Originally Posted by Terry

If there's an aura of elitism, it's elitist when others do it. In the LC, it's not elitist when you're the remnant.

Originally Posted by LSM Hymns

No more trying something else,
Or thinking that there’s something more;
No more hoping “someday,”
’Cause today I have the best.

Originally Posted by Terry

Kind of sounds like the campus work you might find supported by the LC.

Originally Posted by aron

Originally Posted by aron

Then they new one realizes that Witness Lee was God's Deputy, with the ministry of the age, and the current Blendeds in Anaheim are the sole legitimate curators of this vision, and thus are the conduits for God's unique move on the earth today. What a privilege! You get to be in "God's Best"!

Originally Posted by Freedom

It's all too familiar...Seems like all the false teachers come and con people the same way. For some reason, everyone thought Lee would be different. He wasn't.

Originally Posted by aron

From Wikipedia:

"Because there were no precursors to the registered church, external sources and critics of the INC refer to him as its founder.[3] The official doctrine of the Iglesia ni Cristo is that Felix Y. Manalo is the last messenger of God, sent to reestablish the first church founded by Jesus Christ, which the INC claims to have fallen into apostasy following the death of the Apostles.[4]"

Sound familiar: "the last messenger of God"?

Originally Posted by Terry

Speaking of MOTA, there is a movie being released in the US last weekend of this month based on the life of Felix Manalo. (The Philippine MOTA)

Originally Posted by Freedom

At the beginning of his book, Philip Lin states that he won't be portraying Lee as being "perfect". Maybe that is meant to get everyone to let their guard down. Then later on in the book there is his description regarding Lee's absolute authority in regards to even the small things like arranging furniture and hanging pictures. Does that present a view of "imperfect Lee" or "always-right deputy-authority Lee"? They can pay lip service to whatever they want, but I think it's pretty clear how they regard Lee.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I've never liked the Ball Rd building much. There's so many rooms, so many secluded areas. But that's how Philip Lee wanted things, as we know. At any rate, that building is an eclectic mess with no real master plan. The "wise master builder" must have been out sick when the construction was taking place.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Doesn't everybody want to have the incredible power to walk into an almost finished building and say, "move that elevator over here," and then watch all of his minions bow down in awe, thinking that God had just spoken to them, as they proceed to violate building codes to fulfill his whims.

Originally Posted by OBW

Seems that Lee might not qualify under Paul's guidelines for elder. Do you think Paul would give it all a pass since he is not an elder, but merely MOTA?

Originally Posted by OBW

Seems that Lee might not qualify under Paul's guidelines for elder. Do you think Paul would give it all a pass since he is not an elder, but merely MOTA?

Originally Posted by Freedom

. . . - all because Lee, the master of raising kids (as is evidenced by his 2 sons), knew the best way.

Originally Posted by OBW

I guess he was the originator of Feng Lee . . . or is it Lee Shui. Either way, it's all about Lee.

Originally Posted by OBW

I guess he was the originator of Feng Lee . . . or is it Lee Shui. Either way, it's all about Lee.

Originally Posted by Freedom

If Lee's apprentices weren't allowed even the freedom to hang a picture on their own, it is indicative of a extremely high level of control.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Maybe it's because they don't want to be eclipsed by someone who can actually do something better than they can.

Originally Posted by Terry

That sums up until 2000, how Lee was generally viewed by co-workers, elders, and deacons.
I do not know if it has eve happened, but something I have considered what if you're a skilled carpenter, electrician, etc working on a LSM project and one of the so-called deputy authorities is telling you how to do perform your skill. The so-called deputy authorities' way is considered right even if it is folly.

Originally Posted by Freedom

In Lin's own words "we always found that his way was just right." No matter what any LCers admit about Lee making mistakes, that is not how he is really viewed. He is viewed on the level of a deity, an infallible god-man.

Originally Posted by Terry

Just as I would tend to take a carpenter as an authority in remodeling work, it could be Lee had a hidden skill as an interior designer. If that's the case, I would say Lee was an authority in furniture arrangement and hanging pictures.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Then later on in the book there is his description regarding Lee's absolute authority in regards to even the small things like arranging furniture and hanging pictures. Does that present a view of "imperfect Lee" or "always-right deputy-authority Lee"?

Originally Posted by Terry

Or they just might say, sure brother Lee has made mistakes. Nobody's perfect.
Yet that is quite the reversal what was being spoken by the blendeds when brother Lee passed away in 1997....that being, he was perfected.

Originally Posted by Freedom

The blendeds might be willing to admit that Lee made mistakes, however, they would likely turn right back around and question our motives in asking them to admit that.

Originally Posted by aron

I'd be interested in hearing RK or BP utter those 4 words in sequence: "Witness Lee made mistakes". How might they frame that idea, to allow the least damage? They'd surely be wary of opening the door to examining "the apostle" WL the way that the so-called apostle examined everything else. At best I'd expect a generic statement that admits the possibility of imperfection, without any expectation to look further.

Originally Posted by Terry

I have listened to Ron backtracking saying Witness Lee did make mistakes...

