Originally Posted by 77150

Saying that you are "honoring the will of the body" i.e. "though hand join in hand" does not exonerate you from following the wicked way.

What is the dilemma? The Lord told us these things would happen. The only dilemma I can see would be if they didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Terry

They can say "If there is a quarantine of some by the body, I feel to honor it, and the ones quarantined, should also have some response."

It is lip service to say "the ones quarantined, should also have some response." Problem is when ones are quarantined elders/co-workers don't want to know the response. That would be learning the other side of the coin. In Blended speak that would be eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This is simply the current dillemma we're facing with.

Originally Posted by 77150

No coworker will be able to claim ignorance. None can say they couldn't see or that they didn't hear.

Originally Posted by Terry

I'm sure there are many in the know regarding Philip and his methods of messing with localities (i.e. withholding ministry publications until proper apologies were made), who thought to themselves "this is not what I thought serving full-time was about". In other words full-time brothers thought they were doing the Lord's work through a ministry and not placating an immoral man.
For years I have thought as you've posted. Many brothers serving full-time could not be one with John Ingalls, Bill Mallon and other elders who had concerns to raise. Once they no longer have support of the churches, what would they do, how would hire them? Best approach is to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich. In other words look the other way.

Originally Posted by AnotherGuest

A lot of these elders and coworkers had families to support and depended on income from the church and this serious and legitimate concern was always weighing on them. At their age being out of the work force for so long what will they do if they get kicked out? How will they eat? How will they clothe their children? How will they pay their mortgages? Others had better options so the risk was not so great. But who ever thought when they joined the LC and "the work" that one day they would be one paycheck away from being on the street if they didn't join the collective Philip Lee suck up bandwagon?

Originally Posted by Terry

Then the games begin when John Ingalls and Ken Unger go to Texas I believe to meet with Benson Phillips and Ray Graver. They were offended of being involved thinking it's a local matter and not an extra-local matter.

Originally Posted by Terry

Ohio probably explained it best once you get to the bottom. As for the letter, it was political.

Here's my take on it. If you have read Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls got into the awkwardness of dealing with Philip Lee. Here was an immoral man who managed LSM's business in Anaheim, but he did not meet with the Church in Anaheim. Was this a local matter or an extra-local matter? Then the games begin when John Ingalls and Ken Unger go to Texas I believe to meet with Benson Phillips and Ray Graver. They were offended of being involved thinking it's a local matter and not an extra-local matter. How can it be a local matter, when you have someone not meeting locally, but has his hands in localities' business throughout the world? Eventually the Anaheim elders do take action and by those that met in Anheim probably feel it was 10 years overdue.
The other hand of playing games probably came to fruition in 1993. How can the elders discipline the LSM General manager who doesn't meet with the Church in Anaheim. It's not a local matter, it's an extra-local matter.

Understand how the game is played? The situation changes like sinking sand when it benefits the ministry.

Originally Posted by Terry

Ohio probably explained it best once you get to the bottom. As for the letter, it was political.
Here's my take on it. If you have read Speaking the Truth in Love, John Ingalls got into the awkwardness of dealing with Philip Lee. Here was an immoral man who managed LSM's business in Anaheim, but he did not meet with the Church in Anaheim. Was this a local matter or an extra-local matter? Then the games begin when John Ingalls and Ken Unger go to Texas I believe to meet with Benson Phillips and Ray Graver. They were offended of being involved thinking it's a local matter and not an extra-local matter. How can it be a local matter, when you have someone not meeting locally, but has his hands in localities' business throughout the world? Eventually the Anaheim elders do take action and by those that met in Anheim probably feel it was 10 years overdue.
The other hand of playing games probably came to fruition in 1993. How can the elders discipline the LSM General manager who doesn't meet with the Church in Anaheim. It's not a local matter, it's an extra-local matter.
Understand how the game is played? The situation changes like sinking sand when it benefits the ministry.

Originally Posted by Ohio

WL branded John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Godfred, the former Anaheim elders, as rebellious "lepers."

How could such persons excommunicate PL, who was WL's most loyal and trusted co-worker? How dare they!

