Factual or not?

[theLCfurry]

Hey guys,

Over the last 24 hours, something has been bugging me after an argument with my mom over making me read ministry digest to "get the other perspective from LSM" after she found out that I was hearing about the turmoils during the LC's history (and proceeded to even say that all of it was fake news and you guys are giving me fake news to lead me from the church for malicious benefits - she doesn't even know about this website - let alone that it was for discussion not like a news website - and proceeded to say these things *sighs*). Are any of the events and ESPECIALLY how the LSM, Lee/Nee, and the BB's reacted to the turmoils accurate as described on here? Can you guys also give me personal testimonies about what you guys when through during the Daystar, Phillip Lee, the lawsuits to Harvest House, Max Rapport + John Ingalls incident, etc. as well as experiences that gave you guys warning signs that the LC was probably a cult?

[aron]

Originally Posted by theLCfurry

Can you guys also give me personal testimonies about what you guys when through during the Daystar, Phillip Lee, the lawsuits to Harvest House, Max Rapport + John Ingalls incident, etc. as well as experiences that gave you guys warning signs that the LC was probably a cult?

How do you know George Washington ever existed? Did you meet him? Or meet anyone that met him? No? Okay, then, maybe George was just "fake history", right? Did George & Co really cross the Delaware River on Christmas Eve, 1775? How do we know Hannibal crossed the Alps? How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

How do we know anything?

What we do typically is look at a plethora of sources, and verify each one by OTHER sources that corroborate, whether each "witness" is true (and how much). So if a lot of people say "such and such happened", then we look at each witness. Is that one reliable. Are there others that agree, and is each one reliable. And so forth. A chain of witnesses, and a network of witnesses.

Does that make any sense?

So if you read the stories of Jane Anderson, or Don Rutledge, or John Ingalls, or Bill Mallon, you ask, is this true and factual, or fake, made-up stuff. And if you haven't developed the skill set to differentiate "real" - like history books - from "fantasy" - like DC comics or whatever they sell today... well, what can I say? Not sure I can help you.

Have you read the stories? What do you think? Don't ask me - read them yourself. Do the leg work.

Think about it for a minute. This is a critical skill set. Develop it. Now is your chance. The ability to listen to multiple sources, and see who's blowing smoke rings, and who's trying to accurately convey what happened. Think about Solomon, for example. Two ladies there, both claiming a child. Some capacity to discern is a requirement. Don't you think God has given us this right, and this responsibility to exercise this capacity?

On one side, you have one witness, Mr. Witness. And on the other side you have multiple witnesses, Jane Anderson, John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Max and Sandee Rapoport, Don Rutledge, and others. And all the multiple witnesses corroborate with what I saw by living in the Living Stream Ministry Church.

What I saw: information control. Don't ask questions, they are from Satan. Don't think, you will get confused. Don't listen to anyone else, because we have the direct line to God.

In the Living Stream Church, you are presented with direct contradiction, and nobody asks about it. Because nobody can ask about it. Is that not mind control? According to LSM, women can't teach, yet they sell books by women on the LSM web site ("God's Plan of Redemption") which they call critical revelations of recovery from God. Yet nobody notices, or questions this? What perspective, then, are we promoting? Mindlessness? No thanks. I'll take the uncertainties of history versus the delusional certainties of the self-appointed man of the hour.

Everyone is free to make up their own mind. But I would suggest doing some work before making it up. Don't just take the assurances from the Snake Oil Salesmen.

Another hint: look at who profits, and has ulterior motives to corrupt the narrative. How much $$ did Don Rutledge make, peddling his narrative of Living Stream Church history? None? Fancy that. How much does LSM take in peddling their literature? Tens of millions of $$. Who has an inducement to distort the narrative?

And if you don't know who Don Rutledge is, or Jane Anderson, or Max and Sandee, or John I, or Bill Mallon, then I suggest you haven't done your homework on this group.

Originally Posted by Indiana

I recently (2001) phoned a brother in Redding, CA, Dick Ingram, about a certain matter and we got into a discussion about the problems of misconduct at the Living Stream Ministry office in the late eighties. This brother, an elder, stated that he thought that all the talk back then about the business manager’s immoral behavior was just hearsay. Since I heard from others that it was definitely not hearsay, but true, I sought to talk to an eye-witness. This whole matter of Philip Lee’s serious misconduct and his being allowed to continue on in the capacity as manager of the LSM operations, working with sisters, without discipline from Brother Lee or the elders over a long period of time was a primary driving wedge between the saints and a major contributing factor to the turmoil and division in the recovery.