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How about if there are problems with those who are taking the lead in the church? To me the authority is all about ownership. The "church of Christ" indicates that Christ has the ownership and therefore the authority to deal with the church. The "church of God" indicates that God also has the ownership and authority to deal with the church. Likewise the "church of the saints" indicates that the saints have the ownership, position and right to exercise authority over the church. There is no verse, however, that says the "church of the elders" or the "church of the apostles" etc. Having an equal standing to deal with issues also means we have an equal responsibility and equal accountability before the Lord. Basically, once you see sin or are aware of sin you are responsible to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Agreed. It's interesting how Lee insulated himself. He accused others of not being "perfected". Obviously that is true, because no one except God is perfect. Lee forgot to mention that he wasn't perfect as well (he did say that at the end of his life, but very generically). Of course in the LC, no one would dare to question something like that.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This quote makes it clear that Lee was involved with and initiated everything that came from LSM. No excuses should be made for Lee due to all the nonsense that has emanated from LSM in its endless "flows," "moves," and "new ways."

Originally Posted by Freedom

When Nee was alive, Lee was his "apprentice", not someone who could really hold Nee accountable. When Lee's ministry was underway he had his own set of minions. Never was there anyone that he answered to. Lee best said it himself:

"When I went to Taipei, he said, I did not fellowship with one person concerning what I was going to do. He continued: None of you is perfected. Who can say that he is perfected? So you are not qualified to criticize what I am doing. I didn’t include you in my fellowship – how can I? So let there be no more talk about anything I do. You criticize my young trainers in Taipei, telling me their mistakes, but I was doing everything; what they did was to carry out my burden."

Originally Posted by Terry

Coworkers, Elders, etc view themselves as being God's Deputy authority. In one moment an elder is a responsible brother for a locality and a deputy authority. Once he falls out of favor with LSM, he's no longer a deputy authority?
For those reading who really cling onto this teaching, what would you say the basis of the deputy authority is? Teaching has been to say it's Christ, but practice has been to indicate an allegiance to a ministry. It also seems the base is on personal preferences, improper AND impure motives or ambitions.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Man is always held accountable. He is held directly accountable to God whether his allegiance to the "deputy authority" was through his own ignorance, his own preference or personal loyalty, his own improper motive or ambition, or through the deceit of the one proclaiming that authority. The ramifications are generally disastrous. Not only so, but the judgment falling upon the mistakenly obedient one is far greater than that on the misleading "deputy authority." No man can shirk his individual responsibility and accountability to God.

Originally Posted by aron

But instead it's the usual subjectivism: when I do it, then it's God's deputy authority, and when you do it, then it's rebellion.

Originally Posted by aron

If WN had truly come to the realization that rejecting authority was such an evil sin, then he should have promptly recanted his Little Flock position and gone back to join the already established Protestants (who, btw, had themselves quit the RCC, who'd in turn rejected the Eastern church authority).

Originally Posted by OBW

In this short segment that is probably about 3/5 through the article, there is much said that I can agree with. Yet from the very beginning, he simply dismisses the "traditional church" as not following this pattern.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

..So these quotes don't resonate with me since I never was taught or felt that there were different ranks in the church, nevertheless there was a need for a "deputy authority".

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It seems to me that the Lord has made it very clear that those who mislead others with this false "deputy authority" claim will receive much greater punishment than those that are fooled.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, let’s try to get back a little closer to a discussion of the proposition set forth by the writer of this little paper, “God’s New Testament economy vs. Deputy Authority”. Of course this thing was not written in a vacuum – we all know the circumstances and atmosphere from which it came. I was given a copy of this booklet back in the early 90s during all the turmoil in So. Calif. There were a lot of these anonymous writings floating around at the time, and most of them had the general theme of “things have changed” and “wait a cotton pickin minute, I thought ‘In the New Testament economy there is no thought of hierarchy. On the contrary,God's economy in the New Testament makes all the believers of the same rank’(Lee)”

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I found this portion of the paper most poignant:
Man is always held accountable. He is held directly accountable to God whether his allegiance to the "deputy authority" was through his own ignorance, his own preference or personal loyalty, his own improper motive or ambition, or through the deceit of the one proclaiming that authority. The ramifications are generally disastrous. Not only so, but the judgment falling upon the mistakenly obedient one is far greater than that on the misleading "deputy authority." No man can shirk his individual responsibility and accountability to God.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

. . . .

7. I see absolutely no basis for EM to be sent to Anaheim at a time of serious upheaval other than that he was a classic yes man, and would rubber stamp anything he was told to. The only reason for EM to be chosen for this role is that BP and RG chose him, there is no other explanation I can see. His apology to PL is absolutely repugnant.

Originally Posted by Ohio

ZNP, thank you for posting this.



I definitely heard that Irving was chosen because the leadership there was much more favorable to WL, especially during the turbulent times of the late 70's. (TC and Cleveland would have loved to have received the same opportunity.) The property was sold to the church for tax advantages, knowing that DFW was planning a runway directly over the property.

Taipei went sour. Elden hall went sour. Anaheim went sour. Needed a "new start" for the ministry.



I heard that KR was living in Greece to learn the language, and then was recalled by Texas leaders to help with the translation of the recovery version. KR later explained to us that during the Life Study era, JI's translation work lacked continuity from book to book of the New Test. I always felt that KR's work added nothing to the translation, and in fact was much less readable. It's just sickening to think that his motivation for smearing JI's name was simply to take his job and move up the ladder, but these kinds of things happen every day, just not in the kingdom of God.