As WL stated publicly to all the elders, "How can you say that you are one with my ministry, yet you are not one with my ministry "office." I bet not a one of them could imagine that when WL was referring to "my ministry office," he was really referring to his profligate son Philip, who ran the place.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why don't they believe it was justified or proper? Please notice they never explain why they believe what they believe.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why don't they believe it was justified or proper? Please notice they never explain why they believe what they believe.

Originally Posted by Terry

The present elders would like you to know that we do not believe that the public declaration of those three brothers concerning Philip Lee was justified or proper.
The elders of the church in Anaheim
Signatories: Carl Althaus Francis Ball Eugene Gruhler Moses Kuo
Eric Lee Albert Lin Jr Ed Marks Daniel Sun

Originally Posted by Ohio

"He was ambitious?" Max was ambitious!?! Did anyone in the LRC ever think about what this expression really means? Was that not why WL promoted Max in the first place, because he was so ambitious?

Is being "ambitious" somehow become bad? God created ambition in mankind, and now, that is to be condemned? Without a little ambition, perhaps no one would even get out of bed in the morning. Wasn't WL a bit ambitious? How about the Blendeds?

It's these sort of word games at LSM that really drive me crazy. I think some in Corinth played the same word games with Paul, and he got so frustrated he blurted out "let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

Originally Posted by OBW

In such a closed system as the LRC, I doubt that there is much room for a change of heart. Lee apparently began to move in that direction and before he could make more than vague, general apologies, the whole thing was hushed. Few ever heard about it. And if they did, it was explained as more vague than it already was. Or recast as something else.

Originally Posted by Terry

That may have been. What about now? Is that letter and their signatures still indicative of their convictions? At anytime these remaining elders can recant and claim their signature is not representative of how they really feel within.

Originally Posted by Ohio

They were only truckling to the bidding of WL, cleaning up "loose ends" in the aftermath of that tragic "rebellion," thus preserving the pristine image of the MOTA.

Originally Posted by Terry

Was Philip Lee a brother? Only the Lord knows. Of the Anaheim elders mentioned in the August 22, 1993 letter I know Francis is with the Lord. Of the remaining brothers listed (Carl Althaus, Gene Gruhler, Moses Kuo, Eric Lee, Albert Lin Jr, Ed Marks, and Daniel Sun), I'd like to ask them did that letter honestly reflect their conviction?

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes, and here:

August 22, 1993
The elders would like to make a statement regarding brother Philip Lee.
As many of the saints know, three former elders of the church in Anaheim took public
action toward Philip Lee on November 6, 1988.
The present elders would like you to know that we do not believe that the public
declaration of those three brothers concerning Philip Lee was justified or proper. We feel
very sorry that their action has caused suffering to Philip Lee's family.
Further, it is the unanimous decision of the elders that all discipline of the church toward
Philip Lee be lifted, and it is our desire that he be fully restored to the fellowship of the
church.
The elders of the church in Anaheim
Signatories: Carl Althaus Francis Ball Eugene Gruhler Moses Kuo
Eric Lee Albert Lin Jr Ed Marks Daniel Sun

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So after reinstatement, PL stayed in church life until his death? Why was he reinstated? Any reason given by the new elders?

Originally Posted by Ohio

"He was ambitious?" Max was ambitious!?! Did anyone in the LRC ever think about what this expression really means? Was that not why WL promoted Max in the first place, because he was so ambitious?

Is being "ambitious" somehow become bad? God created ambition in mankind, and now, that is to be condemned? Without a little ambition, perhaps no one would even get out of bed in the morning. Wasn't WL a bit ambitious? How about the Blendeds?

It's these sort of word games at LSM that really drive me crazy. I think some in Corinth played the same word games with Paul, and he got so frustrated he blurted out "let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

Originally Posted by Terry

In other words, yes Max protested the sinful situation, and yes Max was ambitious, but it's not protesting the sinful situation that was circulated throughout the recovery (why Max and Sandee were no longer meeting). It was ambition. In 1993 shortly after moving to the NW. I had asked a direct question. What about Max? The direct answer I was given, "he was ambitious". The answer not given "he protested an immoral situation".

Originally Posted by Terry

What's the grounds for removal from fellowship?
Would the protesting elder be MR?

