Originally Posted by aron

(Translated from Portuguese, with name removed)

At a meeting of co-workers held in Anaheim CA in the 2000s, the following statement on the "Restoration of the Lord" (I was there and I heard very well) was made:

"- You guys need to know what is the Lord's Recovery is: 1) what WL said; 2) what WL did; and 3) what would WL do. "

Perhaps some partisan WL followers react against this, but I doubt it's someone with responsibility or recognition within the Movement.

The question that shocked me was not what was said, but that it represented exactly what the motion was.

Meetings of workers in Anaheim were permeated with considerations about it. Nothing could have been mentioned or promoted without these fundamentals being supported.

It was the purest demonstration of idolatry. I could not wait to get out. But do not think it is easy to take any position, because the content of the messages was "fantastic". The cult of revelation of WL is the fuel of the entire structure of LSM and its affiliated congregations.

The whole theology of localism WL and its LSM is focused on these three items. If this is over the movement disappears.

Nothing is more essential than this. The teaching of the scriptures, living the gospel, training, conferences, everything is done on WL's work, whom some of its leaders say they will give account on the day of judgment (I heard one of the main collaborators mention this).

1) It is based on the theological misconception / doctrine of localism (which is mainly characterized in taking or establish the limits of the locality as a foundation other than of Jesus Christ);

2) It is influenced by the more negative aspects of the movement of Witness Lee / LSM, such as the personality cult of "The Prophet" and "The Apostle", a supposed line to Watchman Nee, and the ministerial promotion through exploration and negotiation of the books and lectures of "absolute and supreme leader of the Lord recovery"; and

3) It is entirely degraded by heretical and mystical self-centeredness of Dong Yu Lan, his impositive and repetitive practices (which stand out from the "deny the life of the soul" and "call" - which are used as brainwashing means the Rather than lead believers to a healthy and free life experience), and his unhealthy fascination marketing of faith (coming to rave that the Holy Spirit gave him the revelation of a business that will be responsible for the return of Christ - called bookafé).

It's hard to tell how the Holy Spirit works within the limits of Dong's movement, but one thing is certain, its vestiges are in complete and utter extinction.

Speaking of Dongism is like coming to a funeral time, which only makes sense because the Father of lights gave us strength (to me and my house) to overcome it and thus I feel indebted to those who are still stuck into their traps, or those who may be being co-opted to participate in this Sino-American system, they found ground among the slaves of this Land of the Holy Cross.

A brief account continuing to experiment with the WL of localism:

For 20 years I have been active member and leader of this movement, also known as" the Lord's Recovery ". Their doctrine was based on the teachings of so-called Brethren, which had a major impact in Communist China, where the highlight was a local leader named Watchman Nee, who is well known in evangelical circles.

It is possible that u know something about it, but it is reasonable to mention that Watchman Nee was arrested in 1950 and died in Chinese prison in 1972. His movement but grew and spread in the East. In the 60s some of his followers or companions went to the US and from there took his teachings to many countries. At this point the work of WN had already reached all continents.

Under the influence of the writings of WN were several groups and movements, including the well-known local church.

I came across a segment of this movement in 1991 in Brasilia. This group was led, and still is, by a Chinese (Dong Yu Lan), who came to Brazil and settled since the early 60's How I relished the WN's teachings, which seemed correct in the light of scriptures, I began to attend meetings and to serve their communities.

At the time I was captain, soon promoted to Major, and serving as President of the Republic, with a very well underway and successful career. In 1995, with only four years in Dongism, he invited me to be one of his Cooperators.

I was absolutely fascinated by religious rise. This led me to make some decisions (whether led by the Spirit or not, I can not say, but certainly God uses His sovereignty to achieve his goals). The normal delivery of military career led me to the Command and General Staff Course, whose school is in Rio de Janeiro.

I had given competition in 92 and had been approved on 1st try (I was the 3rd place in EsAO, the first 2 are exempted from competition therefore needed to take the tests). Thus, after having guaranteed access, and defer enrollment in the course 3 times, I ended up declining to make EsCEME (a true madness). But by then I was determined to leave the military career to devote myself to the service of the gospel full-time. No one could stop me. There were no arguments that made me ponder.

I desperately tried to participate in the Conferences, Trainings and improvements promoted by the Church of Dong Yu Lan Local or Tree of Life (there is no way to identify Dongism too well). That was the way to progress. To be present at all. I was very dedicated in the profession, and needed to keep pace in religion, although not admit it was religion - I said it was "the church."

We can not ignore God's plan. Today I still wonder why there changed my course, left the profession and deepened me this cult? On one hand I repent for not agreed in time, but on the other, I feel that the Father needed an operator of special forces to infiltrate into the bowels of this religious mafia and obtain their secrets.

So in the late '90s I could let the EB to fully dedicate myself to "Work of God". My last commission was in Army Intelligence Center. My goodbyes were watered with tears of turmoil. Praise, memories, victories and medals were released as ashes in the sea of ​​nostalgia. But I did not think about anything but to "follow Christ and the church."

In this period of nearly 10 years of association with the "church in Brasilia" and the regional and international work, I dove even deeper into the service. Since 1994 I was already involved with:

- Conferences for Youth, local, regional, national and international;

- I sold my only property he owned in Rio de Janeiro to buy land and build a small apartment in the condominium resort Tree of Life (there was no document, it was all for the church, the owner acquired a usage assignment)

- Project Coordination: I wanted to participate in all endeavors as Expobook (one Outreach Project with bus transformed into libraries); CEAPE emerged (Improvement Center for Propagation of the Gospel), which I have prepared almost all of the 80 lessons, a Herculean task within the WN and WL publications; School of the Gospel, which I was the mastermind in order to care for young people and adolescents and to prepare them to preach the gospel and to behave as citizens; Books unions, which established quotas to members, however, almost went bankrupt, and there was no voluntary return, but "consider as offering" But it was presented, it was like "a business or investment that could turn a profit." [Sound familiar?]

- In the early 2000s, due to the success of the School of the Gospel, we promote visiting every city in the state of Goiás, in a project called "Summer 2000", ie all summer to Christ this summer. We occupy our holiday with teams of satellite towns and Planning.

During the period I was still working, the reconciliation of my work in PR and responsibilities of a brother "Responsible and Cooperator" made me a real balancing act. I had a phobia of wanting to do everything. I actually believed was promoting the return of the Lord Jesus, introducing people reached the "Restoration of the Lord."

Came the obsession to "conquer the land" for Christ. In 2000 I took the lead in evangelizing Project in Africa, where I devoted most of my time over 10 years. I personally scoured 25 countries, and coordinated congregations and workers in over 40 countries, while being visited 52 of the 54 countries of the continent.

Within the movement I progressed and came to be considered a leader and international cooperative, and participated in various activities and events for several countries, mainly in the United States. There I met the main leadership of the International Local Church Movement, also known as Living Stream Ministry (LSM), which is a religious institution and Editorial founded to promote the ministry of its supreme leader, Witness Lee, a WN follower, known for their Bible studies and forceful criticism of evangelical and denominational Christianity.

The Local Church Movement led by Dong Yu Lan in Brazil and South America was considered part of the Ministry of Witness Lee, from the arrival of DYL here until the death of Witness Lee in 1997.

But from WL's death, the relationship between the leadership of LSM and DYL, which has never been good, has been deteriorating to the total disruption of these movements and their congregations in 2005 and officially in 2009, when a Letter of Quarantine has been published the DYL.

I participated actively in this process of separation of the LSM with DYL, mainly because he considered extremely idolatrous WL Movement, centralized and authoritarian. These deviations were notorious and affected the consciousness of the brothers, particularly those that related internationally. There was an expectation, at least on my part, that in this break, the Local Church movement in Brazil and South America could fix their deviations, and bring his teachings to their practice.

Almost simultaneously, and as the work progressed in Africa and was successful, problems with the DYL leadership began to arise and develop, either in the teaching field, and in practice. In addition I began to question the Movement administration.