If ever there was a pom-pom cheerleader of the ministry, it was he. Someone once counted 33x in one training meeting in which EM shamelessly invoked the glorious name of WL after he passed away.



To say this was done only to brown nose WL would be short-sighted. Based on others' accounts, signatures were coerced in order to bring all leaders under submission to LSM. It was a strategic power move.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes it was Ohio.
Seemingly brothers of character were compromised and their integrity sacrificed. Very sad and disappointing. Since brother Lee's passing in 1997, I have longed there would be a turn in BP, RK ,etc. As their speaking is a driving influence throughout the recovery.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This post is quite telling.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by OBW

I can see the various verses make it clear that any kind of teaching that is inconsistent with existing scripture does not stand. They clearly speak against so much of the kinds of things that Lee taught, making it clear that even if there were such a thing as a MOTA, it wasn't Lee.

But none of them defined the boundaries of scripture so neatly as to extend those two verses in Revelation to define what is scripture. And since there were many things already written that were not inconsistent with what we have as the Bible now, yet are not included as scripture, then it does not seem that simple — unless we are prepared to join the ranks of those two guys who visited here a year or so ago claiming that if they wrote, it was scripture.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sure, here is a sampling . . . .

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I served under RG for years. He was meticulous about maintaining the testimony concerning brothers and sisters. Everything that was run in both Houston and Irving he was very careful to make sure there was no appearance of evil and he preached on this. He knew what PL's sins were, he knew the danger to the ministry, and had it been anyone else he would have been at the forefront of any discipline being handed out. What RG and BP did was clearly to use this as an opportunity to seize control of the LSM. The hypocrisy of this action is so bizarre as to only be described as a knife in the back of JI, etal.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What kind of spiritual leaders, facing evidences of immorality and corruption exposed to the light of day, sacrifice numerous long-standing personal relationships, and subsequently attempt to destroy the integrity and character of these very brothers with bogus accusations in order to maintain their own pristine image to the rank and file?!?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Forcing churches to have "standing orders" for books no one wanted was a result of extortion. Elders chose the books as the lesser of two evils. RG and BP pushing PL when his sins were well documented could in the most optimistically spun euphemism be characterized as "illogical". I think WL was more precise when he said it had an evil spiritual source, involved a conspiracy and constituted rebellion.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And when complaints start to surface from around the globe, as the backlash to Philip Lee's abusive bully tactics from inside the office of LSM, WL comes to the podium and quiets the faithful with these challenging words, "don't I have the right to hire an unbeliever as my personal cook?"

Ask John So and the brothers in Germany if they were just protesting the spoiled dinner they had last night.

Since when does a "personal cook" run a multi-million dollar publishing company intent on controlling all the LC's in the Recovery?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And then you have the extortion that you must be "one with his office" (i.e. PL in order to claim to be "one with the ministry"). The implied threat being that to not be able to "claim" to be "one with the ministry" (I assume this is referring to the document RG and BP made all the elders sign) is to be ostracized from the club. There you have it, the LSM sect full of extortion.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I specifically remember WL speaking publically that, "you cannot say that you are one with my ministry, and not be one with my office."

None of us realized that this "office" had a name.

After hearing WL teach on so many subjects, pointing out the errors of everyone else besides himself, I can still remember how dumbfounded I was upon learning that his own son Phillip (choking out the word nepotism) was LSM's manager. a.k.a. "my office."

Originally Posted by Terry

As I understand ZNPaaneah's post,
1. Those elders and co-workers who executed directives of LSM's office manager were the ones in rebellion and in conspiracy to bring localities under LSM headship.
2. Those elders and co-workers who reacted against directives of LSM's office manager were officially or unofficially quarantined, or simply withdrew from the local churches affiliated with LSM.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

WL is referring to the fallout that resulted from PL being force fed upon the churches by RG and BP. To put an unrepentant sexual predator who could accurately be described as a wolf in a position of authority over the elders of other churches is clearly contrary to the truth. There is no basis for elders in autonomous churches to submit to someone in the LSM office, much less a wolf. You could say that doing so was a rebellion against the NT. Since this was carried out by a group of people, most notably RG and BP but also EM and FB, KR, and RK, etc. Then by definition it can also be called a conspiracy.

So I agree with WL, the turmoil was a rebellion with a conspiracy. The goal was to increase the reach and authority of LSM.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is no basis for elders in autonomous churches to submit to someone in the LSM office, much less a wolf. You could say that doing so was a rebellion against the NT. Since this was carried out by a group of people, most notably RG and BP but also EM and FB, KR, and RK, etc. Then by definition it can also be called a conspiracy.

So I agree with WL, the turmoil was a rebellion with a conspiracy. The goal was to increase the reach and authority of LSM.

Originally Posted by Indiana

“A rebellion such as the one we are encountering now in the Lord’s recovery is not only instigated by the evil spiritual source but also carried out through human instruments. In Paul’s charge to the elders from Ephesus in Acts 20:30, he warned them that from among themselves that men would rise up to speak perverted things to draw away the disciples to be their followers. In the past nineteen centuries Paul’s word has been fulfilled repeatedly. I would say that the present rebellion among us is another fulfillment of Paul’s warning. Many words that have come out of those who are participating in this rebellion should be considered as 'perverted things'".