Originally Posted by since you asked

Philip Lee was the General Manager of LSM. He was a sexual predator. In the LC in Anaheim it was the white elephant in the living room. On at least one occassion his actions resulted in a full-on affair with his assistant. This was discovered when a brother working there walked into an office and found them in flagrante delicto. The elders were made aware of this and went to Witness Lee with the information. Lee said he would handle it and this was the result:

2. The eye witness who reported it was removed from the fellowship of the church.
4. One of the elders protested and was also removed from the fellowship of the church.

Originally Posted by since you asked

Further to this part of the concern of the 3 English elders in Anaheim was Witness Lee's ministry becoming so dominant and the churches being for the ministry instead of visa versa so they put together a 17 point talk and published it. It was almost verbatim Lee's own teaching on the place of ministry in the church. This pissed Lee off and his ranting about being God's one oracle on the earth with the divine authority started to go full swing.

Originally Posted by since you asked

Philip Lee remained as the General Manager of LSM and even had the new elders in Anaheim (loyalists to Lee during the turmoil) write him a public letter of apology for what the previous elders had done in excommunicating him!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm trying to understand the Phillip Lee situation, but it's in bits and pieces here and there in many post, so I'm not getting a clear picture. Can someone please bluntly recount the events without being vague?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is Don Rutledge related to the Rutledge family that was in Irving, TX?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I always felt bothered that in his ministry Lee would point out the shortages of Darby, and other greatly used believers, in their orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but never mention much about Watchman Nee's shortages in vision and practice, i.e. physical NJ, exchanged life, tribulation being a return to the age of law... Etc.

Also, is there really a difference between the divergences with the Brethren, and that of the local churches? They are spoken of so negative,y in Lee's ministry for dividing, but have not the local churches had many such dividings? At least the Brethren divided over the honorable matter of doctrine, not morality, control, lies, and ambition.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi all,

Thanks for alias names information. I'm trying to understand the Phillip Lee situation, but it's in bits and pieces here and there in many post, so I'm not getting a clear picture. Can someone please bluntly recount the events without being vague? Also, where is Phillip Lee now? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi all,

Thanks for alias names information. I'm trying to understand the Phillip Lee situation, but it's in bits and pieces here and there in many post, so I'm not getting a clear picture. Can someone please bluntly recount the events without being vague? Also, where is Phillip Lee now? Thanks.

Originally Posted by AnotherGuest

Witness Lee was masterful at directing attention away from himself and the messes he created to others who served as his scapegoats and he had the communications apparatus of the LSM to propagate his lies against them on a wide scale.

Originally Posted by AnotherGuest

In good faith some went to Witness Lee and expected him to listen and take their real concerns into serious consideration and make some necessary changes. This was naive. How dare they question the oracle?

And the king banished these treacherous traitors from his kingdom and sent forth an edict to be read far and wide to all his subjects: "Do not touch the lepers or you will be banished too".

Originally Posted by Indiana

Instead of addressing the immoral conduct of his son at LSM and his son’s major role in causing division in the recovery, Brother Lee hid these matters from the saints in his report on “the rebellion” and chose instead to publicly censure brothers like John So, a brother who who let it be known that he would not “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness”; but rather “reprove them.”

Originally Posted by Guest 1

They were upset that Anaheim was ruining the charade that the degree of blessing was based on how close you were to WL

Originally Posted by Ohio

So many brothers I knew were just "outraged" at the boisterous condition of the saints in Anaheim. They heaped criticism on John Ingalls and the Anaheim elders without ever asking why the saints were so upset. Shouldn't mature matures in Christ ask why, before they went ahead and passed judgment? Why was no brother able to step back and be objective about the matter?

Both John Ingalls and John So had the highest of respect in the LC's, and rightly so. In all these sad events WL proved that he cared little for righteousness and the needs of God's people. His every concern was motivated by personal interest in his own ministry and reputation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

A scene from the godfather II? Care to explain these facts, especially the "simple one?"

Originally Posted by Indiana

Instead of addressing the immoral conduct of his son at LSM and his son’s major role in causing division in the recovery, Brother Lee hid these matters from the saints in his report on “the rebellion” and chose instead to publicly censure brothers like John So, a brother who who let it be known that he would not “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness”; but rather “reprove them.”