Although he was considered a leader, he did not participate in its management, but the Work in Africa, which I managed, is the movement of people and resources. At the time it was granted a Power of Attorney by the Association Tree of Life, for we function as a branch in Brasilia, with the specific purpose of supporting evangelization in Africa.

I thought up there, that all he was doing was by God and for God, but my conscience was becoming more sensitive, because of the inconsistencies I found, particularly in increasing promotion ladder, in your institution, and in business that arose with argument to sustain the work.

In 2008 I moved to São Paulo, in a maneuver exhausting logistics, which seriously compromised my family budget and care for my children. There are several versions on this topic, however, at that time I felt that I should approach the DYL leadership to try to somehow positively influence Movement direction. (some movement advocates said I had gone to SP to give a kind of "coup in DYL" quite an imagination!)

At that time I had invested everything he had, property, family, and career on the belief that this movement was an expression of the restored church on earth. Would not it be logical that in the face of difficulties, I simply depart. I really wanted to make "the church" into something that rewards the dedication of the people.

The story is long. Facebook's Notes address in particular this disruption process. I am attaching some files that seek to describe a sequence of events.

Then came the administrative issue and the fear of legal responsibility. In São Paulo I took note of a Warrant Search and Seizure, which was issued (later halted), due to a Concealment Process Goods and Money Laundering Association against the Tree of Life (AAV).

Were evident signs of administrative irregularities, particularly in resort Tree of Life, where a son of DYL managed an Engineering Company, which at the time was the only one to carry out works at Estancia (meeting place of the Congregations, an auditorium, accommodation, houses and hotel).

The thought of providing credibility to the operations, which at least seemed unethical by the Movement summit, began to haunt me. I worried about being irresponsibility for something I lived, but not adequately met, and certainly not agree.

After the episode of the Warrant I went to the resort to talk to one of the main leaders of the Movement, who lived there (Ezra Ma, the chief marketer of Dong Yu Lan). Surely he was aware what occurred there. So I argued with him in the face of irregularities, what should be our position?

We should just sit on the 1st row and make clear to the brothers who were approving all that was done?

I told him to all the letters that I would not be Orange Movement, and that if there were any irregular or unethical situation, as such Engineering Company that had the monopoly of the works of EAV, so that the situation be corrected because they do not should expect from me what solidarity was not fair and legal.

He claimed not to know anything, but "the administration of EAV was a kind of black box, the Dong's exclusivity."

I argued that, if so, only after the [airplane] crash that we would know its [the black box'] contents. Finally we said goodbye. I think he got the message, they could not "trust" me administrative secrets.....

Originally Posted by Indiana

AN OPEN LETTER FROM JOHN SMITH

April 18, 1989

Dear Brothers and Sisters in San Diego,

It is now more than 17 years since I came to San Diego for the church life. There have been days of happiness and days of sadness...

The teaching and attempted practice of “deputy authority” and “the oracle of God”, have issued in a system of control and organization of the churches. Much of the control is indirect, but nonetheless very strong. Control and organization are publicly denied but constant pressure is applied through elders’ trainings, videos, conferences, and publications to push churches and brothers and sisters to conform. Surely this is strong organization. Whatever the intention, the result of this surely hinders the organic relationship of the saint to his Lord. We have seen a great change of emphasis from “the ministry for the churches” to “the churches for the ministry.” Thus the “work” or “ministry” is built up more than the local churches. Any church that would build up and exalt “the ministry” has been virtually incorporated into “the work.”
Since control is denied, why is honest fellowship not received? I have personally had the experience of honest fellowship not being received.
3. In recent years efforts to unite saints and churches all over the earth around a physical leader and organization have become increasingly apparent. I believe this is not scriptural. Plurality of apostles and different companies of apostles working in various areas is no longer our concept or practice. The New Testament does not present one apostle governing all the rest. Here I wish to present some notes from the Taipei Elders Training June 1989:

a. p.2 “…Don’t teach differently from the minister, from Paul.” But the passage in 1 Timothy does not say do not teach differently from Paul but don’t teach differently from God’s dispensation (or stewardship or administration), which is in faith (1 Tim. 1:4).
b. p.4 “So our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.” This should be said of no one but Christ Himself.
c. p.6 “Without this fellowship no church can be produced, built, or completed.” The context of the Taipei notes implies that today this is Witness Lee’s fellowship. I fully disagree with this.
d. p.13 “It may be that the number one sin in the Lord’s recovery today is the improper relationship with the ministry office. It is a sign of blindness. The practical carrying out of this ministry is practically with Philip Lee.” “…We love brother Lee’s ministry but he has a way to do things; he does things thru the ministry office; he doesn’t trust anyone else on the whole earth, so brother Lee put him (Philip) there” (p.14). Such a thing has no valid precedent in the New Testament, either by example or teaching.

The above statements from the Taipei Elders’ training and more that could be presented are shocking and not according to the New Testament. The exaltation of man and chain-of-command stand out. Since authority is ascribed and practiced in a very inorganic, organized manner....

John Smith

Note: This letter is not restricted to San Diego. I hope you will all read John Ingalls’ and Al Knoch’s statement withdrawing as elders in Anaheim.

Originally Posted by Nell

This recording and its transcript will stand in eternity as a testimony by Lee himself of his own hypocrisy and immoral character which led to immoral and illegal activities with money donated by the faithful...all the while Lee enjoyed the status: "oracle of God". It's value is in its content. Arguments of its "illegality" are a smokescreen to hide Lee damning his own character flaws and failures by admitting to a brother his financial crimes...

Transcript attached.

Nell

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Secret recording was possibly illegal as well under two-party consent laws. It does seem like a setup given that it seems that the recording started from the beginning of conversation and not mid way through.

Originally Posted by Terry

Speaking of false narrative, I've been following the Russian Collusion investigation for weeks. I've done my share of reading and come away knowing this parallels the narrative from Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. A fabricated story with the intent to besmirch a person or persons.

Originally Posted by Drake

True, we need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. If we are delinquent in that then we missed a rather crucial point to our Christian life and may very fall into the category of those who call Him Lord yet to whom He says in that Day “depart from Me for I never knew you”. For convenience I’ll refer to this as Imperative #1 for the rest of this post.

...In this case, examining the circumstances and particulars of two brothers on a phone call is fine.... while keeping, of course, Imperative #1 fixed in the center in our sight.

Originally Posted by recoveringCK

It's all about the hierarchy which they established and maintain for themselves using deception.

Originally Posted by Drake

Originally Posted by zeek

Well said. And who are we to judge whether Sal or Witness Lee were living according to the standard of Matthew 5 to 7? Rather we should look to ourselves in fear and trembling, right?

Originally Posted by byHismercy

The leading ones in the assembly of the body of Christ should meet all the standards He Himself set forth in His word.

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure zeek.

First, I find no scriptural basis for Sals secret recording and if he held beliefs that something was amiss then he was delinquent as there is a prescribed approach in Matthew 18. His approach was both unscriptural and unethical.

Originally Posted by Drake

First, I find no scriptural basis for Sals secret recording and if he held beliefs that something was amiss then he was delinquent as there is a prescribed approach in Matthew 18. His approach was both unscriptural and unethical.

Originally Posted by Drake

Dear somedude,

I thought 137 had many pertinent questions for a general audience.... but I also recognized them as leading questions meant for the initiated, i.e. those in this forum........ each serving as a springboard for others to reissue canned opinions. Therefore, though pertinent, I did not expect that those series of questions would lead to anything meaningful. So it doesn’t interest me but I can see how others in the forum would appreciate the opportunity to restate same answers to new questions.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Dear somedude,

I thought 137 had many pertinent questions for a general audience.... but I also recognized them as leading questions meant for the initiated, i.e. those in this forum........ each serving as a springboard for others to reissue canned opinions. Therefore, though pertinent, I did not expect that those series of questions would lead to anything meaningful. So it doesn’t interest me but I can see how others in the forum would appreciate the opportunity to restate same answers to new questions.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So Drake, while I know most of the forum members and readers are probably wildly curious about all the distinctions without differences, I'm wondering if you could take some time out of your busy day and address some of the questions put forth in post #137?