Originally Posted by Indiana

“Having thoroughly considered during the past two years the things that have happened in the rebellion, I came to the conclusion that this rebellion is the work of the devil, the evil one. (Matt. 13:19), because nearly everything brought out by the rebellious ones was not logical or reasonable, and some of the ways in which they did things were inhuman.”

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brother Lee says, “The present turmoil among us can be considered a rebellion, a rebellion with a conspiracy.”

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Even this?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Don't beat yourself up about it. You were probably still getting something out of it. I'm sure some good came out of it.
Regrets are a waste of time. Look ahead with a positive attitude.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Oh I was getting something out of it, that's for sure. You really have no idea.
And beating yourself up's not so bad, so long as you feel numb afterwards...

Originally Posted by Igzy

Don't beat yourself up about it. You were probably still getting something out of it. I'm sure some good came out of it.
Regrets are a waste of time. Look ahead with a positive attitude.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not concerning WL.

What I have learned started with that Bereans forum, about 30 years after I first heard about WL.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's what they did with those cheap "gold" chairs.

WL told TC that "you just bought a thousand."

TC told us in Columbus, "you just bought a hundred."

Originally Posted by OBW

Humor me. I don't necessarily disagree. I just don't have a basis to opine one way or the other.

This is one of those things that comes up everywhere all the time. And somehow I always have some nagging sense that it's not quite so simple. But I don't have a basis to agree or disagree.

So, again, humor me. What are the other relevant verses. Not trying to cause trouble. I just got skittish about simply taking people's word about things without seeing the basis for their conclusions. And I know that a lot of smarter people than me say this all the time, so I presume I will be persuaded.

No rush. Just want to see enough to conclude.

Thanks,

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the Bible does say enough to give us guidance. In Revelation it says

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now although this word is spoken directly about the Book of Revelation I think the principle applies to the other books of the NT. Peter and Paul both have other relevant verses as well (for the sake of brevity I will assume everyone agrees).

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

By the way, if alien's didn't build the pyramids why isn't there soot on the walls? Assuming they couldn't see in the pitch dark, what did they use for light if it wasn't a torch that leaves soot on the walls?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have already conceded that is a valid viewpoint, just like Fox News has a valid viewpoint. It doesn't mean that their viewpoint is the same as for a soldier on the ground. By the way, if alien's didn't build the pyramids why isn't there soot on the walls? Assuming they couldn't see in the pitch dark, what did they use for light if it wasn't a torch that leaves soot on the walls?

Originally Posted by rayliotta

It makes me feel numb that I didn't free myself from this religious system 5-7 years earlier than I did.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I don't see it as an all or nothing, black and white thing. Surely there are things that happened, that you and I aren't privy to even now. And it's probably better that way. But you've shared things that went on, extra-local manipulations and the like, that raised red flags -- or should have -- years before you left.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Let's imagine for the moment that the pyramids were not in fact built by aliens. That they actually were built by slaves, chiseled like Rambo, hauling those stones up there.

To say that the king built the pyramids would be to trivialize the tremendous sacrifice of the men who actually built the things.

But to say that those men did not build the pyramids for the king, on behalf of the king, to deny that, would simply be denial.

Er, da Nile.

Originally Posted by Ohio

The whole church in Anaheim was in an uproar over what happened with the LSM "Office" manager. Even though you have a "lot of difficulty" understanding this, obviously lots of good folks within earshot of Ball Road were not privy to all of LSM's happenings.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also went into detail that to give credit to WL for the building of the Irving hall is to completely trivialize the contribution of those that donated the money, time, labor, hospitality, etc. that resulted in that hall being built. Also, that 18 months was an amazing experience in every way. PL's sins do not in any way tarnish the experience.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I have a lot of difficulty seeing leaders like John Ingalls as naive virgins in the post-Madonna Recovery. Just like I have a lot of difficulty seeing LSM's current spokespeople as ignorant of the things of which we speak publicly here on the Internet.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

But I was really more interested in hearing your response to my other post...

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When you respond with "righteous indignation" it indicates that you did not know. It may well be that some knew, but clearly it is not right to say "they all knew". The ones who knew beforehand would be the ones with some mealy mouthed justification for immoral actions. They try to justify the acts because they are afraid that any objection will ultimately lead to the discovery that they were complicit in the crime.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, that is the bottom line. However, if you look solely at the ministry of WL and WN prior to 1980 it is conceivable to have operated under the assumption that the LRC was aspiring to live by the Biblical version of authority. There were very few events that could expose the lie. The events with JI, WL and PL in the 1980s put that to the test and since then I think it has become less and less conceivable to live under this illusion. Because JI was well known to all, and was closely associated with both WL and LSM I think it should have forced many saints to examine the events.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understand. We have discussed this before. Wouldn't it be nice if the Bible just said this?

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understand. We have discussed this before. Wouldn't it be nice if the Bible just said this?

Perhaps we could agree to say that once they claim apostolic authority, we know there is a problem.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I disagree. All one has to do is conclude such apostolic authority does not exist today. All that is required to do that is to conclude those who had it were either direct witnesses of Jesus or close associates of those who were.

