Individualism

[zeek]

If you have genuinely experienced the Body of Christ you will be conscious of something wrong whenever you begin to show your individualism, and obviously you dare not take any action. Or else, when you or several others should make a wrong move, this Body consciousness will cause you to be aware of being disconnected from the other children of God, thus preventing you from proceeding further. There is something in you which restrains, speaks, reproves, warns, or hinders. This consciousness of life can deliver all of us from any taint of division.

(Lesson Book, Level 5: The Church—The Vision and Building Up of the Church, Chapter 21, Section 2)

A crowd is indeed made up of single individuals; it must therefore be in everyone's power to become what he is, a single individual; no one is prevented from being a single individual, no one, unless he prevents himself by becoming many. To become a crowd, to gather a crowd around oneself, is on the contrary to distinguish life from life; even the most well-meaning one who talks about that, can easily offend a single individual. But it is the crowd which has power, influence, reputation, and domination - this is the distinction of life from life, which tyrannically overlooks the single individual as the weak and powerless one, in a temporal-worldly way overlooks the eternal truth: the single individual.

Kierkegaard, Soren (2013-12-28). The Crowd Is Untruth (Kindle Locations 109-110). Vanessa Myers. Kindle Edition.

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

I truly agree with the first part. Lee was determined that we stifle ourselves and follow him.

And the second part is always true. We do decide where to draw the line. (Well, unless we are in prison and can't even determine when we will get to eat lunch. But even then, hey can't make you think anything you don't agree to think.)

But there is an aspect of Christianity that does somewhat end aspects of individualism. But nothing like Lee taught. We are asked to terminate our prejudices and love our neighbors — all of them. The liberals and the conservatives. The gay and the straight. The black and the white (and every shade in between). We are asked to conform our lives to one that was righteous.

But that conformity is not like joining the Red Brigade. You don't have to wear a uniform and speak only the stuff provided in the indoctrination materials. It starts with instruction that we are "commanded" to obey. And it provides strength to obey, and grace when we don't. (Very unlike the LCM.) It sets a high standard and challenges us to rise to it, yet knows we will not achieve it in full.

Yet we are never expected to be just like anyone else. We are told that we will have different abilities and charges. We are not all just like all the others. As that great philosopher, Steve Martin once said "Repeat after me. I promise to be different! I promise to be unique! I promise not to repeat things other people tell me to repeat!"

So the real questions become what kind of individualism is out and what kind is in. And maybe that is not the real question. It is whether you will be an individual who is in, or an individual who is out. And if someone suggests that you can be "in" as long as you check yourself at the coat room, then it is probably a sign that you don't belong because they are not letting you in.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

But there is an aspect of Christianity that does somewhat end aspects of individualism. But nothing like Lee taught. We are asked to terminate our prejudices and love our neighbors — all of them. The liberals and the conservatives. The gay and the straight. The black and the white (and every shade in between). We are asked to conform our lives to one that was righteous.

Right. But, all we "know" of the "one that was righteous" is the image of we project based on what we read. Even that he was righteous and how he was righteous is a conclusion we reason to based on limited and sometimes conflicting data. There are few hints what his self-understanding was. I think the long self-referential Jesus monologues in the Gospel of John represent the theological reflections of the author not actual statements of Jesus. In the synoptic gospels Jesus preached the Kingdom of God not himself as he does in John. If we seek objective truth about who Jesus was, we don't merely get to choose whatever Jesus we prefer. But, we must also admit we are not certain if we are right about are reading of who he was and what he stood for. So any obedience is going to be riddled with uncertainty. How do we know that we are not simply being obedient to our own idealized self. Does it matter?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

we must also admit we are not certain if we are right about are reading of who he was and what he stood for. So any obedience is going to be riddled with uncertainty. How do we know that we are not simply being obedient to our own idealized self. Does it matter?

Authoritarian groups solve this dilemma of uncertainty. Whatever Maximum Brother (or Big Momma if headed by a female) says is the certainty, the True Jesus. The MB is the only one who has the truth. So we must obey MB without question.

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

First off, don't forget the cultural influence, here. We went into this at some detail in the "Asian mind and the Western mind" thread.