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brother Lee disrespectfully refers to a “riotous brother” in Anaheim and denounced him, not disclosing the source of the brother’s grief and the incendiary elements embodied in LSM that provoked many church members to become “riotous dissenters” in Anaheim. Instead of addressing the immoral conduct of his son at LSM and his son’s major role in causing division in the recovery, Brother Lee hid these matters from the saints in his report on “the rebellion” and chose instead to publicly censure brothers like John So, a brother who who let it be known that he would not “participate in the unfruitful works of darkness”; but rather “reprove them.”

Originally Posted by AnotherGuest

Part of the problem was that these "many brothers" did not have their own ministries. Their identities and stature were all based on their relationship with Witness Lee and his ministry which was considered to be the ministry. This kind of imbalanced unhealthy culture allows one man a position of power and authority while all others are considered underlings there to do his bidding.

When problems arose Witness Lee was able to easily brush aside any corrective measures and use the communication apparatus of LSM to discredit those who expressed their concerns. In essence his attitude was based on the reality of the situation: this is my ministry and my publishing company and I can do whatever I want with it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Why is it when many brothers have approached WL with egregious concerns over the years about the direction of his ministry, he then displayed to them "a human spirit of "power" but not love?"

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Can someone please tell me the real names of the people (mainly elders) involved, not just their pseudo names? Dan Williams? Steve? etc. I will undoubtedly know them, yet have no attachment to them, and I want to be able to understand the whole story. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Ohio

WL taught all the right things, yet at the most urgent times, his ministry, in both word and deed, undid all of the positive things which he taught. This is what makes things so difficult for the saints to sort out, and eventually all of them just end up following their leaders as to which side to stand by.

Why is it when many brothers have approached WL with egregious concerns over the years about the direction of his ministry, he then displayed to them "a human spirit of "power" but not love?" Does anyone else see the ironies here? WL knows all the right things to teach, but the "more powerful teacher" of his own actions will always displace mere words on a page.

I daresay that each and every "storm" or time of "rebellion" in the history of the Recovery under WL since the late 40's could have been prevented had only WL practiced what he preached, and shown the humble spirit of love when others needed this the most. Instead, however, the brothers around WL only witnessed destructive "power," abusive power, power to tear down, rather than power to build up as the real apostles have done.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brother Lee said in his later years, "according to my observance throughout the years, most of the co-workers have a human spirit of "power" but not love. We need a spirit of love to conquer the degradation of today's church…this is what the recovery needs." (A Word of Love, 1996)

Originally Posted by Ohio

It just amazes me that for decades WL and his minions have actively sown all the necessary ingredients to produce Laodicea, and then they appear surprised when "love is absent among us," and the Recovery folks are "puffed up, and not built up."

Originally Posted by Ohio

It just amazes me that for decades WL and his minions have actively sown all the necessary ingredients to produce Laodicea, and then they appear surprised when "love is absent among us," and the Recovery folks are "puffed up, and not built up."

Originally Posted by Indiana

Brothers in Texas, Seattle, Anaheim and elsewhere depend on the ministry as a cure-all. Getting church members plugged into morning revival and meeting ministry fellowship is what leading brothers do; but this is not adequate. Receiving some life-supply and knowledge from the ministry is not enough to meet human needs in the church.

Witness Lee addressed this deficiency at an elders’ conference: "In the last few years, we have appreciated the Lord's showing us the high peak of the divine revelation. My concern is that although we may talk about the truths of the high peak, love is absent among us. If this is the case, we are puffed up, not built up. The Body builds up itself in love". 1988

Originally Posted by Terry

Some brothers lacked capacity to shepherd saints outside the concept of the ministry as a "cureall" for every problem and every situation.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I believe Benson got his facts right. It was one fact, and quite a simple one, really.

Originally Posted by Indiana

The erring elders in Texas would not oversee the saints and judge in the light. The brother could not come to meet with Jane and John over deep concerns; he could not pick up with Lanel and her prepared package for fellowship; brothers could not shepherd Bookworm in her marriage. If the sisters had a "rebellion", it was over the Christless church life they had experienced.