History has proven me right. No claims of apostolic authority since the early church have led to any good.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The LRC has always been equivocating on this. On the one hand, they might not say that WL (or his successors) had authority over the churches. On the other hand, they definitely believe if you don't follow what he says, you are making a grave mistake which is something like rebellion.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Actually the Bible record in the N.T. does not present either extreme for us to choose. Things are just not that simple. Sometimes I wish they were.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The bottom line is that the LRC operates in principle much like the Catholic church. It's a hierarchical authority structure where authority flows from one man, down through lieutenants, to churches, to individuals.

Either you believe this type of authority structure is valid, or you believe that churches are autonomous and that extra-local workers are servants with no direct authority over churches and individuals. But you cannot believe both.

The LRC acts as if imbuing their authoritative structure with lofty spiritual rhetoric (Body, organic, flow, Recovery, move of God, deputy authority, MOTA, etc.) turns it into something different than what it is, but it doesn't.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, that is the bottom line. However, if you look solely at the ministry of WL and WN prior to 1980 it is conceivable to have operated under the assumption that the LRC was aspiring to live by the Biblical version of authority. There were very few events that could expose the lie. The events with JI, WL and PL in the 1980s put that to the test and since then I think it has become less and less conceivable to live under this illusion. Because JI was well known to all, and was closely associated with both WL and LSM I think it should have forced many saints to examine the events.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When you respond with "righteous indignation" it indicates that you did not know. It may well be that some knew, but clearly it is not right to say "they all knew". The ones who knew beforehand would be the ones with some mealy mouthed justification for immoral actions. They try to justify the acts because they are afraid that any objection will ultimately lead to the discovery that they were complicit in the crime.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The bottom line is that the LRC operates in principle much like the Catholic church. It's a hierarchical authority structure where authority flows from one man, down through lieutenants, to churches, to individuals.

Either you believe this type of authority structure is valid, or you believe that churches are autonomous and that extra-local workers are servants with no direct authority over churches and individuals. But you cannot believe both.

The LRC acts as if imbuing their authoritative structure with lofty spiritual rhetoric (Body, organic, flow, Recovery, move of God, deputy authority, MOTA, etc.) turns it into something different than what it is, but it doesn't.

It is my belief that this structure is non-Biblical and invalid. I ask LRCers to stop kidding themselves with their high-blown spiritual rationalizations about what is at heart a hierarchical system. If it walks, swims and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Seems like more of a symptom than the problem itself. Didn't Witness Lee handpick elders in localities all over the place, not just Anaheim and Irving? Hasn't "one hand washing the other" been the norm in the Recovery going back to the 70's, if not earlier? Isn't this the culture that allowed the tangled web of "ministry" and "local church" to develop in the first place?

They were aware of the position they'd put themselves in. They knew. We all knew.

Witness Lee fishes with a straight hook, after all.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Seems like more of a symptom than the problem itself. Didn't Witness Lee handpick elders in localities all over the place, not just Anaheim and Irving? Hasn't "one hand washing the other" been the norm in the Recovery going back to the 70's, if not earlier? Isn't this the culture that allowed the tangled web of "ministry" and "local church" to develop in the first place?

They were aware of the position they'd put themselves in. They knew. We all knew.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I'm not giving Witness Lee "credit" for anything people did on his behalf. I'm just acknowledging that, really, they were doing all these things -- all the time, money, labor, hospitality, etc -- mostly on his behalf. You say that he did not factor into your decision to go to Irving. And yet what you were doing in Irving was building a publishing house for Witness Lee's pet ministry, which just happens to publish only two authors, one of whom is Witness Lee!

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Misses what point? My point is that the WL/PL incident exposes the danger in being a "puppet" church of LSM and that if your in a joint ownership of a meeting hall with LSM in which the church is a minority owner that is a compromised position. Once you put yourself into that position it is much more difficult to deal with PL and instead led to a rubber stamp eldership of EM, etal.

My point is that the response of JI, AK, Godfried and all the "riotous" saints indicates that they were not aware of the precarious position prior to this event.

My point is that their experience is an example for us to learn from.

My point is that if you think it would have been difficult to deal with LSM then, imagine what it would be like now. 30 years ago you could give a message like JS honestly expressing dismay that the church's stand is based on the ministry of a man. Today that would be laughable.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I believe there is no way to extricate the church from the ministry in such a place as Irving or Anaheim.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Both are valid viewpoints (the one inside the forest and the one from outer space looking at the forest), in fact I gave two viewpoints in my analysis. But to say that WL was an invisible force affecting my entire experience is, in my opinion, disrespectful to the triune God.

The idea that WL should be given credit for the building of the Irving hall to the exclusion of those that gave money, time, labor, hospitality, etc. is, again to my opinion, disrespectful of the saints. I had no contact with WL, I did have contact with RG and the other brothers that did build it. I think it has a lot to do with your heart. If you were in Irving because of WL then yes, he had an influence on that decision which had an influence on your experience. I know that in my case WL did not factor into my decision to go to Irving. He did factor into my decision to go to Taiwan, but not on my decision to stay.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I just think the legal focus is a little odd. Obviously the complicated relationship between "the church" and "the ministry" in Anaheim is really not a legal problem. As you said yourself, six months to a year and any kind of lease would have been up. Though I'm pretty sure they were both owners anyway.