Second, I say let the individual decide where to draw boundaries between self and the collective. The Hive Mind of Lee shamed away all our boundaries. We were "trained" to stand up before the MB and be exposed, stripped bare. This was for the good of the Hive, so we thought. The individual is nothing, the Hive is everything; the Hive Mind trained us to give up self, family, job, thought, for the Hive.

But in truth the individual has to make a choice, and usually chooses the group at some level, anyway. No one likes to be alone, right? People will typically choose a collective association on some level. So don't let the collective impose terms on the individual. Let the individual choose how they want to associate with the group, and where they draw the boundary. A numb bunch of automatons, waiting passively for MB to direct, does not enrich the collective expression. There's no Spirit; only the flat intonation, "Our brother said", and "Our brother wanted".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by aron

Authoritarian groups solve this dilemma of uncertainty. Whatever Maximum Brother (or Big Momma if headed by a female) says is the certainty, the True Jesus. The MB is the only one who has the truth. So we must obey MB without question.

This gospel is the power of God unto salvation (1:16). In the book of Romans salvation means a great deal. Salvation not only means to save us from God's condemnation and from hell; it means to save us from our naturalness, our self-likeness, our individualism, and our divisiveness. This salvation saves us to the uttermost, enabling us to be sanctified, conformed, glorified, transformed, built up with others as the one Body, and not divisive in the church life. The gospel of God is the power of God unto such a full, complete, and ultimate salvation. It is the power of God for all who believe. Praise the Lord! We believe. (Life-Study of Romans, Chapter 2, Section 4)

You are spot on with your identification of a problem with authoritarianism. Christianity has a long history of authoritarianism, and the European Enlightenment the eventually spawned the USA with it's Declaration of Independence and Constitution was an outcome of Enlightenment thinking.

First off, don't forget the cultural influence, here. We went into this at some detail in the "Asian mind and the Western mind" thread.

Yes. We were misguided to abandon our cultural heritage of individualism for Witness Lee's concept of "the Body of Christ."

Second, I say let the individual decide where to draw boundaries between self and the collective. The Hive Mind of Lee shamed away all our boundaries. We were "trained" to stand up before the MB and be exposed, stripped bare. This was for the good of the Hive, so we thought. The individual is nothing, the Hive is everything; the Hive Mind trained us to give up self, family, job, thought, for the Hive.

In my expereince, what I gained through that process was less rich and real then what I lost by giving up family ties.

But in truth the individual has to make a choice, and usually chooses the group at some level, anyway. No one likes to be alone, right? People will typically choose a collective association on some level. So don't let the collective impose terms on the individual. Let the individual choose how they want to associate with the group, and where they draw the boundary. A numb bunch of automatons, waiting passively for MB to direct, does not enrich the collective expression. There's no Spirit; only the flat intonation, "Our brother said", and "Our brother wanted".

I don't think it is an either/or kind of thing. By dropping out of church participation, I may on the individualistic extreme. But, look where I am...on LCD in a dialogue with you. If the "Body of Christ" is a reality, perhaps it isn't something we have to make happen by our own efforts to sacrifice our individuality but rather a spiritual reality that we experience spontaneously.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

So any obedience is going to be riddled with uncertainty. How do we know that we are not simply being obedient to our own idealized self. Does it matter?

It does matter.

But my idealized self does not look like what I see that scripture as commanding. Otherwise I would more naturally think that way even if I have trouble carrying it out. But I need something outside me to remind me that mine is not the way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

It does matter.

But my idealized self does not look like what I see that scripture as commanding. Otherwise I would more naturally think that way even if I have trouble carrying it out. But I need something outside me to remind me that mine is not the way.

Good point bro OBW. I don't know why zeek said "idealized self." I'll let him explain that.

What I get from bro zeek in "obedient to our own idealized self" is not that we in action or perception seek an idealized self. But rather that even in our idealizing of God and/or Christ it may turn out to be of our own making.

Let's face it, even if we're totally devoted to a collective our subject experience is still individualistic; in that we draw images subjectively from the collective. It can't be helped.

But I doubt when conceiving these idealism's we think we are conceiving an idealization of our self. If so God wouldn't be necessary.

