Originally Posted by Ohio

So I would characterize the LCM as an abusive and exclusive elitest Christian denominational sect. Perhaps you can improve on this.

Originally Posted by awareness

I read your post and I feel like I'm back in the church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, back in 1980. All these years -- decades actually -- on opposite coasts, across America, and the local church's of Witness Lee are still the same.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I agree, would we also need to define the Recovery? What are the implications for each of us, either following Witness Lee and his church or being affiliated with a local church (maybe a denomination, maybe non-denom)?

Originally Posted by awareness

All good points Least. We can't over generalize. The Baptists aren't all the same, even in the same assembly. Southern Baptists, for instance, broke with the Baptists, in mid-19th century, over the issue of holding slaves.

We, or I, can say the same for the Church of Christ (Campbellites), who hold only they will go to heaven, everyone else, specially if they use musical instruments, are gonna burn. Except I mingled with them here, and not all the members in the CoC churches agree with the official "non-creedal" doctrine they are being taught, or coming from the pulpit.

But I think the topic here is about the Baptists, and if Baptist means the same as Recovery.

So I guess we need to define what Baptist means. I thought that was what we are doing, even when pointing out Baptist Landmarkism.

So so far we've failed to identify even what Baptist means.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

You may be right that "crime" is inflammatory and not the best word. I do my best to express myself and I am open to others ideas...my intention was not to inflame emotions! That being said....we are being punished most certainly by the saints here...if there was no crime committed...which there was not....we are certainly receiving the harshest form of chastisement. People we love very much, who also claim to love us, will not receive us, nor any communication from us, nor respond in any way when we try to remain in peace and reconciliation (and that of Christ!) with them. This is most surely their best attempt to get us to obey their ultimatum to meet with the Lee ministry, and that alone. My excommunication came about very swiftly after I let them know that we were seeking another assembly, closer to home, outside their group. I personally would have never cut off contact with the saints we were close with...there would always be an open door for any believer, no matter the assembly, distance...I see no reason to separate....I truly believe in the one body! One Spirit, one Lord, one Father....there is no justification for division here. There is no gross ongoing life of living in sin here, there is absolutely no scriptural justification for their dividing from us, or me from them. I know of a very dear couple who felt led to come to this locality a few years ago...I knew them from the C in Diamond Bar, they left their grown children to come and bless the LC here, they were treated very poorly and sent on their way after not many months. This brother loved the Lord and was very much a blessing to me..they both tried to talk to me about what they went through here but I was so ignorant at that time of the real practices of the LC....I was no help to them. Now I can guess what they must have experienced. Withdrawing love, fellowship of Christ, communication...this is cruelty in Jesus name...I will never believe this is the operation of the Holy Spirit...rejection and that game, that is Satans realm, that is Satans game.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I think I understand the point you're making here and I wouldn't disagree with you, per se. But the thought that all Christian groups act/behave this way isn't true. The pastor of my church would never say that he has it all figured out - that his baptist belief system is right and superior, others Christian belief systems are wrong and inferior. (So you can pick this apart, but I think you may get my point). I doubt my pastor would even claim that the he agrees with 100% of baptist teachings. I'll ask him this week.

In fact, I had a discussion with my pastor from my old non-denominational church (before I moved) and he shared how it was an ongoing question he gave to God - Am I pastoring, teaching, leading, and serving the church the best way?

I interact with so many Christians from a wide background of belief - It wasn't until the LSM churches did I interact with elders, members, and leaders of the church who "had it all figured out" (well besides Mormons, JW, and Muslims - the closest Christian group I would say is the CoC). Now... this is purely anecdotal.

It is impossible to compare the baptist churches to the LSM churches, because the baptists don't have a Witness Lee and LSM - who remain ever present and unquestionable authority dragging people away from truth.

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't all Christian groups seek to validate, and glorify, their superiority over all other groups? Why would anyone stay in an inferior group?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If what you say is true, then Paul would not have to instruct them about oneness, because they were all Christians, they all had the indwelling Christ. They did not have to wait for some inward feeling to meet together. Paul no where writes that we should only meet together if we have the inward reality. Paul seems to be saying they should meet together in unity because they are all one in reality.

Using marriage as an example, suppose a couple got married, and chose to live apart. This would say something about the marriage, regardless of how much inward loving feeling they have for each other. Married people live together because they are married. Call it "forced outward practice" if you will, but it's done because it is expected.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Lumping everything as a whole, what % of baptists do you believe adhere to this belief?

Originally Posted by awareness

It's pretty popular in my neck of the woods, here in Western Kentucky. But more in line with The Trail of Blood <-click. And here, free for Kindle <-click. They don't know it as Landmarkism.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Forcing the outward practice won't make the inward a reality in anybody. It's a form - empty unless it's filled with the Reality. The reality of the indwelling Christ is what is important.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He seems to be talking about the invisible reality but what about the practical? It's easy to be one with other believers, we only have to say and believe we are, even if watch church TV. But practically how? The visible reality should match the invisible reality. The external practice of meeting together should be the practical expression of the reality.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here is an interesting thing concerning the oneness, that came from Harry Foster, a close co-worker of T. Austin Sparks for 40 years. Bro Foster gave this at Spark's passing ceremony in 1971:
Interesting that Sparks appeared to be saying (via Foster) that the oneness had more to do with the cross taking care of personal and internal divisiveness rather than adhering to something external.