But more to the point, what's the situation on Ball Rd today? Well golly gee willickers, Batman, the church in Anaheim still meets at the same place. Yes, LSM moved the publishing business to La Palma, but the FTTA is still right there on Ball Rd. And I think they also use it for young people's study times during the biannual trainings.

And don't forget the joint CIB/LSM property they just bought for a new FTT center in Boston. Decades later, same M.O. Somehow, I think a legal brief on the relationship between tenants and landlords....kinda misses the point.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

And yet you've shared your experience of long hours building the Irving meeting hall, and years as a trainer at the full-time training in Taipei, etc. I understand that you were far more independent than most, but at the end of the day, the reality is that you've spent half your life absorbed by Witness Lee's system, and helping promote this system. Heck, even your moving to Taiwan in the 80's in the first place....

You might not think you were promoting Witness Lee's system, but isn't that what the full-time training is? It's a religious school for a religious organization, just like any denomination's seminary program. Well, except, of course, theirs is a living training, not a dead cemetery, you know. Aside from that.

Stepping back to see the forest, your life might seem just a little bit like my own -- way, way too influenced by a certain little man from China.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Our obligations as average Christians is written in the NT, I am particularly thinking about Ephesians 6 at the moment.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think this number is based on a post of mine that was censored. However, that post did not say he was 5% of "our" experience, that would be false. It said he was less than 5% of my experience.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

In any event, hopefully all this stuff serves as a reminder that Witness Lee's influence was a little more than "5%" of our Recovery experience.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Wow, video and audio, Fedexes, tight schedules, "robo phone services"....and all this to fulfill our obligations as "average Christians" with no particular position or authority?

No wonder I stopped being a Christian!

Originally Posted by Terry

From the first link in post #14:

"There is much evidence today proving that the unique factor of oneness and the ground of so many churches is a person and his ministry and work. He is recognized by many as the unique apostle of this age. He claims to be the oracle of God and therefore also claims to be His deputy authority… He eventually becomes everything to the churches."-John So

As much as many are taken aback by John's words, he's speaking reality. Local churches not aligned under LSM aren't a true local church unless the ground of their church is through this ministry. A church such as the Church in Moses Lake are "friends", but not a local church because of this unique factor of oneness John So has brought out. This is also why many Great lake area localities were deemed needing to be replastered because they ceased having this unique factor of oneness. All these localities needed to do was affirm Titus' unscriptural quarantine.
Just as John asserted "claims to be His deputy authority", certain blended brothers at various times have made similar claims of to be.

Originally Posted by Terry

So if you say these brothers and sisters were riotous in the Church of Anaheim meeting hall, would you say how they objected was due to outrage?
I say to describe the brothers and sisters as riotous is to also say they were outraged how immoral behavior is given a passover.
These were normal Christians with a sensitive conscience.
How can the churchlife be turned upside down when light becomes dark and dark becomes light as the norm?
Even when Phillip Lee subsequently is excommunicated, another group of elders (Ed Marks and co) reverse the decision and basically say Phillip Lee was wrongly excommunicated for immoral behavior.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The worst possible situation, a minority owner in a property that is unsellable and unrentable. The option to "walk away" was not tenable and would be unfavorably viewed on by almost all in the LC. Yet at the same time the church does own their share of the hall and can therefore exercise authority over their space.

Therefore, if you, as a Christian, were faced with a similar dilemma: you are aware of immoral behavior on behalf of the Administrative officer of the ministry that you share a meeting hall with and which you serve in and which the church is intimately connected. You fellowship with the Minister and father of the perpetrator but appear to be speaking to a brick wall. How do you respond?

1. You thoroughly fellowship and confirm the accounts. You are morally obliged to object and to protect the flock that you shepherd. You do not have the authority to remove the person in question and the Minister who does have the authority is not taking action. Clearly he has refused to listen to you.

2. You return with several other brothers, say AK and Godfried. He still refuses to hear you.

3. You have a meeting with the church and you openly tell them the case........

4. The above meeting should be held on a thursday night from 8:30 to........

5. The meeting should be announced as a meeting of the corporation of........

6. You open the meeting with a very short word explaining that this........

7. Friday evening you send out a broadcast email to many more localities........

In this way you have gotten your message out within a 24 hour period. You have reduced the effect that phone calls will have since 10 PST is 1am EST.........

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Riotous would refer to the way in which you objected, not to the reason why. As a Christian how you do something is also important, not just why you did something.

So objecting to immoral behavior is a Biblical requirement, whereas condoning immoral behavior is an action to which you will be held accountable.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Riotous would refer to the way in which you objected, not to the reason why. As a Christian how you do something is also important, not just why you did something.

So objecting to immoral behavior is a Biblical requirement, whereas condoning immoral behavior is an action to which you will be held accountable.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Email 2007

"......Regarding the title of the meeting hall on Ball Rd. in Anaheim. When I left in 1989, I believe the title was divided between the LSM and the Church in Anaheim. If I remember rightly, 3/4 of it was in the name of the LSM, and 1/4 in the name of the church. That division was based mostly on the amount of space we occupied in the hall. What happened to it after I left, I don't know. This is all I can say."