Maybe bro zeek is thinking of the line in his tagline:

"You are the spirit you are seeking to follow.."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

"You are the spirit you are seeking to follow.."

I hadn't thought of it, but I suppose that's true. The problem is, we are always more than we know. Even if we were to conceptualize this process accurately and objectively, we wouldn't grasp it completely. We exist in God and God is unknowable as "He" exists in "Himself".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

It does matter.

But my idealized self does not look like what I see that scripture as commanding. Otherwise I would more naturally think that way even if I have trouble carrying it out. But I need something outside me to remind me that mine is not the way.

If it matters, I don't know what to do about it. I don't see how you can differentiate your view of Jesus from your idealized self. This ideal if not a consciously accessible objective Jesus. That Jesus will always be a "more or less" of our thought and imagination. Our idealized self is the not fully conscious self that is the source of our conscience and ideals. It is the Christ within us that Paul talks about in Galatians 2:20. The way we interpret the Jesus of scripture is in response to the inner Christ which is our idealized self.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If it matters, I don't know what to do about it. I don't see how you can differentiate your view of Jesus from your idealized self. This ideal if not a consciously accessible objective Jesus. That Jesus will always be a "more or less" of our thought and imagination. Our idealized self is the not fully conscious self that is the source of our conscience and ideals. It is the Christ within us that Paul talks about in Galatians 2:20. The way we interpret the Jesus of scripture is in response to the inner Christ which is our idealized self.

"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty.""
Jesus - Gospel of Thomas v.3

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

If it matters, I don't know what to do about it. I don't see how you can differentiate your view of Jesus from your idealized self. This ideal if not a consciously accessible objective Jesus. That Jesus will always be a "more or less" of our thought and imagination. Our idealized self is the not fully conscious self that is the source of our conscience and ideals. It is the Christ within us that Paul talks about in Galatians 2:20. The way we interpret the Jesus of scripture is in response to the inner Christ which is our idealized self.

It appears you are over-thinking it. That I may not be able to fully figure out what it is simply from Jesus does not make it what I think it should be. Rather it makes it what I think Jesus is saying it should be.

Of course, the more honest I am, the more it will not necessarily align with what I would otherwise think it should be. And the more self-centered and narcissistic I am, the more Jesus is just a better me.

And we have once again created God in our image. An age-old problem that began at the fall, and was very largely displayed in the golden calf at the base of Mt Sinai.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

Not only Witness Lee, but blended co-workers like brother Ron characterize individualism to be a word with negative implications.
I shouldn't be too surprised after all. Since I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Terry

I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

And Dubya and the conservatives were not also lacking transparency and truthfulness? Whatever happened to that yellowcake from Nigeria that was the smoking gun, showing us Saddam was creating WMDs to blow us all up? Whatever happened to Dick Cheney's "They will welcome us with open arms"?* How many thousands of dead bodies and trillions of wasted taxpayers monies will be needed for you to see that Dubya, Condi, Dick and Don were not the paragons of truthfulness and transparency?

Or maybe that's not on your radar.

*"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

And Dubya and the conservatives were not also lacking transparency and truthfulness?

The previous administration wasn't speaking about transparency and claiming to be transparent.
Previous administrations (Bush, Clinton, etc), weren't so blatantly anti-Christ as the current administration is.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Previous administrations (Bush, Clinton, etc), weren't so blatantly anti-Christ as the current administration is.

You obviously missed Obama's eulogy for Reverend Clementa C. Pinckney. It's worthy of your time:
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/1000...harleston.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I shouldn't be too surprised after all. Since I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

And Dubya and the conservatives were not also lacking transparency and truthfulness?

It all comes down to where one gets his news from.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not only Witness Lee, but blended co-workers like brother Ron characterize individualism to be a word with negative implications.
I shouldn't be too surprised after all. Since I often compare the blendeds to Nobama and other political liberals in lacking transparency, truthfulness, and integrity, there's another trait in being anti-individualism/pro-socialism.

So, if Witness Lee, the "Blended co-workers" and "Bro. Ron are anti-individualism, does that make them "liberal" in some sense to your way of thinking?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, if Witness Lee, the "Blended co-workers" and "Bro. Ron are anti-individualism, does that make them "liberal" in some sense to your way of thinking?