Over and over recently I've been pointed back to the reality of this - all things we think we need to come up with, are actually in Christ (i.e., rather than something I need to get myself worked-up to do). In other words, turning to Him and experiencing His life in us is ALL those things we need - including oneness. It's not some external practice that I think makes sense (even from scripture). This is the New Covenant . . . not the letter, but the power of His indestructible life in and through us.

I think Sparks had it right.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

That's rich, I think you're my new forum fav!

So what you really meant is(my comments in red - yours in black):

Some Baptists, albeit very few, believe that only the Baptist Closed communion is genuine communion and they are the only true Christians descended from the time of Christ. This antiquated belief system holds to the thought that a communion held between members of different denominations (divisions) or in Open Communion is not a genuine communion. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to host a discussion on the topic as almost no baptists today (some estimate less than 1%) adhere to this position. The foremost expert in the matter is a frequent poster on a forum created to discuss Witness Lee and his church. He can be found in the "Alt Views" section when on a probation handed down by UntoHim. This poster can be identified by the alias "awareness" and credits his vast knowledge of landmarkism to his mother, whom he loves dearly.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Ok cool, I wouldn’t say I’m a Baptist and my mom never gave me the cool landmarkism books but I never was questioning if it was a “thing” or even how it compared to the Witness Lee churches- I was more making the comment - claiming that this school of thought is actually what baptists believe is a falsehood. Would you agree? If we polled 100 million baptists, how many would believe in landmarkism?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

1 Cor 10: 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


The situation in Corinth as I understand it, was that some believers (rich ones probably), where consuming all the food they had brought and leaving none for the poor. This caused strife and division, factions, between different groups, so the Lord's table was a place of strife not unity. At this point, we can note that they were still one church, the poor or the rich factions did not think about starting their own denominational meeting at this stage. To solve this problem, they could have, and Paul no where sanctions this Paul no where says , "ok, different factions separate, make your own church and have your own Lord's Table in your own way".

1 Cor 11:17-20 17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[a] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It doesn't matter the percentage. If 1% of baptists believe in X, and 99% believe in Y, then it is still correct to say "baptists believe in X" or "baptists believe in Y" without quantifying. If we say "baptists don't believe in X" , then it rules out the 1%, and declares those 1% to not be baptists when in fact they are. Note that I never said "ALL baptists believe in X", when I know that is not the case. Anyway, read the OP and early posts, it's clearly about comparing Southern or "landmark" baptists to the recovery.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are there verses that directly connect the Lord's table with the teaching of oneness? In order to take the table properly, must we all agree we are one & also not be divisive in our practice (e.g., denominations)? I'm not sure where specific passages are that would back that up . . .

So it might sorta sound good, but please show me in case I've missed those references.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Hey man, I read your link.

According to the mighty Wikipedia, there are over 100 million people who identify as Baptist or belong to a Baptist type church. According to your link it appears that only 300,000 adhere to landmarkism. Let’s just say for arguments sake that this number is low. Even at three times that number, it’s less than 1% of “baptists”. So why would someone make a statement that Baptisits believe XYZ when less than 1% of those do? It is either a disconnect from reality, intentional deception, or something worse.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Taking bread and wine in various places, are these "various places" denominations? If so that sounds divisive.

Going back to a biblical example. Suppose all the 12 disciples are gathered with Christ ready to celebrate the Passover. On this occasion, John says he can't join them because he has to go and celebrate Passover with the Pharisees (a denomination of Judaism). Peter also cannot attend because he is celebrating Passover with the scribes (another denomination). They all love Christ and the Spirit tells them they are "one with all the Jews". And maybe the Scribes and Pharisees joined Christ and disciples for Passover as well sometimes.

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Least, I know about Landmarkism because I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church. I have a little booklet passed down from my mother entitled "The Trail of Blood," that traces the Southern Baptist's back to John the Baptist. Now the Southern Baptist don't claim to be Landmarkists, not officially, but they believe the same thing. And the Southern Baptist's are the largest Protestant Christian sect.

Landmarkism share many characteristics to Lee's local church ... mainly that "we are the only ones that have the truth." Oddly tho, they don't claim to follow a ribbon of local churches all the way back to the Apostolic church -- unbroken continuity -- like the Landmarkists. Else there would be no need for a Recovery. But they do claim that they are the only ones that discovered the true expression of the Apostolic church, with their one church in one city.

Also Landmarkism holds that only local, independent Baptist congregations can truly be called “churches” in the New Testament sense. Isn't that Nee's and Lee's autonomy of the locality doctrine?

And how about their doctrine "that only faithful landmark Baptists will comprise the Bride of Christ?" Sound familiar?

Ultimately tho, what they share in common that sticks out like a sore thumb is, their exclusivity : we are it, and the the rest of Christianity, all the other Christians not in our group, are apostates. Like Lee stated "Christianity is Christless."

Thanks for humoring me leastofthese.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Hey man, I read your link.

According to the mighty Wikipedia, there are over 100 million people who identify as Baptist or belong to a Baptist type church. According to your link it appears that only 300,000 adhere to landmarkism. Let’s just say for arguments sake that this number is low. Even at three times that number, it’s less than 1% of “baptists”. So why would someone make a statement that Baptisits believe XYZ when less than 1% of those do? It is either a disconnect from reality, intentional deception, or something worse.

Originally Posted by awareness

Then you too need to read up on Landmarkism.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. That seemed pretty thoughtfully conveyed.