How bout you just start with this one:

-

Originally Posted by somedude

Most importantly, can a Christian leader ask, or even demand, that their spiritual standing as a ministry/movement leader be totally unaffected by any lapse(s) in upholding to the highest ethical standards?

Originally Posted by Nell

No. We won’t.

Just because I made a copy of your remark above, by hitting the “quote” button, doesn’t mean I’m “quoting you”. It’s a reply to your comments. This is not brain surgery, Drake.

Ok. Now i’m Going to hit “Submit Reply”.

Originally Posted by Drake

That’s a distinction without a difference.

We’ll leave it there.

Thanks
Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess God was using me as a prophet. If I had stayed, it might of even saved you. Cuz I have a burden for you, and prayers, too. Cuz you too have to ready for that wedding garment ... just like me. And thanks brother, for your burden and prayers for me. I sure could use it/them. We all could.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother awareness,

Thanks for the question.

Maybe. But, do you know of anyone who really wanted to stay that "got the boot"? And if so since they got the boot are they still wishing they had not?

Drake

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Drake, let us remember that those that refused to be shifty either left or got the boot. You on the other hand seem to be just fine with it.

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure zeek.

First, I find no scriptural basis for Sals secret recording and if he held beliefs that something was amiss then he was delinquent as there is a prescribed approach in Matthew 18. His approach was both unscriptural and unethical.

To the body of #126...the life of God vs. ethics question. Clearly, there is no higher standard than that which comes by living according the life of God. Ethics vary from culture to culture, cause to cause, are influenced by situations of the time.... so it is very variable. History is riddled with ethical standards of their time that resulted in millions being slaughtered. So ethics as a standard is well below the bar set for the Christian. The Law given through Moses is higher than ethics but still below the bar set for the Christian. Rather, the standard set for the Christian is first revealed in Matthew 5 - 7, the constitution of the Kingdom where only a life lived according to the Spirit can achieve it.

To bring this back around on your last points. Which tree Sal was eating from or his ability to understand the way of life are not germane to this incident because to my observation he was a brother who ate the Tree of Life and understood the way of life unless he was faking it all along and I don’t sense that at all. However, that does not mean he is without flaws and weaknesses as we all are and just to be clear in case you doubt my view on this, Brother Lee had his own. That goes without saying but in this forum it is necessary to repeat. Therefore, it is my opinion, since you asked for it, Sal had a right to inquire about the loan but did not go about it the right way, his way was neither scriptural or ethical pick your preferred standard, nor was his deep dive questioning into the inflows and outflows of funds to various initiatives his business. That does not have anything to do with delegated authority. Brother Lee did not base his responses to Sal on delegated spiritual authority, rather it was a simple and practical matter, it was none of Sals business. Look at it this way, if someone you consider an authority, spiritual or otherwise, were to come to you and ask for your tax returns would you turn them over? I wouldn’t even if I considered them an authority. It’s none of their business. Or if someone were to give me a loan for say property improvement and then call me up, recording our conversation without my knowledge, and demanding to know whether the loan went to fixing the fence or the basement foundation or paying the plumber, etc. then I’d say, as Brother Lee did to Sal, it’s not their business, it’s too much, and that if they don’t trust my managing it then they should not make the loan. And if they were to start referencing mysterious CPAs and alleging criminal behavior on my part I’d also give them the dial tone as Sal also got.

Drake

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't really believe you, but okay. How about giving me your opinion about the teachings of Nee and Lee and their application to Sal's phone call in post 126.

Originally Posted by zeek

Likewise, to question Witness Lee's handling of Philip Lee's alleged sexual transgressions was rejected because it was operating from the standpoint of the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil rather than the Tree of Life. As far as the "Lord's recovery" was concerned it was Lee's way or the highway.

Originally Posted by Nell

Sorry. I replied to him. I didn’t quote him. .

Originally Posted by awareness

A+.

But this idea of concern about right and wrong being from the wrong tree is precisely what allowed Lee to get away with his lapses of financial ethics, and why brothers went along with it. Cuz to question his ethics is partaking of the wrong tree.

Originally Posted by Drake

Not a bit zeek. We are peers.

I gave you my opinion. It differs from yours. I respect that.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

In post 89 you quoted UntoHim’s conjecture... yet you did not read it when you made your comment?

Silly me for assuming that by quoting him you actually read it.

Way too complex for me... however, the rest of your post about Sal is merely conjecture unless you have something more than the audio to base it on.

Drake

Originally Posted by zeek

I notice that you assert your superior position from which you grade my performance. Watchman Nee taught that we ought to know who is above us. You have shown here that you think you are above me.

When I was under Witness Lee's ministry he taught that ethics were from the wrong tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both Nee and Lee taught that we should not be occupied with right or wrong, good or evil. Rather should we eat and drink Christ which is the way of the tree of life.

The way of ethics is the way of reason. None who follow reason can walk in the way of life, because it is beyond and above human reasoning. Based on that principle, Sal because he was eating from the wrong tree could not possibly understand the way of life that Lee was taking with his businesses.

If we would take the way of life we would recognize who is the authority above us. When Sal questioned Witness Lee he was questioning God's delegated authority. This was rebellion against God and His move on earth. What's my grade on this post? Did I do better?

Originally Posted by zeek

I notice that you assert your superior position from which you grade my performance. Watchman Nee taught that we ought to know who is above us. You have shown here that you think you are above me.

Originally Posted by Drake

Well zeek,

3 no’s were based on it is not unscrupulous, not a problem to question people, or practices.

The 1/2 was that the Lords life is greater than ethics which is true. But I deducted 1/2 point for the implication that following the Lords life leads to lack of ethics.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

I don’t keep track of all that awareness. However, I believe we can assume that repayment wasn’t an issue because Sal did not bring it up on the call.... at all.

Originally Posted by Drake

So, all these ... are based on .... what?

Nada, nunca, nyet, nothing..... make believe.. ...

If you want to make an argument based on financial ... then you need to show some numbers...

...... fake news from where I sit, brother. No real numbers.

Just sayin.

Originally Posted by Trapped

[SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana].....To use a church as an example, if the elders in a locality decide to spend money to buy five new Maserati’s for its serving ones to use, rather than five used Honda Accords, all the individual saints who contribute general offerings would feel "their money" was spent irresponsibly, no matter who contributed the specific dollars in the big pot that went to paying for that particular cost.

The issue is not the management of inflows and outflows; the issue is the nature and purpose of some of the outflows. If money goes to purposes, projects, and initiatives that trouble the conscience of the saints and which are not the stated purpose of LSM, it is a problem.

Originally Posted by Drake

I don’t keep track of all that awareness. However, I believe we can assume that repayment wasn’t an issue because Sal did not bring it up on the call.... at all.

Originally Posted by awareness

And you know that how? When did Lee pay back the loan?

Originally Posted by Drake

Awareness,

No one stole the loan.

That would have been a legitimate complaint.

Originally Posted by Nell

. I had not read UntoHim's comments when I wrote mine.

Originally Posted by zeek

Based on what?

Originally Posted by Drake

Right, Nell. You were keying off of Untohims conjecture that Sal got “malfeasance “ info from Max.... you then lended support to that conjecture by adding your own conjecture that you heard Max was in the room.... so it’s a fair point to further speculate about it even though Untohims original point was conjecture.... and you had no problem with that nor adding to it with some your own.

Originally Posted by awareness

It wasn't a good day for Sal when he trusted Lee with a one hundred thousand dollar loan. What's more unscrupulous? A phone call? or taking the virginity of the saints, and stealing their money?

Originally Posted by awareness

It wasn't a good day for Sal when he trusted Lee with a one hundred thousand dollar loan. What's more unscrupulous? A phone call? or taking the virginity of the saints, and stealing their money?

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek,

I’d assess that as....... 3.5 “no’s”.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

In sum, not a good day for Sal B.