Suppose George Washington crossing the Delaware was just "hearsay". All those accounts, held by so many over the years, a network of witnesses. All just hearsay. I mean, at some point, if you insist on denying the many interlocking and mutually-reinforcing eye-witnesses, then you're free to live in your own world of denial. But I would suggest it's not the world most of us live in. You know, where you listen to multiple sources and exercise discernment. Your mother lives in her own world, there. You're free to join her there if you choose. Either way, you choose.

[theLCfurry]

Originally Posted by aron

How do you know George Washington ever existed? Did you meet him? Or meet anyone that met him? No? Okay, then, maybe George was just "fake history", right? Did George & Co really cross the Delaware River on Christmas Eve, 1775? How do we know Hannibal crossed the Alps? How do we know Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

How do we know anything?

What we do typically is look at a plethora of sources, and verify each one by OTHER sources that corroborate, whether each "witness" is true (and how much). So if a lot of people say "such and such happened", then we look at each witness. Is that one reliable. Are there others that agree, and is each one reliable. And so forth. A chain of witnesses, and a network of witnesses.

Does that make any sense?

So if you read the stories of Jane Anderson, or Don Rutledge, or John Ingalls, or Bill Mallon, you ask, is this true and factual, or fake, made-up stuff. And if you haven't developed the skill set to differentiate "real" - like history books - from "fantasy" - like DC comics or whatever they sell today... well, what can I say? Not sure I can help you.

Have you read the stories? What do you think? Don't ask me - read them yourself. Do the leg work.

Think about it for a minute. This is a critical skill set. Develop it. Now is your chance. The ability to listen to multiple sources, and see who's blowing smoke rings, and who's trying to accurately convey what happened. Think about Solomon, for example. Two ladies there, both claiming a child. Some capacity to discern is a requirement. Don't you think God has given us this right, and this responsibility to exercise this capacity?

On one side, you have one witness, Mr. Witness. And on the other side you have multiple witnesses, Jane Anderson, John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, Max and Sandee Rapoport, Don Rutledge, and others. And all the multiple witnesses corroborate with what I saw by living in the Living Stream Ministry Church.

What I saw: information control. Don't ask questions, they are from Satan. Don't think, you will get confused. Don't listen to anyone else, because we have the direct line to God.

In the Living Stream Church, you are presented with direct contradiction, and nobody asks about it. Because nobody can ask about it. Is that not mind control? According to LSM, women can't teach, yet they sell books by women on the LSM web site ("God's Plan of Redemption") which they call critical revelations of recovery from God. Yet nobody notices, or questions this? What perspective, then, are we promoting? Mindlessness? No thanks. I'll take the uncertainties of history versus the delusional certainties of the self-appointed man of the hour.

Everyone is free to make up their own mind. But I would suggest doing some work before making it up. Don't just take the assurances from the Snake Oil Salesmen.

Another hint: look at who profits, and has ulterior motives to corrupt the narrative. How much $$ did Don Rutledge make, peddling his narrative of Living Stream Church history? None? Fancy that. How much does LSM take in peddling their literature? Tens of millions of $$. Who has an inducement to distort the narrative?

And if you don't know who Don Rutledge is, or Jane Anderson, or Max and Sandee, or John I, or Bill Mallon, then I suggest you haven't done your homework on this group.



Suppose George Washington crossing the Delaware was just "hearsay". All those accounts, held by so many over the years, a network of witnesses. All just hearsay. I mean, at some point, if you insist on denying the many interlocking and mutually-reinforcing eye-witnesses, then you're free to live in your own world of denial. But I would suggest it's not the world most of us live in. You know, where you listen to multiple sources and exercise discernment. Your mother lives in her own world, there. You're free to join her there if you choose. Either way, you choose.

Ah I see now. Thanks for clearing it up

Anyway I got homework which I procrastinated on...... research.........

Also you roasted me good

By the way is there like at least a synopsis of the Mindbenders book on this website? I'm interested in reading that

[aron]

Originally Posted by theLCfurry

Anyway I got homework which I procrastinated on...... research.........