So, okay, let's say I'm just meeting with a group of Christians. We are all pretty young and simple in the Lord - just wild & youthful Jesus lovers. We have read "Do this in remembrance of Me" in the Bible and have decided to do that. We believe we are one with every Christian in the area we meet (and the rest of the world), because that's what the Anointing within tells us. And others come from different groups from time to time, and just take the bread and wine with us. Everyone enjoys the one Spirit together and are filled with His love. Very pure & enjoyable fellowship results.

Then let's say there is a group meeting in the city. Let's say Scottsdale, on the ground of oneness (who for legal purposes the state calls "The Church in Scottsdale"). The ones in the first group know of this Scottsdale Church gathering. They have fellowship and take the table together. They enjoy the one Spirit. They are filled with Christ's love for each other.

And they all feel free to take the bread and the wine in various places, as the occasion arises, because the Spirit tells them they are one with all believers.

Is there anything divisive going on?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

T.T. Martin? Never heard of him. He’s not the MOTA of Baptists. Your comment is a weird comment given it’s undeniably stark contrast to reality.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's from the book

The New Testament Church By T.T. Martin, a renowned Baptist.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is not true and is a weird thing to say.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's from the book

The New Testament Church By T.T. Martin, a renowned Baptist.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With these sorts of questions a yes/no answer is not possible. It's like asking the question - if a muslim goes to America does it make them a terrorist?

So my answer is it depends what you are promoting when you take the table. It also depends on what others are promoting when they take the table. It depends what the table is there for - is it just to promote the faction or not? e.g. Catholic table is only for Catholics, so I know their table is not for every believer in the city.



It depends what you are promoting when you take the table. If I feel it is only for people of the Church in Scottsdale then maybe its a division. If people of any denomination are welcome then probably not a division.



It depends if they are promoting their faction at the table or not.

An example might help. In the time of Christ, the Jewish factions were the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducee. Suppose a Scribe wanted to partake of communion at the table with the 12 disciples. He had a choice to promote the unity of the 12 disciples or promote the faction of the Scribes. It depends what he is promoting.

The bread on the table symbolizes the oneness of all believers everywhere. If the bread on the table symbolizes the oneness of believers in a particular faction then it cannot be a genuine Lord's table.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Three questions (hopefully answer with a yes or no):
1. If I take the table with some believers not meeting on the ground of oneness (one church one city), am I promoting division?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

2. If the "Scottsdale Church" (legal name "The Church in Scottsdale") has the Lord's table and I partake, am I promoting the oneness of the body?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

3. If someone takes the table at "The Church in Columbus," but they usually meet at a denomination, are they promoting oneness?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is not true and is a weird thing to say.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Back to Baptists, for a minute:

Baptists believe that only the Baptist Closed communion is genuine communion and they are the only true Christians descended from the time of Christ. They believe a communion held between members of different denominations (divisions) or in Open Communion is not a genuine communion.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A true divided communion then according to 1 Cor 11:18-20, must be one which is a gathering together because of a reason other than being in the same one place, such as "I am a Pharisee" or "I am a Sadducee". The communion of denominations, including Baptist, therefore, must be a communion based on faction "I am a Baptist, I am a Catholic", just as Judaism was divided into factions.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't believe that Paul in 1 Cor 11:18-20 meant that any group of Christians who can get along with each other can meet together hold the Lord's Table, claim to be without division and satisfy 1 Cor 11:18-20. Because I see the principle of locality, I see that the only non-divisive Lord's Table which satisfies 1 Cor 11:18-20 must be one which is based on the locality. 1 Corinthians 11:20 indicates this when it says "when you come together in one place", other versions say "gather together in the same place". There is nothing said about gathering together because of any other reason than being in the same one place. A true divided communion then according to 1 Cor 11:18-20, must be one which is a gathering together because of a reason other than being in the same one place, such as "I am a Pharisee" or "I am a Sadducee". The communion of denominations, including Baptist, therefore, must be a communion based on faction "I am a Baptist, I am a Catholic", just as Judaism was divided into factions.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here we are discussing the church in Mansfield with elders appointed by a recognized apostle TC. The church is split into parties, one of Lee, and one of Titus, and one of Christ. The elders alone must administrate and shepherd these saints into one accord. It is their decision alone whether outside any ministers should be invited to help them.

But read Drake's posts. He belittles and disqualifies these 4 local elders as "TC proxies." This proves that in the minds of an LSMer, no elder on earth is legitimate unless he is subservient to them. Once again LSM has violated their own teachings. Hypocrites.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

No, I've never been that far east. The Church in Diamond Bar and the Church in Huntington Beach are both in southern CA. I currently reside in the pacific northwest but we are seeking transfer to get out of Wa. The residual bad taste this region left in our mouths has all come from relationships and trust betrayed by the LC here....we cannot wait to leave this area. My children, myself, and my spouse....we are leaving as soon as it is practically made possible. It is no small matter to be duped by people you think are following the truth and Jesus. My trust in the saints has been rocked to say the least. I don't think I can ever be blind to deviation from Gods word in an assembly again, praise Jesus. I won't be silent if I encounter such deviation in the future. I wish the LC could be witness to the damage their actions do....they very effectively are looking the other way, however.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow - sounds a lot like the Amish practice of shunning.

Your signature says you're from the NW, but are you talking Ohio here?