Being anti-individual, anti-spiritual gifts, and wanting everyone to be the same, by default makes them appear to be more supportive of communism than democracy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

Being anti-individual, anti-spiritual gifts, and wanting everyone to be the same, by default makes them appear to be more supportive of communism than democracy.

So, as you see it, are those the only alternatives, either democracy or communism? What about theocracy?

[awareness]

I think bro Terry was speaking of individualism and anti-individual ... and communism and democracy are examples of the two extremes.

A Theocracy on the other hand is even more anti-individual ... has failed miserably in the past, and isn't pretty in current examples.

I don't know. I've joked in the past (not so much joking) that I'm not for heaven or hell, because both have a dictator running the show.

Some might say I've become so independent that I'm like the devil that rebelled against God. Not so. I'm not taking sides. Their fight is their fight. They're fighting for dominance. I'm neutral. I'm like the neutral angels, that wanted no part of the supernatural cosmic battle.

Am I being too individualistic?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, as you see it, are those the only alternatives, either democracy or communism? What about theocracy?

Those who consider themselves to be absolute with LSM, believe the blended co-workers are God's government on earth.
The problem is making the claim there's no politics in the church. (I've actually been told that by a regional responsible brother.)
Even then, the individual rights is neutered for the good of the LSM system.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee was a merciless critic of individualism. I don't remember him ever saying a good thing about it. I think many of us will agree that in this he went too far. But, where do you draw the line? How much individualism is too much. Who makes the call and on what basis? It seems that it always the individual who decides. Is there ever a valid reason to give up that choice?

During the late 80's Turmoil. John Ingalls among others tried the council approach, but as much of a critic Witness Lee was of individualism, he wasn't open to fellowship when it involved his son Philip.

"There was a couple in Anaheim who were seriously injured by the misconduct related to the LSM office, and they were deeply offended with Brother Lee for tolerating such a situation to exist and also for not giving them an ear to relate the problems they had experienced when they went to him earlier in the year. We felt that Brother Lee should be made aware of the great offense on his part suffered by this couple, therefore we requested a time to speak with him. It was granted and on March 24, Godfred, Al, and I met with Brother Lee in his home. We explained the feeling of the couple toward him and appealed to him to give them a hearing. He agreed to do this, and a date was set for the following Saturday.
While we were with Brother Lee he remarked that it had been one hundred days since we had come to him on December 12th 1987, and opened our hearts regarding our concerns. He said that not one day had passed that he did not consider what to do. Moreover, he added that he felt that he should not do anything and not succumb to any pressure exercised upon him.
On Saturday evening, March 26th, Godfred, myself, and the husband of this couple met with Brother Lee. (Brother Lee felt it would be too awkward for the wife to be there as well.) The husband opened up with a very good attitude and related in some detail the mistreatment his wife had experienced in serving with the LSM office in the full-time training in Taipei. Brother Lee listened attentively with a most serious demeanor, and then expressed his feeling of sorrow for the whole affair, saying, "My heart is broken!" He explained why he did not feel free to listen to them previously, and then spoke of his appreciation for the faithful service of the wife over many years. At the end of the time Brother Lee pronounced the Lord’s blessing on this brother and his wife. We prayed and then departed, the brother feeling somewhat relieved that he was able to discharge his grief and burden to Brother Lee, but still not at all happy about the whole affair. This was the settlement rendered on one side to deal with a very serious offense stemming from the service in the LSM office."
From Speaking the Truth In Love

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

During the late 80's Turmoil. John Ingalls among others tried the council approach, but as much of a critic Witness Lee was of individualism, he wasn't open to fellowship when it involved his son Philip.