Also you roasted me good

I apologize if you got roasted, as I was set off by your mother's comments about getting "the perspective of LSM" to somehow balance or correct the falsities being spread on the internet. This is from someone in a group whose mantra is that Witness Lee's Bible and church history presentations were the sum total of objective reality, whilst everyone else was a stupid mooing cow, listening to him play Bach on piano. That was strongly and continually implied in the messages.

Then when we find out that WL was funneling church monies to his quite unspiritual progeny thru money-making (money-losing, really) ventures like Daystar (not the only one btw - poster Ohio testifies to the "golden church chairs" incident), and putting other unspiritual progeny in church positions where they were free to repeatedly molest the help, suddenly it's about "Perspective", like I have mine and you have yours? Like witnesses to WL's predatory family running amok are just biased and self-serving "perspectives" to be balanced out by equally biased and self-serving dishwater served up by DCP? Sorry but I got a little heated. Didn't mean to singe you personally.

And it was a good question. How do we know if something is factual, or better, how do we know how probable some account really is, that it seems to match (or witness, or attest to) what happened on the ground some decades or even centuries ago? That was my point - look for a web of testimonies, each of them also independently attested to. Then at least you can say, "This is a fairly probable account of what happened".

And that goes to my second part, that we have here on this forum testimonies. I myself was in a "small-town" LC, separated from Anaheim by geography, not in the "central flow". There was no internet. My "elders" and "serving ones" weren't abusive, rather they were mild and pleasant. The "storms" and "rebellions" were past, only to be whispered about, not discussed openly. I was a newbie - don't ask questions I was told, and of course I wanted to be a good church member. But even then, I read the "FPR" by WL and was shocked by his language, using terms that would make a sailor blush to characterize the "rebels", hardly Christian writing to be sure! I was bothered, but "Hey - it's the church!" That was our response to troubling things.

So I was here recommending the testimony of Don Rutledge if you really want to know what it was like in WL's inner circle. And DR's testimony has been corroborated here by other witnesses like "Nell", and "OBW" and "Jane Anderson" and others. What actually went down. There's more to say but I won't belabor the point. Your question was actually good. Keep asking! Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find". Don't stop seeking! The journey isn't yet over.

Originally Posted by Hope

During 1964-1966, Witness Lee met regularly with Samuel Chang, John Ingalls, James Barber and Bill Mallon. Ingalls, Barber and Mallon all shared with me separately and on many occasions that these sessions were full of complaints from Witness Lee about the problems in the churches in the Far East, and especially among the co-workers. I also heard many times from Lee about his disappointments in the Far East. Many times he declared that he was dropping what was done in China and Taiwan and starting over in the USA. That did not mean he was abandoning what had been accomplished in the Far East, but it certainly did not purport some ideal to be duplicated.

In 1968, I was one of 140 Americans who traveled with Witness Lee to the Far East for six weeks of visiting and mingling with the saints there. Witness Lee desired to demonstrate to the churches there something of the new fresh move of the Spirit in the USA. In Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, I met some of the most precious brothers and sisters I have ever known. I greatly admired the universal desire to bring friends and relatives to Christ and their success in the gospel outreach. However, the meetings were not very lively and were somewhat formal. They definitely had a clergy-laity system..

Don Rutledge posted on this forum as "Hope", and his account was independently attested to by other crucial witnesses like Bill Mallon, whose own testimonies were collected by poster "Indiana". Please see the thread "Testimony of Don Rutledge" if you have not already. It's eye-opening.

So no, I wasn't there personally, but I have before me a collection of mutually reinforcing and independently attestable witnesses all telling aspects of a single narrative: that of corruption, predation, manipulation, and covering up. For several decades WL effectively ran the only printing press in town. What he did with his monopoly to distort the narrative is now being matched by his followers in DCP as they try to suppress and deflect the widely-held public response to his ministry's effects.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I have collated dozens of greek new testament manuscripts for the International Greek New Testament Project. Although I have handled manuscripts from the second century A.D., my assignment was with the minuscule manuscripts [that is to say, manuscripts written in cursive], dating from the 8th century to the the 14th.

I found that nearly every manuscript I collated contains literally dozens of alternate wordings per chapter! Yet I never found even one variant that significantly changed the meaning of a text.

For example, a verse might read, "Then Jesus and his disciples went into the city." The variants might look something like this:

Then Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
And Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
Now Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
Then the Lord Jesus and his disciples went into the city.
Then the Lord and his disciples went into the city.
Then Jesus and his disciples were going into the city.
Then Jesus with his disciples went into the city.
Then Jesus went into the city and his disciples with him.
Into the city Jesus and his disciples went.
Into the city the Lord Jesus and his disciples went.
Into the city the Lord and his disciples went.