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, not just the characterization of so-called crime. Rather, this whole erroneous thought about what we think Gods love is toward ourselves and other Christians. At best it is a big misunderstanding and at worst it is a slanderous accusation.

Look, I agree with everything In that booklet. If you disagree with something then that is fair game to debate.

Drake

Originally Posted by byHismercy

You may be right that "crime" is inflammatory and not the best word. I do my best to express myself and I am open to others ideas...my intention was not to inflame emotions! That being said....we are being punished most certainly by the saints here...if there was no crime committed...which there was not....we are certainly receiving the harshest form of chastisement...

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think you are most vigorously objecting to the word, "crime" right? I will admit that this may not be the most appropriate word. ByHisMercy, I'm guessing, is using that in a way to illustrate and emphasize how strongly they see the things which happened to them. "Crime" may be a bit inflammatory, but it is conveying a strong emotion.

Am I right ByHisMercy?

BTW - I found the Nee booklet after some searching.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I do thank the Lord that He preserved me (once again) and kept me out of this whole
brother-against-brother mess that took place in Ohio!

He has been faithful! (In case you didn't know - it's all about me . . . )

So I gotta ask - will there ever be forgiveness applied regarding this unfortunate situation?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The full quote you are referring to is this: So brother Drake, that may sound strong, but do you disagree that this is the practice of the LC?
And I hope to hear your reply to to the three points I commented on (in bold) in post #95. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Drake

Sons to Glory>”strong word "hate" - I didn't say that”

You”re right. You didn’t. Apologies.

Let’s discuss what you did say.

You said “yes and amen” to byHismercy’s false assertion that local church Christians are “....condemning saints in various denominations for the “crime” of not being in the LC.”

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh good. Substance with a pinch of humor. Let's break it down.

1. Did you? What were you peddling in that RV? Hard to hit a moving target y'know.

Now, you took his deadpan so seriously that you were compelled to bring it up here in this thread as a proof point that he hates other Christians. strong word "hate" - I didn't say that At least, that is what you used as a springboard. Seems to imply that I went there with a motive. Nope. It was just something that came up after he mentioned that he wanted to RV himself. It was an experience of Christ I had while visiting other believers - should I have withheld something I felt in spirit to share with him? Again, no preconceived or nefarious motive here. So, what could he have taken so seriously to cause him to shut down? the RV itself? the mind altering drug? Or that you in testing him, knowing he would have convictions about a topic, purposefully baiting him....sure enough got the precise reaction that you expected. Clever. Now, that proves, what? Zero. Nada. Nunca. Well, maybe it shows he had a good measure of Christ because he didn't say anything though feeling he naively followed your bread crumbs to the point of you challenging his beliefs. You said you knew it upfront. Sure, I had at least some idea of his beliefs in the LC ground of oneness. But I see past that erroneous hang-up now (sorry if that offends). I see all Christians are already one. How & why? He did it. It is already true. "One Spirit." "One Faith" and etc. What we see of a human-caused messed-up church is not faith. In faith (unseen) all believers are one already because of what He did. Something was in me of Christ - believe it or not - that wanted to share with this brother these very good experiences of oneness in spirit with Christians in different areas. Can you share something specific in the word that says meeting with other Christians is divisive?

2. Exactly. A sign in the front yard or hanging on a building or a portable lighted display with quips and sayings is not a SCRIPTURAL description of a bonafide ekklesia. It is at best, and in general, a clustering of Christians who gather, not on the basis of the one Body, but on some doctrine or practice, gift, or person. To me, this very last part (underlined) sounds like we are talking about the LC. (I don't think you see that, do you?) Christians have to specifically meet as the one church in that location to be an ekklesia - is that what you're inferring?

3. Well, you do encourage Christians to stay in their division, don't you? Your breakfast fellowship is shaking hands over the walls that exist between your congregations. In your RV you are like a goodwill ambassador visiting and driving past the wall, up to the house for a cup of tea, and then when you leave you drive back past the wall.. but the wall is still the wall. It is still there. You had a cup of tea and so you are refreshed but what about the testimony of the one Body. What does the world see? they see walls, division, separation. From what little I know of you, you do not actually make any effort to dismantle those walls. ... and I am not asking you to either. If you believe in walls then build more walls. You've read that haven't you? Good point. So should we dismantle the abundantly rich Thursday breakfast? And when we are traveling near some small town that only has a couple Christian meeting places, should I not get with them and keep to myself - "It's just me and Jesus!" - or what do you suggest?

Drake

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So assuming you weren't actually funnin' me (maybe the joke is on me - I am still finding it quite amusing ), let's break it down:

1. "you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice" I tried to put a mind altering drug in his coffee too.

2. "and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says 'Church'" Because that's not an accurate description of a bonefide ekklesia?

3. "he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division" Who are we talking about here? (OIC, at least I think - I'm endorsing division, right?)

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, this is exactly what LSM did to the Midwest churches. You may be able to deceive your LC loyalists, but those of us who have lived thru LSM's hell, we see thru all your deception.

Sounds to me like you were one of these many invaders bringing all your LSM baggage into the Midwest meetings, taking advantage of our liberty of the Spirit to impose your practices on the saints.

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Sons to Glory,

Well, I think you communicate very well. And you seem to be fair and balanced.