"There was a couple in Anaheim who were seriously injured by the misconduct related to the LSM office, and they were deeply offended with Brother Lee for tolerating such a situation to exist and also for not giving them an ear to relate the problems they had experienced when they went to him earlier in the year. We felt that Brother Lee should be made aware of the great offense on his part suffered by this couple, therefore we requested a time to speak with him. It was granted and on March 24, Godfred, Al, and I met with Brother Lee in his home. We explained the feeling of the couple toward him and appealed to him to give them a hearing. He agreed to do this, and a date was set for the following Saturday.
While we were with Brother Lee he remarked that it had been one hundred days since we had come to him on December 12th 1987, and opened our hearts regarding our concerns. He said that not one day had passed that he did not consider what to do. Moreover, he added that he felt that he should not do anything and not succumb to any pressure exercised upon him.
On Saturday evening, March 26th, Godfred, myself, and the husband of this couple met with Brother Lee. (Brother Lee felt it would be too awkward for the wife to be there as well.) The husband opened up with a very good attitude and related in some detail the mistreatment his wife had experienced in serving with the LSM office in the full-time training in Taipei. Brother Lee listened attentively with a most serious demeanor, and then expressed his feeling of sorrow for the whole affair, saying, "My heart is broken!" He explained why he did not feel free to listen to them previously, and then spoke of his appreciation for the faithful service of the wife over many years. At the end of the time Brother Lee pronounced the Lord’s blessing on this brother and his wife. We prayed and then departed, the brother feeling somewhat relieved that he was able to discharge his grief and burden to Brother Lee, but still not at all happy about the whole affair. This was the settlement rendered on one side to deal with a very serious offense stemming from the service in the LSM office."
From Speaking the Truth In Love

I've read that before. Were you there? I wasn't. I base my opinions about the LC on my own first-hand experience not hearsay.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've read that before. Were you there? I wasn't. I base my opinions about the LC on my own experience not hearsay.

Are you asking Terry if he was the husband?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are you asking Terry if he was the husband?

No. He could have worked in the LSM office or had some other relationship to the principles in the story.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

I've read that before. Were you there? I wasn't. I base my opinions about the LC on my own first-hand experience not hearsay.

So would you base the first hand accounts of others as hearsay for those who don't have the same first-hand experiences? Many have not had the experiences others have had. For example the experiences of Mario Sandoval as indicated in Hear the Cases. I don't know Samuel Liu or James Lee. Publicly they may project themselves very positively.
Pertaining to Witness Lee, what John Ingalls, Philip Lin, current blended coworkers, or former coworkers have to say might be their first hand experiences, but as you indicate to those of us that never met Witness Lee, it would all be hearsay.
That would seem my mistrust of blended coworkers is baseless since I don't have the first-hand experience to support my opinion and feeling.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

So would you base the first hand accounts of others as hearsay for those who don't have the same first-hand experiences?

If seeking the history of Lee's local church movement the eyewitness accounts are considered primary sources.

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

Zeek seems to dismiss the primary sources we do have, calling them just hearsay.

But maybe bro zeek just wants to go by what his experiences were. And that's okay. It is enough, or he'd still be in the LC. And we're very happy for him. Plus, he's a primary eyewitness of what he saw, went thru, and experienced. And we'd never dismiss his accounts, when and if he shares them.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

If seeking the history of Lee's local church movement the eyewitness accounts are considered primary sources.

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

Zeek seems to dismiss the primary sources we do have, calling them just hearsay.

But maybe bro zeek just wants to go by what his experiences were. And that's okay. It is enough, or he'd still be in the LC. And we're very happy for him. Plus, he's a primary eyewitness of what he saw, went thru, and experienced. And we'd never dismiss his accounts, when and if he shares them.

In my experience, what "the brothers say" is considered factual and truthful while contradicting accounts is considered rumors and hearsay.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If seeking the history of Lee's local church movement the eyewitness accounts are considered primary sources.

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

Zeek seems to dismiss the primary sources we do have, calling them just hearsay.

But maybe bro zeek just wants to go by what his experiences were. And that's okay. It is enough, or he'd still be in the LC. And we're very happy for him. Plus, he's a primary eyewitness of what he saw, went thru, and experienced. And we'd never dismiss his accounts, when and if he shares them.

There was a long period of time when i discounted my own personal experiences as isolated or unique, and not indicative of systemic issues within the LC system. It was only after examining numerous accounts from well respected former members in various regions of the world did i obtain a fairly accurate and objective view of the system i was entrenched in for three decades.