None of these variants offer any change in meaning. I came to feel that the New Testament, rather than being written in stone, with guaranteed word for word accuracy like the Old Testament, is more like one of those 1920's Keystone Cops movies with jerky actions yet a clear delineation of the scene.

This is from another thread. The poster collects a number of independent witnesses, each slightly different, not identical, but which together create "a clear delineation of the scene". If you think about it, the NT itself is such a collection of independent witnesses. Does that make sense?

See also the post after that one.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Initial investigation is in accord.

Paul was known and followed from the earliest of times.

"Clement of Rome, writing about AD 95, quotes from Romans; Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 115) quotes from 1 Corinthians, Romans, and from 1 Timothy and Titus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

Therefore it seems highly probable that the NT person "Paul" (and at least some of his writings) are genuine and factual. They're attested to by other independently attestable non-NT witnesses. There's a sufficient web of reinforcing accounts to create at least a somewhat "clear delineation of the scene".

I was bringing the question to that "perspective" (insert smiley face here). And this seems to me to be an important issue, not only to LC history and church history in general, but also in reply to those who say that our God isn't real. Even to scoffers, the plethora of early witnesses attests to Paul being real, and Paul attests to the Twelve, and the Twelve attest to Jesus. Either we're dealing with the greatest forgery (set of forgeries, really) in recorded human history, or the NT tells us something amazing and unforgettable about God's love. God loved us so much that He sent His Son.

John 5:31 ESV "If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Elden1971

I realize most of you are familiar with Doug's testimony, but I felt for the sake of new ones and the need to have more of the stories in one spot it would be useful. I can confirm Doug's Daystar exploits and Doug worked for me about 10 years after he left the local church and we had some amazing adventures together. I love Doug and his family and wish them the best. Their youngest son got married this week.

Here's another example of the named, independently-sourced, corroborated personal testimonies that populate this forum. One merely has to make some small effort to dig though the commentaries (much generated by me, sorry!) to find the actual ('factual') eye-witnesses to LC history.

Or, one can rely wholly on WL and DCP at face value. Many do. But that seems to violate the Biblical principle of having multiple witnesses, to determine whether something is in fact so.

[theLCfurry]

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose George Washington crossing the Delaware was just "hearsay". All those accounts, held by so many over the years, a network of witnesses. All just hearsay. I mean, at some point, if you insist on denying the many interlocking and mutually-reinforcing eye-witnesses, then you're free to live in your own world of denial. But I would suggest it's not the world most of us live in. You know, where you listen to multiple sources and exercise discernment. Your mother lives in her own world, there. You're free to join her there if you choose. Either way, you choose.

I'd rather choose my side and not go along with my mom's

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Some good points brought up here by all involved so far! It's like me and my wife - she has a skeptical nature and asks me all the time, "How do you know that's true, and who are these people saying that!?" My response often is, "Well how do we know anything is true, cuz we weren't actually there!" There is merit to both of these questions. In this case, I am probably too trusting and she is probably too skeptical, so we sort of balance each other out (God ordained I think). In any case, we should be "good Bereans" and investigate things for ourselves, asking the Lord for light and guidance.

So for my part, I was in the California churches in the 70s and the Ohio churches in the 80s. I was young and naive and did hear things, but generally dismissed various negative things I heard about LC leadership as not being that important. When my family left in 1988, it was more about the low level of life and the fact that I got a job which transferred me from Ohio to the middle of the California desert. This, I believe, was the Lord's way of drying us out some, from the LC teachings we were most steeped in. For instance, I had a big fear that the Lord would whack me hard for leaving the LC - I thought He might try to kill me through some tricky means (as if He needed to resort to that!). Sounds silly now, but it was a real fear that was based upon LC teachings of God's punishment for leaving . . . the teaching was totally devoid of His love (God eternal does have a purpose, and it's all based completely in His love and good pleasure for us - not to punish or do harm to us . . . to give us a future and a hope! Jeremiah 29:11)

While away from the LC, slowly the Lord brought me back to Himself. One big thing He did was show me there are others outside of the LC who have very real and enjoyable relationships with the Lord. He lead me to books by contemporary Christians who were seeing and enjoying things of Christ - we were always told in the LC that this didn't exist elsewhere, period. "Don't go looking because it's not out there!" Well, He showed me differently. Then, when I found out John Ingalls had left, I called him and we spoke for just a little bit. He sent me his book, and I was blown away.