Originally Posted by rayliotta

We have the benefit of hindsight. Why cast it aside? There's a pattern here, one that has repeated itself so many times. Out of a desire to give the benefit of the doubt, or for some reason, it seems we put on blinders so we can't see the patterns.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

4. Here is what Lee actually did on Saturday night, Memorial Day weekend, 1977. Max was in Chicago, I believe. Lee gave a message in Anaheim and at some point during the message, he spoke to the three sisters (with whom he been meeting and giving them direction for several years) and said they should not sit together in the meetings but should sit with other sisters. That was the extent of it, according to Sandee and Ann. There was no strong rebuke, nor asking them to stand up, just this correction. Sandee and the other two sisters could not understand at the time why Lee had done this, when he could have easily told them in one of their private meetings with him that they should stop sitting together in the meetings. In time it became apparent that this action by him was his opening move to begin discrediting Max.

Originally Posted by Terry

Thankful Jane, thank you for the post and thank you for the correction. I apologize for my previous post which misrepresented Witness Lee by saying he called the Holy sisters. This is clearly an example of a half truth being passed as a whole truth.
Based on what you have revealed, what Witness Lee said to the sisters does not seem like a big deal nor unreasonable. In any assembly it can be said to any group of sisters or brothers.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems this whole sad episode started as just a case of BP trying to be "one" with WL, but in actuality BP merely became a second hand copycat via distorted information obtained from PL. As Sandee Rapoport has recorded, BP did not even get his facts straight on pending action in Anaheim because it passed thru the dirty hands of PL.

Originally Posted by Terry

the more I think pride as an obstacle. I've heard different LC elders talk about being one. Cannot happen while pride is present.

Originally Posted by Terry

I am still trying to grasp this concept. How is it Jane is being held accountable? I've never met in Houston nor have I met any of the individuals involved. More I think about this episode and the more I think of BP's unwillingness to meet with the John and Jane (Russia is just an excuse), the more I think pride as an obstacle. I've heard different LC elders talk about being one. Cannot happen while pride is present. Hypothetically one could say, "you need to be one with the brothers". Hypothetically I'll say, "the brothers need to be one with you". To be one doesn't flow in just one direction. It is a two way stream. It flows upstream as it flows downstream.

Originally Posted by bookworm

Instead several weeks later was the time described in Chapter 1 of The Thread of Gold in which Jane was accused of “the shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.”

Originally Posted by OBW

Good points, Steve.

I was reading back through some of the earlier posts today and realized that one post in which I talked about "Steve Smith" also mentioned you with no designation other than "Steve." It hit me that someone might think I was either talking the whole time about "Steve Smith" or that I thought you and he were one and the same.

I know that I keep "dogging" you in some ways, but you are too good at documenting the ridiculous positions that these rascals are taking that I must admit that you should never take my complaints too seriously. In any case, you are nothing like "Steve Smith."

This may have been more of a STP (shield thy posterior) post than anything. But I realized that for all my attempts at clarity, I manage to mess it up fairly often.

Peace to you, my brother,

Originally Posted by OBW

But that is not the important thing to me. It is the total disregard for the care of the flock at the altar of the "ministry." I will note that it was the general lack of real care for people that was the reason my wife and I left in 1987. We didn't have Steve's problems, whatever they were. But they didn't care for either of us.

Originally Posted by bookworm

You will note on page 162 of The Thread of Gold that there was a meeting of Jane and her husband along with another Houston couple with Steve Smith (who was the main elder in the Church in Houston at that time) and Sam Jones. Jane and John had been discussing with this other couple regarding the need in the church “to be free to open up to one another honestly about our problems and personal situations, such as husband-wife relationships.” When these two couples shared their concerns “unexpectedly Steve leaned forward, put his head in his hands, and began to weep.” Jane goes on to describe that “he sobbed and was deeply affected.”

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by bookworm

Interesting OBW that you "let slip" the actual name of Steve Smith in this post.

Originally Posted by bookworm

Interesting OBW that you "let slip" the actual name of Steve Smith in this post.

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I realize this. I have had some discussions elsewhere with Jane about some of this. I see evidence in Steve's initial interest of at least the seeds of his own problem. There are a number of indicators that something was going on with him at that time that needed help.

And the other elders plus Benson put an end to that, and moved Ben to Arlington only a month or so later. And another place it has been indicated that the sin that Ben was ultimately sent away for in 83/84 (can't remember the timing perfectly) was already blossoming in Arlington.

But that is not the important thing to me. It is the total disregard for the care of the flock at the altar of the "ministry." I will note that it was the general lack of real care for people that was the reason my wife and I left in 1987. We didn't have Steve's problems, whatever they were. But they didn't care for either of us.

Originally Posted by bookworm

Perhaps this was an experience of Steve Smith coming close to asking for help. When he regained his composure Steve Smith told these couples that he and the other elders would get back with them at a later date, but they never did.

Instead several weeks later was the time described in Chapter 1 of The Thread of Gold in which Jane was accused of “the shameful downfall that you caused to one of us.”

Originally Posted by OBW

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Of course they are not going to mention that Witness Lee's son was involved in immorality.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

And it wasn't the elders of the LC who eventually dealt with it. It was the extended family of the woman involved in the latest despicable acts of Lee's son who publicly insisted something be done about him. Finally the elders stopped kowtowing to Lee long enough to toss his son out on his behind where he belonged along time ago - with Lee whining the whole time how his family was being mistreated. It must have slipped his mind how many people and especially women his son had mistreated over the years which he swept under the carpet. I think the condition is called convenient amnesia.

Originally Posted by Terry

I'll say this much you'll hear brothers say so and so was ambitious. That may be so, but ambition was tolerated UNTIL he reacted to a sinful situation. With the turmoils of 1978 and the late 80's, this is the message that's delivered: turmoil was due to ambitious brothers. What is not spoken is certain saints reacted to a sinful situation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ed Marks made a comment about the "saints getting away from the Bible?"

Is that some kind of joke? Has Ed Marks ever promoted "getting into the Bible?" He is perhaps the greatest cheerleader WL ever had.

Furthermore, how would Ed know what really happened in Anaheim in the 70's? His only source of information was the scandalous book Fermentation of the Present Rebellion.

Originally Posted by Terry

While listening to a message Ed Marks gave in Spokane, something he said made me wonder, where was Ed Marks in 1978? In Houston, or in Anaheim. His word why there was a turmoil in 1978 was not a reaction to sin as Indiana's post indicated, but rather because the saints got away from reading the Bible.

Originally Posted by Terry

While listening to a message Ed Marks gave in Spokane, something he said made me wonder, where was Ed Marks in 1978? In Houston, or in Anaheim. His word why there was a turmoil in 1978 was not a reaction to sin as Indiana's post indicated, but rather because the saints got away from reading the Bible.

Originally Posted by Indiana

The Sisters’ Reaction
The joyful brother in my phone conversation yesterday said that what was called a rebellion by the sisters was actually not a rebellion but a reaction they had to the sins of WL’s two sons. He himself testified that he could sense spiritual death in the office of Living Stream as he passed through it; and then one day he himself became a witness to Philip Lee’s moral misconduct, as was Warren Peterson also on another occasion. This sinning by PL was never treated and dealt with, though Max Rapoport tried. He had approached Brother Lee.

The sisters initially came together to pray, then they also approached Brother Lee and confronted him to deal with his son and the sin in the office of Living Stream. Ten years later reports came again and the church in Anaheim was in an upheaval over the undealt-with sins at Living Stream Ministry.

Originally Posted by Indiana

(As a side note, “Steve Smith” and two elders sat behind me in the 1974-75 winter training on Romans, and I never forgot my impression of them. I could hear them talk, infrequently as it was, always low volume and uninspired, dragging, without joy. On breaks, from the beginning, I noticed they were not engaging at all, without light in their countenance or life in their step. They were very weighed down throughout the ten days of training, morning and night. I sensed death and darkness was with them and knew that something was wrong.)

Originally Posted by Indiana

I realized yesterday who Sam Jones must be. In a phone call with a former elder in LA and Rosemead, I found out that his wife had repeatedly protested to her husband about the things she knew and that had been covered up in Texas. She had been in at least two Texas churches – Houston and Irving. In order to keep her quiet “the church” had bought a house for this elder and his wife. She has now passed away, only about a month ago.

Originally Posted by Indiana

This, Jane and others saw as a necessary labor of love in the church to build up the Body. But it was apparently viewed by church authority as a part of a sisters’ rebellion against God’s move that damaged God’s building. Thus, church authority was executed to “terminate” the “divisive” and “independent” sister in a scene that was considered to be to this day by the executioner a proper demonstration of the “headship of Christ” in the Body.

http://www.HidingHistoryintheLordsRe...eRebellion.pdf