the LC ... and so are you. But the real victims are those still in the LC, and especially the leaders, like Dale Jackson, Ron Kangas, et al (and their kids). We should pity them. Delusion may not be as bad as schizophrenia, that disables the afflicted from living a normal life ... but on second thought, maybe it is. What's normal about the local church of Witness Lee? Could the Blended Brothers ever be considered normal?

Forgiving them is good ... but it's impossible to keep up with ... as they don't stop needing forgiveness. They need more than forgiveness. They need to wake up from the local church spell and delusions.

09-28-2012 08:13 AM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Well it doesn't really matter if I forgive him or not. I would do so if I saw any sign that he repented. But given he's in leadership roles in the LC, and is still propagating the fanaticism and delusions of the LC system it's clear there's been no repentance.

I would, however, like to shake his hand and thank him for his part in bouncing me out of the LC. God worked it out for good, as far as I'm concerned.

And bro Ohio, I'm sorry you had to go thru something similar.

The Recovery became diseased with the sickness of man-pleasing long ago. Many have traded long-term friendships for for a few loyalty perks. Most of them don't have a clue what they have done, thinking that they were just protecting the "testimony of our Lord" and her "faithful servants."

Yes, they did serve to help you depart, but the bitterness we experienced can eat at us if we do not forgive them from the heart as the Lord has forgiven us. If we don't forgive, then we become enslaved to the poison of betrayal, like a Judas' kiss, which can eat at us for decades. The Lord has instructed us to willingly forgive as He has, and allow Him to deal with His children as He desires, as He has said, "vengeance is Mine, I will repay." Ours, however, is to love, as He has loved us and proved how much He loved us by opening up His arms to us on the cross.

09-28-2012 06:34 AM

awareness

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, he probably is a dear brother, but the Recovery demands an allegiance to man, in the name of oneness, which oftentimes forces brothers to "bear false witness" against other brothers in their attempt to maintain a good standing in the program.

I also have been betrayed by a brother who was forced to save his own neck by providing mine. I have found that the best way to be released from this bitter event to to forgive them.

09-28-2012 05:38 AM

Ohio

Re: Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

09-28-2012 12:01 AM

awareness

Experiences in South Florida Around 1980

I knew Dale Jackson from the time he came into the LC in the church in Detroit. I have zero fondness for Dale Jackson. It was stockmarket money that propelled him to the top in the local church, that, and his blind loyalty to the local church authority ; Mel Porter and Witness Lee.

When I was in the process of being excommunicated by Mel Porter it was Dale Jackson that stood up in a fanatical meeting and accused me of poisoning a couple my wife and I had had lunch with earlier in the day ; an outright lie.

Beside being told by Mel that if I were to go on in the church I'd have to, "take his personality as my personality, and, if I needed to blow my nose I had to ask him which side first," Mel also told me I had to stand up and confess my sin of rejection of Witness Lee's apostleship in a meeting. When I said Dale Jackson had to also admit in a meeting that he told a lie about me, Mel said "no, Dale doesn't have to confess anything."

So as far as I'm concerned Dale Jackson is a chump, and deserves is name to be dragged out in public. The fact that he's still in the LC speaks volumes about him, and his lack of sound mind.

If his kids are in the LC I feel sorry for them.