Then the Lord led me to a group in Scottsdale, who had been ostracized from the LC in the mid-80s, and that's where I've been for over 20 years. (They had been publishing books, a monthly newsletter plus a radio show, and the LC leadership didn't like that it was not under the Anaheim headship.) Not much was said here about being ousted from the LC (in fact nothing), as the saints here just wanted to pursue Christ alone and not be looking backward. I really appreciated that.

Then about 10 years ago I came across this forum, and people were talking about many more details of the grievous things the LC leaders had been involved with. I didn't believe everything right away, and took a little time to do a bit of due diligence. Through connections I had with ex-LC leadership people, some of whom I know personally, I checked out various things. But eventually, it became apparent that at the least, most of it was true.

I can tell you that I believe no one on here is posting outright lies or even things too far off the mark when it comes to the LC - at least what I've read. Some here, I do think, may get a little over zealous on account of the hurt and pain they endured because of LC leadership actions/abuse, and I often feel the need to ask them to consider not "throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water." But some do feel the whole thing was completely dirty, and that's their perspective . . . I wasn't in their shoes and can't/won't judge. I actually thank the Lord for various things He showed me in the LC, because He did specifically and miraculously lead me there back in 1974. But hallelujah, He also led me back out!

Hope that helps.

(FYI: the last time I was with LC saints was at a Sunday meeting in Tacoma, WA, about ten years ago. The singing was good, but I found the "spontaneous" sharing by different individuals quite orchestrated towards Witness Lee's writings and the sharing thereof exclusively. This was sad to me, and I felt the saints there were being robbed of the fresh experience of Christ and sharing Him with one another. They, most probably, thought they were actually doing just that (i.e. sharing Christ), but it was really a severe limitation to the Spirit. This, at least, borders on showing traits of a personality cult, which they appear to be completely blinded to.)

Ah I see, Sons to Glory!. Thanks for sharing

Also, I've read (I believe) half of John Ingall's testimony and it kinda helped reinforce my beliefs as well as adding knowledge about the 80s turmoil. Do you guys think that WL chose not to remove Philip Lee from his job at the LSM office for a long time and only removed him at the last minute because of festering accusations? Do you think WL also believed the accusations against his son?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by theLCfurry

Also, I've read (I believe) half of John Ingall's testimony and it kinda helped reinforce my beliefs as well as adding knowledge about the 80s turmoil. Do you guys think that WL chose not to remove Philip Lee from his job at the LSM office for a long time and only removed him at the last minute because of festering accusations? Do you think WL also believed the accusations against his son?

Yes I do.

WL knew how bad his sons were, yet refused to remove them. WL cared more about his family, his ministry, and his own reputation, than the actual condition of the churches.

WL preached to us against doing the same things he did. He warned us never to do what he himself had done. Isn't that hypocrisy?

I have seriously wondered why WL would let his sons do what they did. Though I have no evidence, it is my guess that his boys might have blackmailed him, knowing things that only sons would know. No other reason seems to make any sense about why WL did what he did.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by theLCfurry

Hey guys,

Over the last 24 hours, something has been bugging me after an argument with my mom over making me read ministry digest to "get the other perspective from LSM" after

Good. Research is good.

she found out that I was hearing about the turmoils during the LC's history (and proceeded to even say that all of it was fake news

Did your mom do the research herself?

and you guys are giving me fake news to lead me from the church for malicious benefits -

I doubt that a single forum member has a motive to “lead you from the church”. I can’t think of a single benefit that we might have, much less a “malicious” benefit.

We don’t get paid to post here ($$$benefit?). I might pick up a few clues here and there about who meets where, but we don’t have a “forum church”; we don’t meet together (that we know of). This forum is anonymous, so we don’t know who meets where or if anyone meets anywhere. So your mom is wrong again. No benefits and no malicious intent toward anyone.

In addition, I don’t want the responsibility to control you and/or your life. I encourage you to listen to your mom as you continue researching both sides of the issue. Then, make up your own mind. Pray for guidance. Pray for the Lord’s leading. Pray that the Lord will protect you from deception from any source.

Calm down and be at peace. No one here is out to get you. We have had enough experience being controlled and manipulated, and most of us abhor the thought of becoming what we have struggled against for so long.