What I am saying here is that your point is a type of argument from silence. You are reading into his deadpan something to fit the narrative in this thread. Unless he said "take your free lance RV and get off the church property" or something like "you, Sons to Glory, are so far off I can't stand talking to you anymore".. or something like that , then you are reading the incident into this thread as a proof point that he condemns other Christians... but it isn't a proof point or a validation of such a thing.

At worst, it seems, when you tried to encourage him to abandon his normal church life practice and hit the road and attend any ol' place with a sign hanging out front that says "Church" he might have thought that he could not do that before the Lord because to do so would violate a sacred principle that to meet with someone who separates themselves from the Body because of a doctrine or practice is to endorse division. So perhaps, rather than a proof point, as you suggest, that he separates himself and his family from the Body he was turned off by the idea of endorsing division, those who separated themselves from the Body, through participating in it directly. Since you went back into the fellowship after that discussion and were received then he and they were at least practicing the oneness in the Body. Yet, you found space to criticize he and they on this occasion. That's your right but I think you can interpret as I did above as well. No one knows for sure what he was thinking so you're using him as an example is speculative.

Drake

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It doesn't seem I am communicating my thoughts well. We had a good discussion, up until when I told him my experience of visiting ekklesia in various places. And yes, only he and God knows if the HS checked him at that point.

So you don't see a point? What else do you want me to try and communicate bro?

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, okay. You said before he had "zero response. No facial response. No verbal response. It was as if I hadn't spoken at all about this."

Yet, he did respond and he responded verbally. Maybe the Lord checked Him along the way. You've had that happen, haven't you? You know, you are thinking or talking about something and the Lord checks you from going further? Whatever the reasons the story appears to be looking for a point to make.

Or maybe he just hated your RV. ;-)

Drake

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, some further information is warranted. He asked me how we came to be in the area. When I told him we were RVing, he said that he and his wife were strongly desiring to get an RV soon, and to travel around. The conversation went from there. All I know is the Lord's life and light were certainly with me as I shared with him, and the witness is in my spirit as I convey this now.

Originally Posted by Drake

Sons to Glory》". .... I told him, in a rather excited way, that as we traveled this was so good and that he should try it.

Of course I knew full well the exclusivity of the LC and how this might be taken by the brother. But there was full peace in me and a flow of spirit to convey this to him!

The brother listened, but had zero response. No facial response. No verbal response. It was as if I hadn't spoken at all about this."

Brother,

Your intention may not have been with malice but your judgement toward that brother lacks a gracious heart. He may well have had zero response because he disagreed with your mobile church life practice.... that would be okay anyway afterall they did receive you......and yet he could have just as well been discouraged that he could not embark on such a free style, or afford it, or has a job or family to take care of. You made it sound like he should share in the joy and experience of your free lance church life. Why? Why is he not entitled to your appreciation of his choices in church life? Instead, you criticize the brother publicly and openly in this forum because he deadpanned your animated suggestion that he should buy an RV and hit the road himself. It may have been that he saw no value in it before the Lord or maybe it was not a practical alternative for him. In any case, so what? Why does he deserve your criticism?

The local churches receive all genuine believers without further preconditions. The problems come in when people bring their baggage into the meetings and insist that everyone start doing what they do. So, they take advantage of the liberty in the meetings to impose their practices in the saints. When they get deadpanned they leave of their own accord sometimes firing both guns on their way out because no one would go along with their "proposals". Seen it happen many times.

Drake

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I would like to clarify, though, Drake was taking what I was saying the wrong way...

.....When the LC fussily splits and segregates themselves from the rest of the Lords' body....I am sure the Lord would correct them of this practice....this is what I see in the word. I didn't mean to compare every saint in the LC to Martha...but this is certainly a preoccupation they have that I know the Lord would correct...this particular practice is wrong, it is not the love of Christ, it has nothing to do with our Father. This is what He shows me through His word.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I agree with Drake - Thanks for speaking your mind. It sounds like you have many first hand experiences with the churches of Witness Lee that the Lord can use for His good.

I thought I'd share - I didn't read any pride in your statements, but who knows a strangers heart from what he/she posts on the internet...

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Really, I'm delighted thst you speak your mind. The only attempts at silencing were from Ohio. He tried to cast you as some fragile victim unable to speak for yourself. I saw you differently.

Drake

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I have been in touch with this Lee ministry for 24 years and am familiar with many forms of deception that they put into practice regarding splitting from genuine believers in the body. I only wish I knew then what I know now about what they keep hidden from christians that they bring in. I would have steered clear from the unscriptural practices the LC engages in!

Originally Posted by Drake

thanks byHismercy,

Thanks for declaring your intentions.... and your viewpoints. no need to apologize for what you thought was harsh and critical.. it wasn't really, at least not by forum standards. Even if it were it does not bother me... no need to hold back on my account. There are better reasons than whether you will offend me.

It was really an observation on my part that you were condemning Christians as being proud while projecting pride. Claiming the position of Mary while relegating other Christians as loving the Lord less, calling them Marthas, pointing their busyness and suggesting how complicated they are while you are just only sitting at the Master's feet.... etc. It is like someone referring to themselves the Good Samaritan and other folks Pharisees or Levites...

That was the observation I was making. If that does not describe you, then great. If that is you then we will have many opportunities to chat.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by byHismercy

By the way, the reason the Local Church values "Marys' silence, and not standing up for herself" is because this facilitates the deceptive practices they engage in. How can they deceive new ones with everybody talking about their experience in the LC? This throws a fat wrench into their works....and God bless that wrench!

