Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It was Don Rutledge's account that identified dramatic changes made by WL in that 1974 conference. Steve Isitt has used this date to signal a departure from early ideals. Obviously this disturbs you, since you have other ideas. Since you agree that the actual date is a "moving target," can you at least agree that the decisions made in 1974 were detrimental in nature, and the effects of these changes became more than evident during the chaos of the "New Way?" Are you sure that John Ingalls would agree that 1974 was not significant, concerning the loss of any blessing upon the LC's?
|
I'm sure some of the decisions made in 1974 were detrimental and some were not. Such is the nature of human decisions. Regarding John Ingalls here is what he wrote in his book
Speaking the Truth in Love: "
In the summer of 1987 I began to be concerned
for the first time about some of the things taking place under the direction of the Living Stream Ministry Office." In the same book he said in the late 1980s he visited 2 Chinese coworkers in San Francisco who had worked with Witness Lee in the Far East. They felt that the nature of the recovery had changed with the New Way and Ingalls agreed with this assessment. And if you listen to his conferences, etc from 1974 to 1987 and other coworkers as well - including even Don Rutledge's messages - there is no indication that they thought the blessing had left in 1974.
But what does Steve Isitt write
in his own words as found in his work on the hidden history in the recovery?
"In the
summer of 1965, Brother Lee came back to Taipei. He decided to get rid of those coworkers who disagreed with him.
Consequently, there were thousands of people who left the church. At that time almost 30% of the regular members left, a most serious situation being that about 80-90% of the young members who were college students left the church. Brother Lee’s action in 1965 has been referred to as a “cleansing massacre”
to get the church to line up with him only...In other matters in the Far East, toward the
end of the 1950’s co-workers in Hong Kong, the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia had serious differences with Brother Lee because of the absolute authority he exercised, which was hard for them to take. Everything was dictated by him, and he would not take any input from others."
Steve knows quite well from his own research things that were going on in the LC system prior to 1974 and I have given many more examples as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
I think you are missing something here. Steve thinks that a sincere desire for the oneness brought blessing to the recovery.
|
Actually what I understand Steve to mean is not the desire for the "oneness" but the actual action of leaving denominations/Babylon and going up to Jerusalem/LC system = "the blessing". Does what I have already posted above and elsewhere indicate a "oneness" based on the ground of locality or based on Witness Lee and his ministry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Most of those migrations out of LA were blessed by the Lord...The "consolidation" flow was quite another matter. Note that it came out of that 1974 directive thrust upon all the leaders. I have talked at length with some who felt that "consolidation" was not the Lord's leading.
|
Some may have been blessed by the Lord but Witness Lee considered them as failures
before that elders meeting in 1974 and gave the directive for consolidation.
Consequently consolidations ensued. Witness Lee decided when the "ground of locality" would be applied to a city and then he decided when it wouldn't. One day you're Jerusalem and the next day you're Babylon again. Why? Because Witness Lee said so!