Your brother in Christ, John

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not certain because I did not see the deed to the property. But, when in Irving I was very clear that my service was to the LSM ministry. I am relatively certain that the property was purchased by LSM and the donations were to LSM. Therefore the Irving property was in the name of LSM. It combined a meeting hall of the church in Irving with what is otherwise a LSM center, it housed the printing, publishing (music, etc) and residence of WL. But the meeting hall was referred to as "a training center". So although I am not 100% absolutely certain that the property in Irving belonged to LSM that was certainly my understanding and feel I am more than 95% certain that this is the case. Therefore, would the church in Irving have the right to tell PL to vacate the premises? No, it is not there premises. Do church elders have the right to tell LSM who to employ? No. These are not difficult concepts.

However, does the church in Irving have to meet on that property as a tenant to LSM and pay rent? No. Do saints in the church in Irving have to serve in the ministry of LSM? No. Do the saints have to provide hospitality if the LSM wants to give a training? No.

Assuming the situation in Anaheim was the same, the church could have held their meetings elsewhere, refused to serve in LSM and refused to provide hospitality for trainings. All three could have been done in a way that could not in any way be construed as being "rebellious" though it would require a high level of discretion. I think had they done those three things WL would have been forced to get rid of PL.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bad conclusion.

I just don't understand the regular pot shots at that other poster?

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are just so many violations by WL that have been condoned by the Recovery leaders, it should be a case study in hypocrisy, abuse of power and authority, coverup of corruption, nepotism, lording over the flock, exaltation of man, etc.

Originally Posted by Terry

This was spin doctoring to label those meeting with the Church in Anaheim who took that stand as "riotous". A way of damage control so the rest of the recovery would not be affected by reports of Phillip Lee's behavior.
I would ask this of those reading this forum, is it "riotous" to object to immoral behavior and the condoning of it?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I believe that the WL/PL case should be for our example, and that this age is designed to train us to exercise the Lord's authority.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is highly unlikely that WL could have "excommunicated" the church in Anaheim in the way TC was excommunicated because then all the saints nationwide would have heard why the church had taken this stand. Also, it would be impossible for the rest of the churches to not have learned of this, since this was Anaheim. Also, AK, JI, BM, JS, and JF represent a very large portion of the LRC, no way WL could have kept the sins of his son hidden.

Originally Posted by Ohio

What makes this so difficult was that Irving initially was composed of immigrants from other LC's who moved there to "serve the ministry." Irving existed solely for WL and his ministry. WN called these types of churches ministry centers or work centers. Since WL had appointed the elders in these two centers, he supposedly had the right to remove and replace these elders, which he eventually did.

I believe there is no way to extricate the church from the ministry in such a place as Irving or Anaheim. Even the repulsive stories of PL could not provide the tipping point. Even brothers ready to re-enact "wild west justice" and go after PL with a gun did not succeed. WL only needed to call other leaders from around the globe, and cash in on his established credit. He had done it before, and was almost Clinton-esque in his ability to escape scandal ... and accountability.

I watched a 60 Minutes special on Michael Morton the other day. What a horrific story of a man wrongly incarcerated for life for the brutal death of his wife. Without even time to mourn her death, he was immediately targeted by a young and ambitious DA, yet without any evidence at all, and all the evidence which would have exonerated him was suppressed. The story had me in tears.

After he was finally released, due to years of work by the Innocence Project to expose prosecutorial abuses, Michael was asked to comment about the legal system that nearly destroyed him, he said, "I try to be very forgiving ... revenge, I know, doesn't work, but accountability works, it's what balances out, it's the equilibrium, it's the social glue, because if you're not accountable, then you can do anything."

Chilling words, yet spoken by him so graciously. Immediately I thought about WL and LSM.

If you're interested, this clip is well worth the watch.

Originally Posted by Ohio

because if you're not accountable, then you can do anything.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, does the church in Irving have to meet on that property as a tenant to LSM and pay rent? No. Do saints in the church in Irving have to serve in the ministry of LSM? No. Do the saints have to provide hospitality if the LSM wants to give a training? No.

Assuming the situation in Anaheim was the same, the church could have held their meetings elsewhere, refused to serve in LSM and refused to provide hospitality for trainings. All three could have been done in a way that could not in any way be construed as being "rebellious" though it would require a high level of discretion. I think had they done those three things WL would have been forced to get rid of PL.

Originally Posted by OBW

My recollection concerning the Ball Rd property was that it was spoken of as a combined training center, LSM office and printing facility, and place for the church in Anaheim to meet...

Originally Posted by OBW

For anyone to suggest that it is simply a matter of the legalities of whose name is on the deed for the property on Ball Rd is to mock their service to both the LSM and the church in Anaheim and pit one against the other.

Originally Posted by Indiana

The sister first showed me the article in a booklet, which John So had published after he had read the article from her. He added a paragraph to it, published it, and he and others then distributed it, I assume. The turmoil was sky high at that time.