This website is full of personal testimonies on a multitude of topics. Find one and read two or three a week.

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Be not entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”

she doesn't even know about this website - let alone that it was for discussion not like a news website - and proceeded to say these things *sighs*).

Are any of the events and ESPECIALLY how the LSM, Lee/Nee, and the BB's reacted to the turmoils accurate as described on here? Can you guys also give me personal testimonies about what you guys when through during the Daystar, Phillip Lee, the lawsuits to Harvest House, Max Rapport + John Ingalls incident, etc. as well as experiences that gave you guys warning signs that the LC was probably a cult?

1) I was a Daystar investor who lost a small amount of money which was never repaid. The amount was small but, at the time it seemed pretty big to me. I was manipulated into releasing Lee from his debt. I dare say millions of dollars have passed through Lee’s family business since then, yet they didn’t feel to reimburse me. If it were me, if necessary, I would spend the rest of my life paying back the Daystar investors who trusted me. I would bear the responsibility for my failure and not leave it to God’s children to bail me out. Just because I released Lee from his debt to me, doesn’t mean that the Lord would not hold him responsible for his deception. I believe one day he will be called to give account. I truly forgave the debt, and rarely think about it, except from this perspective.

2) I was interviewed by a Harvest House attorney, an honorable Christian man, who lived in my town. I attended an appeals court hearing in Houston. I visited with, in person, several Harvest House administrative officials, including John Ankerberg. I found them all to be honorable and respectful people whose only desire was to tell the truth.

My testimony in these two matters is very personal and is not a lie and is not “fake news”.

I looked at my personal experiences, there are many more than these two, and I read several books on religious cults. I compared what I read in books like “Churches that Abuse” with what I saw in the LC, LSM, WLee and men like Ron Kangas, and came to my own conclusions. I don’t like to use the cult-word in these discussions because it is so inflammatory that once you use the c-word, all communication seems to end. I can only encourage you to look in the forum topics on abuse, pick out one of the recommended books and read it. Educate yourself, and make up your own mind. Respect your mother, but you are ultimately responsible for your decisions.

Blessings to you and your mom,
Nell

[Sons to Glory!]

Some good points brought up here by all involved so far! It's like me and my wife - she has a skeptical nature and asks me all the time, "How do you know that's true, and who are these people saying that!?" My response often is, "Well how do we know anything is true, cuz we weren't actually there!" There is merit to both of these questions. In this case, I am probably too trusting and she is probably too skeptical, so we sort of balance each other out (God ordained I think). In any case, we should be "good Bereans" and investigate things for ourselves, asking the Lord for light and guidance.

So for my part, I was in the California churches in the 70s and the Ohio churches in the 80s. I was young and naive and did hear things, but generally dismissed various negative things I heard about LC leadership as not being that important. When my family left in 1988, it was more about the low level of life and the fact that I got a job which transferred me from Ohio to the middle of the California desert. This, I believe, was the Lord's way of drying us out some, from the LC teachings we were most steeped in. For instance, I had a big fear that the Lord would whack me hard for leaving the LC - I thought He might try to kill me through some tricky means (as if He needed to resort to that!). Sounds silly now, but it was a real fear that was based upon LC teachings of God's punishment for leaving . . . the teaching was totally devoid of His love (God eternal does have a purpose, and it's all based completely in His love and good pleasure for us - not to punish or do harm to us . . . to give us a future and a hope! Jeremiah 29:11)

While away from the LC, slowly the Lord brought me back to Himself. One big thing He did was show me there are others outside of the LC who have very real and enjoyable relationships with the Lord. He lead me to books by contemporary Christians who were seeing and enjoying things of Christ - we were always told in the LC that this didn't exist elsewhere, period. "Don't go looking because it's not out there!" Well, He showed me differently. Then, when I found out John Ingalls had left, I called him and we spoke for just a little bit. He sent me his book, and I was blown away.

Then the Lord led me to a group in Scottsdale, who had been ostracized from the LC in the mid-80s, and that's where I've been for over 20 years. (They had been publishing books, a monthly newsletter plus a radio show, and the LC leadership didn't like that it was not under the Anaheim headship.) Not much was said here about being ousted from the LC (in fact nothing), as the saints here just wanted to pursue Christ alone and not be looking backward. I really appreciated that.