Originally Posted by zeek

This practice is, of course, unethical. But then, we the lowly followers should have known that. Because as Witness Lee taught us, the way of Life was beyond ethics. To question his authority or his apparently unscrupulous practices was the way of death. Isn't that right?

Originally Posted by Nell

Er, Drake, is that a problem? I said I heard he was there. That’s hearsay.

I added what I have. I didn’t transcribe the tape. It’s been out there for years. If you have something else, by all means... No need for innuendos.

Originally Posted by Drake

I dont hear that at all zeek..... Sal said he was calling in an honest way, then he pulls an Omarosa...Sorry zeek, this was a dishonest call on Sal's part, he wanted to accues Brother Lee and took 26 minutes to work his way around it...

Originally Posted by Nell

Remember that Max's presence in the room at the time of the phone call is unconfirmed speculation, and your judgment against Max should be reserved until such time as you have proof that he was there.

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped, I agree, in principle. However, in practice thousands of donations and loans came in for a variety of purposes, projects, and initiatives. A designator for the donation or loan will often accompany it but tracking each individual donation or loan by contributor by initiative would become unwieldy. Yet as long as the sum of contributions designated for a certain project get at least that amount it matters not how the funds flowed there....

Originally Posted by Drake

All those allegations by the accountant (TR) who prepared the taxes for all those ministry workers and in such a role being himself right in the middle of the whole business.... never thought that reporting the alleged crimes was part of his Christian or civil duty?

Originally Posted by awareness

....But later, when you discover that it's not what God was doing, then you realize what you did was wrong. Then you're obligated to God to repent and speak out about it.

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Harold,

All those allegations by the accountant (TR) who prepared the taxes for all those ministry workers and in such a role being himself right in the middle of the whole business.... never thought that reporting the alleged crimes was part of his Christian or civil duty?

Odd,.....

Or did he report it, and an investigation ensued and nothing came of it?

Originally Posted by awareness

But if you want to know what was really going on back when Lee was alive, look to those from Elden Hall, like Risenhoover and Don Hardy. Or even my friend Hosepipe.

Originally Posted by Drake

Furthermore, if Sal's only concern was about how the loan was going to be used then he could have and should have asked for immediate repayment. I have no doubt that he would received reimbursement in a few days since LSM and its trustees were already reimbursing churches that made contributions for the defunct Daystar.

Originally Posted by Trapped

It is reasonable therefore, that anyone funding, donating to, or purchasing the goods of this organization should understand that their money goes towards that stated purpose. This stated purpose is the reason that people feel comfortable contributing money, in any form, in the first place. If money is used in other ways, seemly or unseemly, then the donors and contributors have a right to know...... If you loaned someone money, and that money was used to purchase weapons and hit-men that carried out a calculated murder of another person, then the loaner is complicit in that, because the funds used were HIS, regardless of whether or not the loan was paid back

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, Sal was trying to entrap Lee. But why did he think he could entrap him? What did he have on him? He and Max had been at the top and on the inside. They knew of Lee's hidden maleficence, and Sal thought he could get Lee to admit to it, while he was recording him? It didn't happen. But Lee did leak a lot out. You can tell in his voice, and the way he was answering, that Lee had shell companies, that he used to play funny with the money. So Sal got him.

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok... but it was still a loan ...... and Brother Lee indicated (hard to actually hear it since Sal was constantly talking over his answers) that LSM had covered actual (not loans) losses by several churches. Therefore, there was no concern about the loan being repaid, rather, the premise of the call was how the loan was used..... but as can be easily discerned on replay the motive was to get Brother Lee to admit to a crime on that call..... Sal not having any luck doing that becomes more desperate near the end of the call and presses the issue directly when he cites he has talked to several CPAs and “they” all think that transferring money around like that must be a crime...

Originally Posted by Drake

Sidebar: I still question the date of the recording as 1977.... I am more inclined to place it in 1978. The reason is because there was a meeting and intimate fellowship with about 30 brothers and Brother Lee at the mansion on Dudley Rd. in May 78. Though some controversy had begun to swirl around Max by May from an earlier visit in 78 and some of his teachings/ delivery methods , yet, Sal did not express any issues whatsoever before or after the meeting with Brother Lee on Dudley Rd.. That intimate fellowship with Brother Lee was a splendid time for all who could join.... shortly after that the dam broke.

Originally Posted by Drake

And if Max were on this call and it was in 77.... then he also was more duplicitous than I previously had imagined.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is one of many eyewitnesses from the early days, well aware of corrupt business practices at LSM. This was his OP on another thread.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

What would this recording sound like if it was transcripted then edited by LSM and the DCP? I say this somewhat in jest...

Despite the fact that Witness Lee makes a fool out of himself on this call, it was nice for me to hear what the guy sounded like “off the record”. It shines a light into the scrubbed and confused darkness that surrounds the man. Very much a confirmation that (at least some) of what is written about Witness Lee on the internet is not poison, but in fact, truth. The reality is, the man and his ministry aren’t what he claimed them to be. If I’m right, what are the implications of that?

Originally Posted by Drake

I dont hear that at all zeek..... Sal said he was calling in an honest way, then he pulls an Omarosa... He goes off on a rant demanding to know about a loan Newton made, Brother Lee tells him and he still acts like he needs to know more.. it was a loan for crying out loud....., then he asks if Living Stream donated any money for the profit businesses and Brother Lee tells him that LSM gave money to the churches to pay off loans for the defunct Daystar..... so what is to complain about that?

Originally Posted by Drake

Zeek, Brother Lee was right that it was none of Sal's business but because Sal appealed to know as a responsible one in Newton and a brother then Brother Lee listened and answered, or tried to answer while Sal constantly talked over Brother Lee's answers and it was apparent that he had no interest in understanding Brother Lee's viewpoint, rather he wanted to make points for the recording and he would often say something that Brother Lee did not say...

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry zeek, this was a dishonest call on Sal's part, he wanted to accues Brother Lee and took 26 minutes to work his way around it...

Drake

Originally Posted by Elden1971

My walk with the Lord began 60 years ago in Okemah Oklahoma where I experienced my first church split due to the pastor involving the members in a business that failed. Twenty years later that experience and others would keep me from involvement in the Daystar tragedy at Elden Hall. It has been erroneously reported on this forum and others that I was the accountant for Daystar. I was the accountant for many investors in Daystar and a Business Consultant to several Brothers. I was employed as an Accountant for the Los Angeles County Government and responsible for the Payroll Clearance Fund and the Joint Power Authorities. I later had increased responsibilities in Budget Report and Data Processing Departments where I created the Billing Algorithms for all 77 Departments. I also worked part time as the Controller for the Beverly College of Law and a Bar Review Course and also worked as a Business Consultant and Tax Preparer for many Brothers including Bro.Lee and Francis Ball. I can confirm that those involved in Daystar violated Federal and State Securities Law and Federal money laundering statutes. The son of one of the sisters that invested in Daystar was and still is an attorney now living in DC who advised the brothers and me of their illegal activities. Prior to the Daystar tragedy my experience at Elden Hall was one of the best times of my Life.

Terry and Nancy Risenhoover

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok... but it was still a loan ...... and Brother Lee indicated (hard to actually hear it since Sal was constantly talking over his answers) that LSM had covered actual (not loans) losses by several churches. Therefore, there was no concern about the loan being repaid, rather, the premise of the call was how the loan was used..... but as can be easily discerned on replay the motive was to get Brother Lee to admit to a crime on that call..... Sal not having any luck doing that becomes more desperate near the end of the call and presses the issue directly when he cites he has talked to several CPAs and “they” all think that transferring money around like that must be a crime...

Originally Posted by awareness

Long before this recording Sal showed up in Ft. Lauderdale, complaining about the loan, saying all he's been told is that it's Gods' money. It was obviously a very big sore spot, years before this recording.

Originally Posted by Nell

I heard, years ago, that Max was in the room with Sal when this call tool place.

Originally Posted by Drake

Bro awareness,

Sal did not say that the loan would not be paid back. It was understood that it was a loan.