....l If Jesus wants me to be quiet, Drake, He will let me know. I trust Him.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hi Drake, I'm sorry my assessment of the Lee movement feels harsh and critical....I love the saints therein and that includes you! By Gods grace.....but I am starting to feel it is my responsibility to call out error in the body....I was a very young person and very young in my salvation when I was first caught up in this deception in the LC....as so many have testified. I was brought in through the ftta presence on my college campus in Orange County CA and I have met in the C in Huntington Beach, the C in Diamond Bar, a small LC in Tx., and here in Wa state. I have been in touch with this Lee ministry for 24 years and am familiar with many forms of deception that they put into practice regarding splitting from genuine believers in the body. I only wish I knew then what I know now about what they keep hidden from christians that they bring in. I would have steered clear from the unscriptural practices the LC engages in!

As to missing your answer to my question about justifying wickedly dividing from saints...I am sorry, I did miss it. I read the whole thread and if you did address this issue, could you tell me the post#?

My wish now is to expose the hidden divisive error this group practices...and openly discuss any error regarding Gods word by the light and discernment I find in the Spirit. Not just here in the LC matters but with my SDA friend...the JW who come to my door, Mormons....whereever He gives me His word and I see deceived ones. I myself have nothing in my natural person that equips me for this task...excepting one thing, the Holy Spirit, and Gods word. He is my only boast, Drake. I have nothing else to boast in. If you knew me in person, you would know it's true! Lol, God bless you, Drake! And all the dear brothers here!

Originally Posted by byHismercy

I believed when I was taught there that I would not find Jesus, and life, in any other assembly of believers on earth. I was easily deceived as a baby Christian. I regret turning my face and mindless accepting what was taught there when I recognized teachings that were additions to Gods word....no other way to describe them. If Jesus wants me to be quiet, Drake, He will let me know. I trust Him.

Originally Posted by least

byHismercy,
while you are in pain you need 'desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word', for healing. The Lord heals us.
when we are well, 'nourish and cherish' by our Lord our God, our "duties" (our function) in the body of Christ will be carried out; we as members of the body of Christ each is a part ‘fulfilling our duties’ as instructed by Christ the head of the body.
-
In fact, God has arranged the members of the body, every one of them, according to His design.
-

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Not just here in the LC matters but with my SDA friend...the JW who come to my door, Mormons....whereever He gives me His word and I see deceived ones. I myself have nothing in my natural person that equips me for this task...excepting one thing, the Holy Spirit, and Gods word. He is my only boast, Drake. I have nothing else to boast in. If you knew me in person, you would know it's true! Lol, God bless you, Drake! And all the dear brothers here!

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

As you are sincerely seeking I am happy to share my perspective.

Many, perhaps most, proud people don't realize they are proud. As I read your comparing yourself as the Mary and everyone else in the local churches as Martha then it became obvious that you were exhibiting Martha's criticizing attitude toward Mary. Not Mary's blissful at peace attitude at the Lord's feet. Mary does not stand up for herself, she is silent. The Lord speaks on her behalf unlike Martha who levels harsh criticism as you did. Furthermore, in your limited exposure to the saints in the local churches you cannot possibly have enough of a sample size to know everyone is a Martha in the local churches. I have met Marys and Marthas. Both are needed. In fact, I myself am either at any given moment. When a Mary I need to remember my service and when a Martha I need to remember the better part.

Yet, to your question, I already answered. Did you miss it?

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh, I see.

You disapprove of Ohio's prideful comparison of himself as the Good Samaritan and me as the "know it all Levite"... yet you remain silent.

However, my measured response to someone who says they are sincerely seeking verses someone who is disrupting the conversation taking for himself the title of Good Samaritan, a title applied to the Lord Himself, ... the difference in my response. .. THAT is what you find objectionable?

Please. Talk about inconsistencies.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh, I see.

You disapprove of Ohio's prideful comparison of himself as the Good Samaritan and me as the "know it all Levite"... yet you remain silent.

However, my measured response to someone who says they are sincerely seeking verses someone who is disrupting the conversation taking for himself the title of Good Samaritan, a title applied to the Lord Himself, ... the difference in my response. .. THAT is what you find objectionable?

Please. Talk about inconsistencies.

Drake

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Drake you adhere to no consistency in your admonition, it weakens your arguments.

Originally Posted by Drake

And there it is yet again. Pride on open display. ....

You are the Good Samaritan and I am the know it all Levite.

Please, come down off your high horse Ohio. We're trying to have a conversation down here. All that neighing and whinnying is drowning out anything meaningful you might add.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Drake, you have a long history of dismissing the concerns of every wounded or hurting child of God who comes to this forum.

Thank the Lord for those willing to be "Good Samaritans," rather than all the know-it-all "priests and Levites" in the LC movement. (Luke 10.25-37)

Listen to byHismercy's own comments ...

And you have the nerve to tell her she is proud, and I am playing the "victim card."