The following lnk is critical in defining the line that was crossed that purportedly "caused division" in the Local Churches. Actually, the article on deputy authority sets up the substantial matter that caused division.

http://www.twoturmoils.com/ProofofDivision.pdf


Andrew Yu exemplifies the drastic measures taken by leaders in their application of the meaning of deputy authority

http://www.twoturmoils.com/BlindLoya...yAuthority.pdf

Originally Posted by Terry

It goes to the teaching of deputy authority and delegated authority which ties brothers to be man-honoring.
By contrast a brother or sister can have spiritual authority, but not considered to be a deputy authority or delegated authority.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And if I have to cite the primary sickness in the Recovery, it would be not honoring the Lord and upholding Him as the Head, and instead following a man. How many times have we seen LC leaders acting as man-pleasers and not followers of Jesus Christ? How often did I hear that "every one says they follow Jesus," but the true test is whether we can follow the brothers, and be one with them?

The recent quarantine exposed this all too well. Both sides claimed they were "fighting for the truth," when actually they were just picking sides, and siding with man. Who really stood for the Lord?

Originally Posted by Ohio

And if I have to cite the primary sickness in the Recovery, it would be not honoring the Lord and upholding Him as the Head, and instead following a man. How many times have we seen LC leaders acting as man-pleasers and not followers of Jesus Christ? How often did I hear that "every one says they follow Jesus," but the true test is whether we can follow the brothers, and be one with them?

Originally Posted by Igzy

Don't know, but "The Word and the Testimony" is the same entity that published "Speaking the Truth in Love" by John Ingalls back in 1990.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Indiana, who is A.F.?

Originally Posted by Indiana

In my fellowship here in Southern California the last three months, a sister gave me a copy of this revolutionary word on Deputy Authority. Can she be challenged based on the Bible, or not? In other words, is the prevailing deputy authority concept manifestly and demonstrably wrong in the Local Churches?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And this, to me, is what this age is all about. Learning to hear the voice of the Lord Jesus and respond accordingly. How do you respond when they quarantine TC? How do you respond when they threaten to quarantine you? How do you respond when you learn JI has left the LC?

Do you say "the elders should deal with this?" or do you stand up and speak? If you stand up, do you speak in your flesh?

Suppose you do speak up, suppose you don't bend when they threaten to excommunicate you, suppose you are bold and don't walk in your flesh. Well then they will lay traps, how do you respond to the traps? Does this cause you to turn more to your spirit and prayer? If so the response will be to intensify the attacks and even see expressed hatred.

Even if you are not "officially" quarantined you will still be "isolated". How do you deal with that? Does that cause the fellowship with the Lord to get deeper? Because after all that is what this age is all about.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Even if you are not "officially" quarantined you will still be "isolated". How do you deal with that? Does that cause the fellowship with the Lord to get deeper?

Originally Posted by Ohio

There definitely is authority in the church, and the saints are commanded to obey and submit to them. (H.13.17) If we look at the New Testament as a whole, the weight of scripture speaks to the abuses of leaders and not to the submission of the saints. The scripture is balanced knowing man's lust for power.

Never does the N.T. point to some solitary and distinct individual, other than Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, the Lord Himself, as some designated deputy authority, neither as a chief spokesman, a designated oracle, a Minister of the Age, nor one unique individual invested with power, as some "acting God."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How do you work out issues between saints? If there is no authority to go to it seems that it would be very difficult to deal with offenses. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for going to court asking isn’t there someone among you who could have judged? He then told them that the destiny of the saints is to judge the world. The only way a judge can be effective is as a representative of the higher authority, or as a “deputy authority”. Matt. 18 recommends a progression in trying to deal with an offense that ultimately ends up with you “telling the church”. In that context Jesus said “whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”. That to me is the definition of the NT “deputy authority”.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was Roman Catholicism which first combined the elements of distorted oneness and Old Testament leadership. The result was a lineage of Popes bereft of godliness using twisted concepts of oneness to wield great power.

If the Apostle Paul had all of the "deputy authority" he was supposedly endued with, he would have been able to enact changes in Jerusalem. But he didn't and he couldn't.

The teachings of "deputy authority" have more roots in Chinese culture than in the Bible. How else could their dynasties exist for thousands of years? Like the Recovery, they have developed numerous teachings, as a system of error, which provide unlawful powers to its leaders.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What is the "working" definition for "Deputy authority"?

Obviously the NT talks about "authority". Ephesians talks about all authority was given unto Christ for the Church. The concept of head covering is related to authority and its practical application in the church life. Paul and Peter were both involved in counsels to hear their personal revelations before the church received the word. In Timothy it says that the Law is made for the lawless and disobedient, clearly the law has authority over the lawless and that would be administered by man. The entire concept of deputy authority was always taught with the analogy of a policeman and the uniform. 1Peter 5:5 exhorts the younger to submit to the elders. 1Pet 2:13 tells us to submit ourselves to every ordinance of man, not just laws but even things like "no shirt, no shoes, no service". Probably the most relevant verse would be 1Cor 16:16 where Paul tells us to submit ourselves to all those who are similar to Stephanas (who was addicted to the ministry of the saints) and all others who help Paul and labor with him.

So without knowing what the definition of "deputy authority" is that this person is referring to I would have no way to respond other than the premise that the concept of "deputy authority is not in the NT" is clearly not true based on a standard dictionary definition of the terms.