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sal wasn't accusing Lee of anything. He was exposing him with the indisputable evidence of criminal activity...and probably still held out a little hope that Witness would apologize and repent. Sal had no doubt found out from Max Rapoport that this wasn't Lee's first go around at the financial malfeasance rodeo...no sir, Lee was an experienced cowboy at this point, and this shows big time in many of Witness' evasive and mealy mouth answers to Sal's reasonable inquiries.

"Dishonest" you say Drake? Really? This coming from a follower of Witness Lee?
-

Originally Posted by leastofthese

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6800733/wlsl/

Is this the tape you are referring to?

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother Drake, you loan someone $100,000.00 and they not pay you back, and see how you feel about it ... specially if it's a man of God of Lee's stature.

I got ripped off by an elder -- he's gone now -- and I still have hard feelings toward him -- and it was less than $1,000.00.

Originally Posted by leastofthese

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6800733/wlsl/

Is this the tape you are referring to?

Originally Posted by Drake

...he accuses Brother Lee of criminal activity.... Sorry zeek, this was a dishonest call on Sal's part, he wanted to accues Brother Lee and took 26 minutes to work his way around it...

Originally Posted by zeek

The facts do not bother you. And yet you continue to ignore the audio tape of Witness Lee and Sal Benoit.

Originally Posted by zeek

No Drake it doesn't show that Lee was a multi-millionaire or that he was living a lavish lifestyle. But, it strongly suggests that Witness Lee was a con man playing a shell game with money loaned or contributed to him by his followers to whom he denied any accountability. It also shows that Sal Benoit was a victim who placed way too much confidence in Lee and when he realized what was going on felt burned. I'm glad he taped the call because the litigious Living Stream Ministry has concealed and possibly destroyed records of its true history.

Originally Posted by Terry

Even if someone provided proof Witness Lee's reported income was six figures, seven figures, or eight figures, I'm sure the response by the most loyal LSMer would be "whatever, doesn't matter". Even if it was true which I believe at least 6-7 figures, I don't believe he lived lavishly. However it provided a means to support his children and more likely provided a way to ensure his grandchildren received a college education. This is not meant to be anything more than my opinion.

Originally Posted by Drake

zeek,

You mean the attempted entrapment audio from Sal.... there is plenty of shame there for Sal.. forerunner of Omarosa...... listened to it a few times but exactly what quote is it that you think validates that Witness Lee was a multi millionaire living a lavish lifestyle?

Drake

Originally Posted by zeek

The facts do not bother you. And yet you continue to ignore the audio tape of Witness Lee and Sal Benoit.

Originally Posted by Drake

The facts do not bother me. Put them on the table. What we are talking about here are the unsubstantiated allegations from afazio. Since he cant do it, and Untohim cant do it, then maybe you can show us the basis of their argument starting with the financial filings from the 80s and 90s of LSM.

Originally Posted by awareness

Not just financial filings, but letters, emails, cell phone records and recordings, flight records, receipts, finger prints on the safe and money (and any gold Lee manged to get his sticky fingers on), and hearsay gossip (for further leads). And if the glove doesn't fit we must acquit.

Originally Posted by Drake

So, all these supposed financial crimes and lavish lifestyles thrown about in this forum from all those mega profits from LSM are based on .... what?

Nada, nunca, nyet, nothing..... make believe.. anecdotal at best like Rolex watches being flashed about which said watch was possibly purchased at the same place I got mine... the Shanghai Copy Market.... for $20... stopped working after a month. Those type of examples are meaningless.

If you want to make an argument based on financial malpractice then you need to show some numbers... not my yob to disprove a point you or afazio have yet to substantiate.

Untohim...... fake news from where I sit, brother. No real numbers.

Just sayin.

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Real numbers are hard to come by with a person and organization that was so secretive about real numbers.

-

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Real numbers are hard to come by with a person and organization that was so secretive about real numbers.

How about you tell your buddies over there on La Palma Ave to release the IRS forms from the 70s and 80s. How about they release the forms that show Witness Lee's salary and expense allowances for those years? How about the forms that show what Phillip and Timothy were paid. Of course a lot of that is probably hidden in the multiple shell companies Lee & CO came up with.

LET'S START WITH THOSE REAL NUMBERS. Get going Drake. Get on the phone and let's get some of those real numbers, shall we?

Oh, and while your getting those numbers for us, I suggest everyone listen to the phone call between Lee and Benoit. It really exposes the heart of this man who Drake and the Blended Brothers claim to be the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age, The Acting God, The Oracle of God, The Master Builder, An Apostle of the First Order.
-

Originally Posted by Drake

Nnnnnnnn... no, afazio.

LSM is a non- profit corporation filing under 501c....

...... and that apartment Brother Lee lived in could not be characterized as “lavish” by any stretch of a normal imagination.

Drake

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Living Stream Ministry was also Witness Lee's PERSONAL BUSINESS, HIS PERSONAL MINISTRY. IT BELONGED TO HIM. HE OWNED IT, LOCK STOCK AND BARREL.
501c? Sure....if you say so. I guess our friend Drake is right....because everyone knows that there have never been any problems with 501c corporations. Am I right? I mean, no religious leaders have ever been caught with their hands in the non-profit cookie jar? Am I right?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yyyyyyyy...yes, Drake.

Do you really think all of us our just stupid moo cows? Well, maybe we were back in the day, but not no more partner.

Several reputable saints who were in a position to know..,

Reputable brothers who were in a position to know...
-

Originally Posted by afazio

The thing most of us never realized was the money angle. "Living Stream" is the private, for-profit business owned by Lee, with which he supported his extended, adult family in a lavish life style---

Originally Posted by afazio

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow - 2005 was not all that long ago!

So when you say "One Publication Bull" do you mean it like a Papal Bull or BS . . . or both?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sons to Glory! I did not find out about John Ingalls' account Speaking the Truth in Love until the end of 2005 when I stopped meeting in the LC, found the old Bereans forum (where UntoHim was moderator), and decided to move out of town so that I had the "liberty" to meet with other Christian assemblies. Midwest leadership in Cleveland had long decided that it was better if we did not know the truth about Witness Lee and Sons.

At the time "storm clouds" were moving in as the "One Publication Bull" was being circulated, and I knew that unscrupulous thugs at LSM would use it to destroy Midwest LC's which I long had cherished. Obviously everything I held dear about the "vision" of the "local" church was hogwash and just a ruse that had deceived me for decades.

I soon discovered that all the so-called "riches" of this ministry were little more than dead doctrines. Even the Blended leadership was not obligated to follow any of our teachings about the "oneness." The whole vision-thing was a farce. Time to leave.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. I did read John's account in the mid-90s (I think there's a copy of "Speaking the Truth in Love" still around here maybe) and also spoke with him over the phone. That was a key reason I didn't want to return to the LC in the late 1990s, but I was also full of the idea that nothing-fresh-and-of-the-Lord was anywhere else. It was a real & distressing conundrum for me, that the Lord used to get me to the place I am today (Scottsdale Church)!

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

That was a key reason I didn't want to return to the LC in the late 1990s, but I was also full of the idea that nothing-fresh-and-of-the-Lord was anywhere else.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is another link to Hiding History by Brooks

Originally Posted by Terry

Over the years Steve has had many revisions to his Hiding History. Attached is one I have saved on my work pc.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I did searches, but couldn't specifically find the thread, "Hiding the History of the Lord's Recovery." Can someone link it here?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I did searches, but couldn't specifically find the thread, "Hiding the History of the Lord's Recovery." Can someone link it here?

Originally Posted by afazio

Actually, Steve Issit's link and work on "Hiding the History of the Lord's Recovery" is outstanding with respect to incorporating many of those letters of resignation. It's a goldmine of well-documented responses from leaders of Local Churches (I prefer to use capital L and capital C---since I consider those proper names for Lee's "churches") all over the globe. I HIGHLY recommend that every saint who cares to know the truth thoroughly read that document.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's a tragedy of LC history that letters, like this one from John Smith of San Diego, never were disseminated throughout the Recovery. Via the filter of Titus Chu in Cleveland, the GLA LC's knew next to nothing about what really was happening "in the wake of the New Way," because the elders under him were instructed to "protect" the LC's from the controversy. What information we did receive at times, sent anonymously to all the LC's, was very poorly assembled, and easily dismissed as part of some "loony conspiracy."