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hi Drake, I don't feel prideful. And I don't want to condemn the saints in the LC where I am. I definitely stand against the LC practice of seperating themselves from true believers...that is to say, I condemn choosing WL over Jesus, dividing the body over WL. My criticism is not for the individual saints, but the Satanic deception they are under....can you show me in scripture the justification of shunning fellow saints, saints who want to continue in the fellowship of Christ with you? Where is this practice set forth in scripture for us to model? I don't see it. I see the Lord asking us to love one another, asking us to go another mile when asked for one, instructing us to receive one another, excepting under specific circumstances...to be open and honest in our dealings with each other...all these things have been forsaken by the LC here. What do you believe, brother? Is this practice justifiable by your bible, in your walk, according to your God? We were shunned in the name of my savior Jesus, brother. When I asked Him, searched His word, all He ever showed me was the error in it....sincerely seeking....

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Stop playing the victim card on her behalf. She is stronger than you give her credit for.

Drake

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dear Drake, you have outdone yourself.

A sad broken hearted child of God has been cast out of your little exclusive sect, and you imply that it is her who is proud.

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

Well, we all heard the message that Mary chose the better part so we should aspire to be a Mary. Nevertheless, Martha's service part is still needed.

But you are applying that verse in what appears in a prideful way... yet, we all are to greater or lesser degrees both Mary and Martha... and we should be both loving the Lord and in service. The better part does not mean the only part. Ironically, a condemning and critical heart toward another was a trait of Martha... not Mary.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

byHismercy,

Well, we all heard the message that Mary chose the better part so we should aspire to be a Mary. Nevertheless, Martha's service part is still needed.

But you are applying that verse in what appears in a prideful way... yet, we all are to greater or lesser degrees both Mary and Martha... and we should be both loving the Lord and in service. The better part does not mean the only part. Ironically, a condemning and critical heart toward another was a trait of Martha... not Mary.

Drake

Originally Posted by byHismercy

And just to clarify, Drake, in the word, at that time, my heart desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word, even to the neglect of my "duties", and when I was comparing myself to a "Martha" I was not thinking of a specific person, but the LC in general. This is my own personal revelation from the Lord. I see the LC as one rushing about, furiously trying to usher every child of God into and under the umbrella of WLs ministry, and forsaking those who try to buck this rider off their back. We are set free in Christ Jesus, brother. Everything in me wants to say to the LC, show me the justification for the division....in scripture! from the rest of Gods children....but that conversation is impossible, that door is closed to me. You really have no idea how much I appreciate some willingness to discuss these things, in you, Drake. Praise Jesus, brother.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

And just to clarify, D--k-, in the word, at that time, my heart desires to remain as Mary, only caring for His word, even to the neglect of my "duties", and when I was comparing myself to a "Martha" I was not thinking of a specific person, but the LC in general. This is my own personal revelation from the Lord.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hello, Ohio! The main tangible difference in attitude that I can see would be the aspect of division. I just am at a complete loss to ever understand....why is it we cannot be together in our christian walk with the saints in the LC?? What real difference is there? All the crucial components of faith and salvation are here!! The very Christ Himself we have in common....why not simply agree to disagree with each other over the Lee ministry....who even cares? The whole situation is the saddest situation I have been (an unwilling) partner in. It grieves me and I just think if my friends in the LC would simply look at me and listen, they would understand the damage this practice does to individuals in the body....I truly believe this is against the Lords' heart for His family....

Praise Jesus, the great physician! He is well able to handle this! I thank Him for you all, opening this conversation up to this public forum....I don't know where I'd be today if I was still under the deception that it was only me that got shunned from this group of real believers! I'd be a wreck, I think. I pray the light of Christ shines into every heart here....

Originally Posted by awareness

That's sweet of you. Thanks. My explication is, they don't accept me ... or want me. That's why.

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Hello, Ohio! The main tangible difference in attitude that I can see would be the aspect of division. I just am at a complete loss to ever understand....why is it we cannot be together in our christian walk with the saints in the LC??

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, did you ever notice in the Gospels "the tangible difference in the attitudes" between the Pharisees and those followers of Jesus put out of the Synagogue?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Drake, did you ever notice in the Gospels "the tangible difference in the attitudes" between the Pharisees and those followers of Jesus put out of the Synagogue?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow! I've certainly had or been a party to those "exclusive" conversations as well. Yikes! No building-up there, to be sure.

The thousand years in outer darkness teaching is something many of us in Scottsdale have struggled with for years. But - glory to God - we are drying out! Some who were around when this group split from the LC back in the 1980s, have had longer to dry out than me, and have been helping me along - to renew my mind from a fear-based/performance walk. I thank God nearly every day for the brothers here! God is not a steamroller - He loves us; He loves US; He LOVES US!

Now here's a "balancing word" regarding being poor. Yes, we have been given far more riches than we know in this life. However, He does tell the Church in Laodacia that they have become, "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

Originally Posted by byHismercy

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. [b]The thousand years of outer darkness[/], the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

Originally Posted by Drake

By His Mercy,

First, going just by what you have written above your friend was wrong to take that attitude if she was referring to you.

Second, you also are wrong in saying you are a Mary and she is but a Martha.

There is no tangible difference in your or her attitudes.

Drake

Originally Posted by byHismercy

One precurser, in one of the very last conversations my LC ``friend" would deign to have with me, I was explicitely told that they consider themselves to be Gods expression here on earth....therefore, what fellowship could they have, literally, what point would there be, in speaking with one who wasn't "in" their group. I was cut off shortly after that conversation.

And how foolish of the LC....I would like to posit here....there cannot be a person in Christ, there cannot be any person who having touched the Father through believing on the Son, having received the Holy Spirit....who is "poor". To have the Son, and be considered "poor"....this is a deception, plain and simple. We none of us possessing the Son could ever be poor again! Praise Jesus, saints.