I has had the ability to understand how the program deteriorated over time due to the unrighteousness and domination of LSM. I Always felt that my analysis of the Recovery must take into account all accounts, good and bad, recent and older.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

And we're very fortunate that we do have some primary sources. However, what we don't have is a whole slew of primary eyewitnesses. Cuz they aren't telling. They're busy and active in covering it up ... like a cat covering up its business.

I think of Dan Towle. It wasn't until AFTER he spoke to Sherman Robertson (Bellevue's #1elder) at the time did Steve Isitt become set aside for writing In Wake of the New Way.
In my opinion Steve's writing was too sensitive for Dan to tolerate. The easy decision to make is to set one aside than to take time to shepherd and counsel them in sincere fellowship.
I believe Dan overreacted due to his conscience regarding the New Way. Knowing mistakes were made and as for the furtherance of LSM, image is everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpuFEpbE0d0

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Terry

So would you base the first hand accounts of others as hearsay for those who don't have the same first-hand experiences? Many have not had the experiences others have had. For example the experiences of Mario Sandoval as indicated in Hear the Cases. I don't know Samuel Liu or James Lee. Publicly they may project themselves very positively.
Pertaining to Witness Lee, what John Ingalls, Philip Lin, current blended coworkers, or former coworkers have to say might be their first hand experiences, but as you indicate to those of us that never met Witness Lee, it would all be hearsay.
That would seem my mistrust of blended coworkers is baseless since I don't have the first-hand experience to support my opinion and feeling.

Well it's the testimony of John Ingalls, but he was not a first hand witness of the incidents in question at LSM. I had more of a personal relationship with John Ingalls than Lee because in my experience, John was a humble friendly guy and Witness Lee wasn't. So I had actually met and spoken briefly with Ingalls at conferences but not Lee. I have always tended to believe Ingalls' account because based on my limited knowledge of Ingalls, I find him credible. But, it's a judgment call based on limited information, so I can't be certain.

Anyway, I left the LC movement because the leaders made unacceptable claims of authority on me not because of gossip that occurred off stage from where I am. It wouldn't surprise me if the leadership sinned since I personally witnessed them doing questionable things and I sin myself. Therefore, I will meet them on a level playing field as equals. But, I don't recognize their ecclesiastical authority over me. They are single individuals as am I. So, now I have brought the thread back to the OP topic.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well it's the testimony of John Ingalls, but he was not a first hand witness of the incidents in question at LSM. I had more of a personal relationship with John Ingalls than Lee because in my experience, John was a humble friendly guy and Witness Lee wasn't. So I had actually met and spoken briefly with Ingalls at conferences but not Lee. I have always tended to believe Ingalls' account because based on my limited knowledge of Ingalls, I find him credible. But, it's a judgment call based on limited information, so I can't be certain.

Anyway, I left the LC movement because the leaders made unacceptable claims of authority on me not because of gossip that occurred off stage from where I am. It wouldn't surprise me if the leadership sinned since I personally witnessed them doing questionable things and I sin myself. Therefore, I will meet them on a level playing field as equals. But, I don't recognize their ecclesiastical authority over me. They are single individuals as am I. So, now I have brought the thread back to the OP topic.

Thanks for your post Zeek. I have placed in bold what I identify with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well it's the testimony of John Ingalls, but he was not a first hand witness of the incidents in question at LSM. I had more of a personal relationship with John Ingalls than Lee because in my experience, John was a humble friendly guy and Witness Lee wasn't. So I had actually met and spoken briefly with Ingalls at conferences but not Lee. I have always tended to believe Ingalls' account because based on my limited knowledge of Ingalls, I find him credible. But, it's a judgment call based on limited information, so I can't be certain.

Many members were forced to choose between the account of Lee and that of Ingalls, based on reputation alone. Some followed Lee siding only with the majority. Personally, i never made any decision at the time since Titus Chu kept the information from us.

When i finally read Ingalls account in 2005, and compared the facts with Lee's record in Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, Lee suffered an incredible loss of respect due to the way he treated John, violated righteousness, and protected his profligate son Phillip, all the while sacrificing God's people, who dared to be faithful to their conscience. Lee's actions could only be summarized by the KJV phrase "filthy lucre."