Had we received well-written letters like this one from John Smith or John Ingalls, whom we knew and respected, that would have caused many of us to weigh both sides of the conflict, and then to investigate further into the actual facts and grievances. This was not done, at least not in my neck of the woods.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I think the elders, which also passed it on to the saints, did not want to be counted as stupid, or unspiritual.

Originally Posted by Terry

It's as if elders were incapable of thinking for themselves and making their personal decisions.
Paraphrasing, it was December 2011 when Steve Isitt was at a Anaheim restaurant with John Ingalls, John was confronted by a Vista elder and his wife. In the same spirit of Witness Lee's speaking, they were holding John responsible for influencing the ones who had left the recovery in the late 80's. Should Steve choose to do so, present his account of what transpired at that Chinese Buffet.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Generally speaking, I think God acts when his people act. Unless we have a heart to pursue Gods interests, things for the most part stay at status quo. Our master told us to do business until he comes.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

.
I know God is going to fix this mess. He is going to make all things new.

Blessings

Originally Posted by Terry

It's as if elders were incapable of thinking for themselves and making their personal decisions.
Paraphrasing, it was December 2011 when Steve Isitt was at a Anaheim restaurant with John Ingalls, John was confronted by a Vista elder and his wife. In the same spirit of Witness Lee's speaking, they were holding John responsible for influencing the ones who had left the recovery in the late 80's. Should Steve choose to do so, present his account of what transpired at that Chinese Buffet.

Originally Posted by Indiana

Witness Lee commented from his book about the same meeting:

"Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, [B]John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.' (p. 59, FPR).


"This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls."

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Countmeworthy, I apologize if I offended you. I spend quite a bit of my time trying to separate what was LSM from what was the church in my thinking. When I read the epistles, I see a lot of things that were practiced in San Diego in the mid to late 70's that match the scripture- things

Originally Posted by JJ

To clarify my comment to Boxjobox, Countmeworty: I didn't say "we can't take back "the church in _____." But rather "I'm not sure that's the right thought". Because I really don't know what the right thought is. I sympathize and relate a lot to Boxjobox on this, but am still formulating my thoughts.

Indeed, blessings all around.

JJ

Originally Posted by Ohio

This actually was standard operating procedure in the program, not at all unique to San Diego. I watched it happen to 2 churches I was a part of. The results were pre-planned and predictable -- the resulting elders are now dependent on headquarters like never before. So much for the LC autonomy we initially signed up for.

Originally Posted by Nell

It's hard to imagine that there was a time that the Living Stream Ministry publishing house did not exist...at least as it does today. This is my recollection of the "Before" picture and how it evolved. Hopefully some of you who were there will be able to add to the story and correct any mistakes in my memory.

Around 1974 in Austin, Texas there was an announcement about something new coming called “Ministry Station” meetings. This was being shared in all the churches. Until that time, there were no publications other than an occasional booklet called “The Stream”. There was no Living Stream Ministry publishing house and no meeting hall on West Ball Road. WL’s messages were recorded and the audio tapes were distributed to the churches. The brothers then digested WL’s messages and shared them in all the church meetings.

Coming soon! “Ministry Meetings” which would be shared, not in the meeting hall, but in a nearby rented facility. In Austin the meetings were held in a community room of a nearby shopping mall, near the rented hall in north Austin. George Whitington (the “most leading brother”) shared all the messages which were called the “Life Study of Genesis”. Each message later came out in booklet form and sold for $.25 each.

We were told that “the ministry” belonged to Witness Lee. It was HIS ministry and he could handle it any way he wanted because it belonged to him. The “ministry meetings” were NOT church meetings and were therefore NOT to be shared in the church meeting hall/s. The ministry was “for the church”. The church was not “for the ministry.” This was shared several times and the leadership in Austin was adamant that these “ministry meetings” should not be considered church meetings...hence the offsite location. The “ministry” was a help to the church, but was NOT the church.

Someone who was in Austin might recall, but I believe it was about the time that Austin bought its current property on S. Congress Ave. and built a hall that the next change occurred. The message was something like “Oh. Never mind. The ministry meetings will no longer be held offsite but brought in to the church meeting hall.” I guess the unspoken was that the church and the ministry of WL are one in the same. The hall in Anaheim on West Ball Road was built with volunteer labor from all over the globe. The church met in this hall and the Living Stream Ministry presses downstairs began to roll out books, starting with Life Study of Genesis booklets.

At one point later, several Life Studies had been shared, Romans, John, Revelation, etc. and we were still buying those little booklets. The brothers in Austin offered to take all complete sets of booklets and have them hardback bound so we did (including our names engraved in gold!) It was so much better than a gazillion little booklets. Soon we found out how much trouble we were in. Anaheim/LSM took great exception to what we did. We were ordered to STOP forthwith. The LSM was going to publish all the Life Studies in a single bound volume and we had jumped the gun, making it unnecessary for us to purchase what we already had from the LSM. After all, it was Witness Lee’s ministry. It belonged to him.

Of note, Witness Lee actually wrote few, if any, books. The majority of his books were reduced to print from his spoken messages. WL didn't transcribe his own messages! The saints in the churches did. They were serving the ministry of Witness Lee from transcriptions, volunteer labor for building 2 meeting halls including publishing facilities, etc. Everything we were told when the offsite “ministry station meetings” began was reversed and the churches soon belonged to Witness Lee and the LSM. Thus the franchise began.

Nell

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I feel differently-the recovery of the meeting of the church is more paramount then ever. .... I still feel the concept was biblical. Looking back (I wasn't there at the beginning so I may be wrong) seems like the speaking of the proper church drew people and was a recovery of the local church. It clicked in me that meeting as the church was what all Christians in the city needed. ..The way I see it, all the epistles were written to build up the local church and the churches, ... I've been to numbers of Christian gatherings in San Diego and elsewhere; some have great attributes, but in the end seem not to have the vision of the church and churches that Paul speaks of in Ephesians. I think the reason we all love home fellowship meetings is that they approach a functioning church, where all the members can participate in their priestly capacity, but they still lack the bigger revelation.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even if the elders decided to "take back" the church from LSM, those at LSM could send their operatives to work with favorable members or ex-members to file lawsuits against the elders. This happened in several GLA LC's. LSM DCP knows that it will never go to trial, rather the victory goes to those who are willing to fight nastier, and who have the resources to fight longer. This happened to both Columbus and Mansfield. John Myer's book "Future and Hope" starts out in the court, defending against such action.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I don't even remember what the the processed triune god teaching was. But I can tell you I have a relationship with the 3 members of the Godhead. Each One has a different role yet they are ONE. This is evident in the ministry of Jesus, His death, His shed Blood, His resurrection. It is the Son, the Word of God Who became flesh, that shed His Blood for us. Not the Father. Not the Holy Spirit.

It was a 'process' for me ... a very long personal process in understanding, experiencing and forming a relationship with each Person of the Godhead. Lots of praying, studying and Faith helped me in my quest.

And yes.. there is no longer the 'local church' that I and many of us experienced back in the day. It is now the LSM church. I also don't believe there is or ever was a 'recovery' as we were taught to believe.

I personally believe in Revelation. It is the Holy Spirit Who reveals the Word of God to us.

Seems to me Lee made up that phrase to pomp himself up. The 'Lord's Recovery' became a catch phrase no one in the Christian community outside the LSM used. God is not 'recovering' anything.

God told Daniel in chapter 12:8 "“Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time." In these last days, the Holy Spirit is now giving understanding, revelation, insight and much more to the saints because He is now unsealing what was sealed.

It has nothing to do with 'the Lord's recovery'. Whatever the LORD showed us through His Spirit and His Word in our tenure back in the day was not 'the Lord's Recovery' but rather revelation. Whatever anyone in the LSM or outside of it who is truly seeking the Lord receives in their spirit is REVELATION not 'recovery'.

That many of us, if not all of us grasped the revelation of no denomination in the Lord and that the saints met from house to house in different cities was pure revelation from the Spirit of God. But we were told it was 'the Lord's recovery' and it snowballed from there, like tumbleweeds.

Originally Posted by JJ

Thanks brothers for sharing these pieces of the history of the local churches that were never allowed to see the light of day by Witness Lee and the LSM leaders.

I don't have an answer to BoxJobox's question about how to "take back "church in ______, from LSM. Nor do I know if that is even the right thought. Oh Lord!

Originally Posted by JJ

Thanks brothers for sharing these pieces of the history of the local churches that were never allowed to see the light of day by Witness Lee and the LSM leaders.

I don't have an answer to BoxJobox's question about how to "take back "church in ______, from LSM. Nor do I know if that is even the right thought. Oh Lord!

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The church in xxx following LSM, such as the church in San Diego, is not the house of the Lord. WL set up a false god called "the processed triune god" this was not preached or taught by the apostles, this was a fabrication! The LSM removed the local from the "local church". It is not the church in San Diego, but LSM in San Diego. Their meetings are predicated on LSM, not the scripture. LSM obviously is not a Christian organization or ministery. They need to give up the title because it does not reflect the church meeting, but LSM meeting. They don't meet in the Lord's name but in the name of LSM.

Why would you not think it right to demand the designation that belongs to the saints meeting be returned to the saints. The false narrative the "church in San Diego" uses does not reflect who they are or why they meet together. They either need to drop all things LSM or drop the title of " the church in San Diego".

Originally Posted by JJ

Thanks brothers for sharing these pieces of the history of the local churches that were never allowed to see the light of day by Witness Lee and the LSM leaders.

I don't have an answer to BoxJobox's question about how to "take back "church in ______, from LSM. Nor do I know if that is even the right thought. Oh Lord!

Originally Posted by Indiana

from a piece by Nigel on G. H. Lang


LSM’s Vilification of G. H. Lang (excerpt)

The Brethren Bible teacher, George Henry Lang (1874-1958) was unjustly maligned by LSM’s ‘Local Church’ movement. LSM exhibits a schizophrenic attitude towards Lang. On one hand they laud him, saying “G. H. Lang [was] one of the greatest Bible expositors and scholars during the past century and the author of 40 Christian books...” Plus they appeal to Lang’s support of their ‘ground of locality’ doctrine. On the other hand, Lang was a whipping boy’ during LSM’s 1980s campaign against local church autonomy. Among members of LSM’s Local Church movement this latter aspect—the vilification of G. H. Lang--dominates their overall impression. LSM publications—books authored by Witness Lee--document over a dozen instances in which G. H. Lang is vociferously berated for teaching the autonomy of the local church. We argue that LSM’s maligning of G. H. Lang is undeserved; during his lifetime, Lang was an enthusiastic supporter of the Local Church’s ‘founding father’—brother Watchman Nee. Christian history scholar, Dr. David O. Woodbridge, asserts that Watchman “Nee...received enthusiastic support, particularly from...[G. H.] Lang.” This claim is substantiated by G. H. Lang’s personal correspondence with Watchman Nee—a resource LSM totally neglected. Moreover, Lang’s teaching on “autonomy” was not significantly different for W. Nee’s own teaching. It is hypocritical therefore to denounce G. H. Lang, while claiming to faithfully follow Watchmen Nee. It appears that G. H. Lang was simply a ‘scapegoat’ during LSM’s campaign to undermine a fundamental tenet—the autonomy of each local church. “The Body” was used to trump the local church. Meanwhile LSM’s soon-to-be ‘blended brothers’ began promoting W. Lee under the rubric of being ‘one with the ministry.’ In retrospect these events marked the start of LSM’s subversion of the local churches and began the globalization of Witness Lee’s ministry.

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have a choice. We can believe the numerous accounts of all the men of God who left the LC's, or we can believe Witness Lee's farcical account of this "vast global conspiracy," which btw is the same version of events he has used for every "storm" in the recovery.

Originally Posted by aron

Thank God for the internet, and for Steve Isitt's willingness to take Witness Lee at his word and find out what really happened, and then his courage to "tell it to the church". . . otherwise we probably wouldn't have read this testimony of LC history in the USA. "Legalism and fear" - amen; I know what spirit it is that Smith referred to. It helps when someone put into words what you sensed in your experience.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Here are more gold nuggets from John's letter that stood out to me.. really hit home ...

Now y'all know why I am so thankful I was in the church in San Diego in the early days. We were not a perfect bunch for sure. But God's Love through His Spirit and Word blanketed us.

Blessings until we all arrive.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

This was a major part of the history of the church in San Diego. The main supporting pillar left, and the building collapsed.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Had we received well-written letters like this one from John Smith or John Ingalls, whom we knew and respected, that would have caused many of us to weigh both sides of the conflict, and then to investigate further into the actual facts and grievances. This was not done, at least not in my neck of the woods.

Originally Posted by Indiana

AN OPEN LETTER FROM JOHN SMITH
April 18, 1989
Dear Brothers and Sisters in San Diego,

etc.... In whatever service the Lord guides me I desire to give Him His organic way. And for myself, I like to say as Whitfield said, “Let the name of Whitfield (John Smith) perish. Let Christ be exalted.”

In Christian love and concern,
John Smith

Note: This letter is not restricted to San Diego. I hope you will all read John Ingalls’ and Al Knoch’s statement withdrawing as elders in Anaheim.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

So, in the city of San Diego, with a population of 1.3 million there are only 275 adults meeting after 35 years! I would say their historical perspective lacks credibility. I would also say that the low numbers is entirely due to their association with LSM. The title, or their nomer THE church in San Diego should not be assigned to them. They have taken a biblical designator and abused it. This is not a small thing, really, in the sphere of Christian practice, but is quite serious. Wasn't it WL that talked about the woman married to Smith that calls herself Mrs Jones. The " church in San Diego" in the mid-80s left her husband and now lives with Mr LSM.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

... The Lee disruption only got worse and more invasive as time went on. I remember both John Smiths, the one who was the shepherd, and the one who went full bore for the LSM.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I started meeting just about the time you were moving on. The Lee disruption only got worse and more invasive as time went on. I remember both John Smiths, the one who was the shepherd, and the one who went full bore for the LSM. I also remember the John Smith who stood up and gave his final message before leaving. It was a very confusing statement to me, that you had to read between the lines weeks after you realized he had left. He spoke like someone who had just lost his life savings to Bernie Madoff.
Shortly after that the elders issued a printed statement that they and the church were one with WL and LSM (somewhere in my garage, I think I still have the letter; if I find it, I'll post it.). Basically, the meeting hall, that we all had been faithful to donate for and work on, and upkeep on Saturday mornings, was turned over to the LSM machine. It was stolen from the Saints; the church in San Diego ceased to exist. They kept the title, but the body was dead.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Part of the "de-leavening" process ex-members go through is to reject every bit of church history we learned there.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I was there from 1975 to 1978.John was a terrific elder, mentor, teacher loved by all of us. We were a young people's church. The majority of us were between 18 and 27. Willie Samoff was an elder at 26 yrs of age. He had a gift for preaching the gospel at the love feasts.

John had the gift of teaching. He had been a Baptist pastor before coming into the church. I don't remember how that came about but He saw the true church life practiced in Acts. I believe his pastoral experience emboldened him to stand up to Lee. As a pastor/teacher in the Baptist church, numbers and activities took priority over discipling. The direction the church was taking under Lee bothered him I am sure.

I know he really tried to tow the line before throwing in the towel. In 1978, John stopped preaching Christ..stopped teaching God's Word and preached Brother Lee. Lee was Paul I recall him telling us over and over. We started watching videos of Lee in our meetings. We were dying and many of the young brothers began drinking and smoking pot together. They were troubled...