It was only at the very end of my connection with the LC were such bold proclamations made to me, however. I have to say, their exclusivity was successfully disguised from me for many years. I got all the hard sells at the end. The thousand years of outer darkness, the declaration that God would only have it their way, other aggressive teachings...but I cannot help myself....I only ever want to be Mary at His feet, looking at His face, and listening to His word, while my sister Martha (the LC) can rush about, doing all the work and complaining to the Lord to make me help her. I will keep my part, I have chosen Him.

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Does LSM/the LC still make the claim that they are God's unique (exclusive?) move on the earth?

Originally Posted by leastofthese

...The LSM is founded on the principle that claims the exclusive move of God and the "recovered" truth...

Originally Posted by Igzy

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think Terry a while ago stated the clear difference between a baptist denomination/sect and a local church right here:

Originally Posted by Terry

[*]Membership
1. Baptists make membership being a formality before becoming a member of the assembly.
2. Local churches all that is needed for membership is regeneration; salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Igzy

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

Originally Posted by Igzy

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)


What am I getting at here?

Simply that every movement (and thus its designations) conjures up positive images in its faithful followers which bespeak the best God has to offer. "Baptist" to a Baptist essentially means God's best, as does "Recovery" to an LCer. So they are more alike than LCers might want to admit.

Certainly there is plenty of difference between the Baptist movement and the Recovery movement. Yet LCers would like to make vivid differences which, when you get right down to it, aren't much differences at all. Why is the name "Baptist" divisive and "The Recovery" is not? Simply put, because in the minds of LCers, the Recovery is something good and genuine and totally of God himself thus it cannot be divisive (no matter how much havoc it wreaks). While to them "Baptist" means something of old dead religion, and so could never be anything but negative. On the other hand, Baptists think the Baptist movement is where God makes his home, so, of course, they like to call themselves Baptists.

But is there really any difference? No, there is not. So, if an LCer says by calling himself a Baptist a person is divisive, he must also say that by calling himself a person in the Lord's Recovery such a person is also divisive. Likewise if calling oneself a Baptist is not divisive, then one can say simply calling oneself a person in the Lord's Recovery is not divisive either.

When a Baptist says "we in the Baptist church" is he really saying anything different than when a LCers says "we in the Lord's Recovery"? In essence, no. One is not necessarily more exclusive or divisive than the other. Designations are necessarily for communication. No matter how much they try to get around it, LCers designate and denominate themselves when they refer to themselves as being in the Lord's Recovery and others as not.

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

Originally Posted by Hope

Igzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptists being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Originally Posted by Igzy

Is George an elder in "the church in San Antone?"

Originally Posted by Igzy

...too intelligent and liberal...

Originally Posted by Igzy

OBW, I'm not quite understanding what you are getting at about George. What was different from what you remembered about him?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hope, you spoke of their daughter that died. That wasn't Grace, was it?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hope, do you have any idea what became of George? I heard he was in West Texas leading a small LC.

Originally Posted by Hope

And you become a bigger mystery to me with each of your posts!!! No one can not speculate regarding who is who. You had me thinking you were a Jr. Higher in the late 70s and 80s and probably from O K City. I missed that one!!

Originally Posted by OBW

"Two legs bad! Four legs good!"

Or was it:

"Four legs good! Two legs better!?!?"

Originally Posted by Terry

"The concept of today's organized Christianity is to have various distinct classes of people within the church. It is against the Bible, however, to have different classes of believers in a local assembly."

Originally Posted by Ohio

I came to the conclusion that true elders view every saint as an asset, while the workers view the saints as liabilities. Of course, this is another generalization, but in my view, the LC's were a much more kind and loving place before we had so many full-timers.

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down. Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

Originally Posted by Hope

Hold on there good Brother and friend Ohio,...

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down.

Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

If anyone can convince me that no one in the LSM/LC or any other LC is being manipulated to stay there, then my work here is done.

Don't worry, I'm not as scary as I sound.

Originally Posted by Oregon

If you'll go back and read what I said OBW....I never said one word about who should be here and who shouldn't be here. The point I am making is that the general nature of this forum is constant criticism of anything to do with the local churches. And my point is simply that there are some good things there....although rarely recognized by posters on this board.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

Originally Posted by OBW

I’m not sure who “you” is here. Is it Igzy, Terry, Hope, or me?

In any case, this is a forum to discuss the problems with the group known generally by several names; the Local Church, the local churches, the Lord’s recovery, or the recovery. If the fact that things are said that is negative to their organization bothers you, then you are in the wrong place. If you want to disagree, then disagree with specific things that have been said. Don’t just say we shouldn’t be here. It that is what you think about this forum, then the only one who shouldn’t be here is you.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oregon, I understand your views, having protested regularly myself about the implications conveyed by words such as "cult, Kool-Aid, idolatry," etc. The forum can be a toxic place indeed. And ... I should add that the "Texas brand" of LCism was perhaps the most obnoxious of all. Hence, their regularly extreme assessments of the movement.
Ole' Igzy's comments here were not like that, and actually were helpful. I think we both would agree that over time the LC's have become denominated. I was persuaded of this several years ago solely due to the matter of "headquarters," and find the matter of "what's your name," to be secondary to this.

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

Originally Posted by Oregon

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”...

Originally Posted by Igzy

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities.