Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
What was the main issue between the two parties Drake?
-
|
UntoHim ,
You are asking a rhetorical question.
Of course, you would argue that the main issue in Mansfield is the same as the point of the majority of the posts in this forum. An issue related to which ministry to follow.
However, I will call your pachyderm and raise you a family of woolly mammoths.
1. On what basis do the freshly appointed elders by Titus Chu have the right to change the locks on the doors to the meeting hall and then refuse to open them for 5 consecutive Lord Days in November and December of 2006 locking the saints out and leaving the elderly in the cold?
2. What scriptural basis dId the coworker of Titus Chu sent to establish the newly appointed elders have for establishing a policy that the saints in Mansfield must adhere to the speaking, direction, and authority of these "elders" else they could go find someplace else to meet?
3. Please explain the scriptural, spiritual, or even moral basis for establishing the right to partake of the table in Mansfield being RESERVED ONLY for those who tithed, attended prayer meetings, and followed the elders.
Such heavy handed and unscriptural teachings and practices required an intervention even by the law courts. Living Sream Ministry were right to jump into that fray. To stand idly by and with indifference would have been irresponsible. My only purpose in mentioning it is that another poster has presented a distorted view about Mansfield by not putting these facts on the table. They've been purposely concealed so let's take them out from under the rug and have a closer look. Then if readers still want to justify the actions of the newly appointed elders by Titus Chu and his coworkers then that is their prerogative.
Drake