As for the number of members, I think we averaged 175. Don't know if Lee or the San Diego elders pushed migration but people were constantly migrating.

God bless John. And for the record, my experience in San Diego was a positive one. I grew in the Lord. I loved the church life until Lee disrupted it in 1977/78.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The thing is, WL has been dead and gone for a good number of years now. ...

Instead, in their history statement they don't even mention him or his material. Makes you wonder if they are ashamed of it, embarrassed? Or just plain sneaky.

They left their first husband, and are now living with Mr LSM, yet they are too ashamed to let other believers know about this strange relation, they now have. What? If they bring up Mr. LSM are they afraid it will scare people off? Or do they just not have a good way of explaining their adulterous situation?

Originally Posted by Ohio

They probably had that number back when John Smith was there.

Then it was demanded they be "absolutely one" with Mr. LSM, so that they could be "blessed."

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The thing is, WL has been dead and gone for a good number of years now. They hash over his material as if it relevant. If after 35 years, in a large city, you only have 275 people eating the hash, I would say it's time to take a long, honest look at what it's really done for the church ( in the scriptural sense) in San Diego. You would think, because his material is believed as the oracle of God, and WL was the present day apostle of some sort, that flocks of Christians would have seen this great light by now and God would have honored the hashing extravaganza with pastors, believers, and new ones flooding in.

Instead, in their history statement they don't even mention him or his material. Makes you wonder if they are ashamed of it, embarrassed? Or just plain sneaky.

They left their first husband, and are now living with Mr LSM, yet they are too ashamed to let other believers know about this strange relation, they now have. What? If they bring up Mr. LSM are they afraid it will scare people off? Or do they just not have a good way of explaining their adulterous situation?

Originally Posted by Ohio

We have a choice. We can believe the numerous accounts of all the men of God who left the LC's, or we can believe Witness Lee's farcical account of this "vast global conspiracy," which btw is the same version of events he has used for every "storm" in the recovery.

Originally Posted by Indiana

I moved to San Diego in 1999 after suffocating in Seattle to the extent a new start was needed. I hadn't yet written In the Wake of the New Way, but I had read John Ingalls book (1995) and my eyes were opened to see what was going on; and, to Br. Lee there was one narrative, totally positive, but to others a deviation from the path was in full swing.


Witness Lee had one narrative - John Smith and others had another.

Excerpt from my writing Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery (2007)

"When the elders in Southern California came together and opened to one another about the real situation in their churches, Brother Lee showed little interest that serious problems were taking a toll on the members, especially on the elders. He did show much concern though for the progress of LSM and fully expected elders to submit to his objectives, showing no regard for their feeling."


John Ingalls –

"On the evening of Monday, December 14, 1987, Brother Lee called a meeting of the elders of Southern California. There was a fair number there representing most of the churches in the area. After prayer, Brother Lee opened the fellowship by giving a long word concerning the new way and its great success in Taiwan. Then he asked for fellowship from the brothers, desiring especially to know how successful the new way had been in their locality.

Dick Taylor, an elder in Long Beach, started with a lively, full-of enjoyment kind of testimony, such as Dick is well-known for, thanking the Lord for the door-knocking and the Gospel preaching in Long Beach, but ending with an honest word about the depression and the discouragement among some of the saints. This was unusual for Dick but he was telling it like it was. Other brothers followed who also spoke very honestly about dissensions concerning the new way and discouragement among the saints in their localities, for which they were very concerned. In some places divisions had arisen over the new way. John Smith, an elder in San Diego, ended the time of sharing with an honest account of his concerns for the saints in his church, mentioning how he feared that with the overemphasis on methods, numbers, and increase the saints would become activity-centered instead of Christ-centered.

What was extraordinary was the elders speaking up in such an honest and forthright way, knowing that such reports were not what Brother Lee liked or wanted to hear. We were not accustomed to doing this due partly to a sense of intimidation. To my knowledge this was the first time that had been done. This was encouraging. But Brother Lee was visibly bothered, and later reacted strongly to the brothers’ speaking, saying of one brother’s sharing (John Smith’s) that it was like pouring iced water on him.

We were not the only ones who went to Brother Lee with our concerns during these days. We heard that Dan Towle, individually, and Frank Scavo together with Dick Taylor also went to see Brother Lee to express to him their concerns about the present situation." (Deviating from the Path, p. 103)

Witness Lee commented from his book about the same meeting:

"Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, [B]John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.' (p. 59, FPR).


"This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls."

Originally Posted by Indiana

Witness Lee commented from his book about the same meeting:

"Before I went to Irving in December 1987, I had an elders’ meeting with the leading ones in Southern California. During that meeting, [B]John Smith stood up to say that numbers do not represent anything, and he went on to mention things such as statistics, budgets, work, and activity. By that time Rosemead had already rebelled, and this kind of speaking was a repetition of what was spoken there as accusations. By listening to all the sharing in that elders’ meeting in Orange County, I realized that the whole situation had been poisoned by John Ingalls.' (p. 59, FPR).

"This was Brother Lee’s reaction to brothers who shared from their heart about serious problems in their localities. He gave the impression that his own objectives were more important than listening to the Body and to the concerns of responsible elders for their localities. These speakings by Dick Taylor, John Smith, and others were from their own experience and had not been influenced by John Ingalls."

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I mean, really, if you are God's up to date move on the earth in San Diego, and you have a ministery where the deputy authority's material is being dispensed into you and you are being transformed by it, and this has been going on for 35 years in the city, shouldn't your history statement include this. Why deceive or hide this from the public and seeking Christians? Come out and proclaim it boldly!

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'm a San Diego person, who walked away from the LC in the mid-80' when the LC officially married the LSM. Today, out of curiosity, I went to the "church in San Diego" web site, and clicked on "history". The picture on that page is of mountains with pure, wind driven snow, and the history presented exactly matches the picture- so high, so clean, so pure. There is no mention of their subservience to LSM, no mention of how many saints and elders walked away- it's a total plastic, copacetic, false narrative of the true history. If Paul had used this method, Corinthians 1 and 2 could have been a one chapter book, Luke would have the Acts looking like a cake-walk! I mean a history should be a history. All Israel had before them their complete history, with the good, the bad and the ugly, so that they could learn, reflect, understand, seek the Lord about, the how, when, where, and whys of their present state.
Denial, a false narrative, an unreal assessment of the true condition is the characteristic of the church in Laodicea. It does not reflect the person or work of the one who walks among the churches, whose words are a sharp, two edged sword.
Their history points out that they have been meeting in San Diego for 35 years, and that there are about 275 adults currently meeting. There are over 1.5 million people in the city proper. What's wrong with this picture?

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

The picture on that page is of mountains with pure, wind driven snow, and the history presented exactly matches the picture- so high, so clean, so pure. There is no mention of their subservience to LSM, no mention of how many saints and elders walked away- it's a total plastic, copacetic, false narrative of the true history.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'm a San Diego person, who walked away from the LC in the mid-80' when the LC officially married the LSM. Today, out of curiosity, I went to the "church in San Diego" web site, and clicked on "history". The picture on that page is of mountains with pure, wind driven snow, and the history presented exactly matches the picture- so high, so clean, so pure. There is no mention of their subservience to LSM, no mention of how many saints and elders walked away- it's a total plastic, copacetic, false narrative of the true history. If Paul had used this method, Corinthians 1 and 2 could have been a one chapter book, Luke would have the Acts looking like a cake-walk! I mean a history should be a history. All Israel had before them their complete history, with the good, the bad and the ugly, so that they could learn, reflect, understand, seek the Lord about, the how, when, where, and whys of their present state.
Denial, a false narrative, an unreal assessment of the true condition is the characteristic of the church in Laodicea. It does not reflect the person or work of the one who walks among the churches, whose words are a sharp, two edged sword.
Their history points out that they have been meeting in San Diego for 35 years, and that there are about 275 adults currently meeting. There are over 1.5 million people in the city proper. What's wrong with this picture?