Then about 10 years ago I came across this forum, and people were talking about many more details of the grievous things the LC leaders had been involved with. I didn't believe everything right away, and took a little time to do a bit of due diligence. Through connections I had with ex-LC leadership people, some of whom I know personally, I checked out various things. But eventually, it became apparent that at the least, most of it was true.

I can tell you that I believe no one on here is posting outright lies or even things too far off the mark when it comes to the LC - at least what I've read. Some here, I do think, may get a little over zealous on account of the hurt and pain they endured because of LC leadership actions/abuse, and I often feel the need to ask them to consider not "throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water." But some do feel the whole thing was completely dirty, and that's their perspective . . . I wasn't in their shoes and can't/won't judge. I actually thank the Lord for various things He showed me in the LC, because He did specifically and miraculously lead me there back in 1974. But hallelujah, He also led me back out!

Hope that helps.

(FYI: the last time I was with LC saints was at a Sunday meeting in Tacoma, WA, about ten years ago. The singing was good, but I found the "spontaneous" sharing by different individuals quite orchestrated towards Witness Lee's writings and the sharing thereof exclusively. This was sad to me, and I felt the saints there were being robbed of the fresh experience of Christ and sharing Him with one another. They, most probably, thought they were actually doing just that (i.e. sharing Christ), but it was really a severe limitation to the Spirit. This, at least, borders on showing traits of a personality cult, which they appear to be completely blinded to.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by theLCfurry

Hey guys,

Over the last 24 hours, something has been bugging me after an argument with my mom over making me read ministry digest to "get the other perspective from LSM" after she found out that I was hearing about the turmoils during the LC's history (and proceeded to even say that all of it was fake news and you guys are giving me fake news to lead me from the church for malicious benefits - she doesn't even know about this website - let alone that it was for discussion not like a news website - and proceeded to say these things *sighs*). Are any of the events and ESPECIALLY how the LSM, Lee/Nee, and the BB's reacted to the turmoils accurate as described on here? Can you guys also give me personal testimonies about what you guys when through during the Daystar, Phillip Lee, the lawsuits to Harvest House, Max Rapport + John Ingalls incident, etc. as well as experiences that gave you guys warning signs that the LC was probably a cult?

theLCfurry, interesting name! Welcome!

I'm kind of more "middle-of-the-road" than some when it comes to the Recovery. At times, I have been critiqued from both sides, but that's fine. I have to be honest and faithful to the Lord.

I always separate LSM from the LC's. I view LSM as having a checkered history, filled with both good and worthless teachings and practices, requiring much discernment on our part to distinguish the good from the worthless. (Heb 5.14) Their teachings can both help and hurt God's children.

The testimonies on this forum have been very helpful. They are like witnesses in a trial, and you are in the jury. You must carefully consider all the evidence and then make decisions about what is the truth. For example, I heard that John Ingalls conspired to lead a global conspiracy to destroy WL's ministry. JI was accused of so many horrible things and was branded a leper. But I never found any evidence for this. Instead I learned that WL's own son was molesting and abusing the saints like the sons of Old Eli the high Priest in I Samuel 2.12-36. Once I discovered that John Ingalls and others acted as a "whistle blower" to protect God's people, and not as rebellious lepers, then my whole understanding of what happened changed. It was a light shining in a dark place, i.e. my memory, which was deceived by WL and the Blendeds for 15 years. Since I learned this, I have been writing on the Forum to help others who have been hurt by the lies at LSM.

I never criticize the LC's, however, in a general way. I have friends and family there, and each LC is different based on the leadership and the members. I have some old friends, who left the LC, but later went back because they had an opportunity to minister. They are more like genuine shepherds than ministry robots. How and where they serve is not for me to criticize, since each of us have the liberty to follow the Lord. The LC's of these shepherding elders can be a healthy place for Christians. But those LC's with elders who are dogmatic zealots of WL are not healthy for any Christians.

Like I said, the Blendeds at LSM are different. The senior Blendeds have a history of covering gross sins, falsely accusing others, smearing the reputations of faithful ministers, and are seriously infected with elitist pride and arrogance. I have no more respect for them. I view them like the Pharisees and the religious dogs apostle Paul warned us about. (Phil 3.2)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I always separate LSM from the LC's. I view LSM as having a checkered history, filled with both good and worthless teachings and practices, requiring much discernment on our part to distinguish the good from the worthless. (Heb 5.14) Their teachings can both help and hurt God's children.

I never criticize the LC's, however, in a general way. I have friends and family there, and each LC is different based on the leadership and the members. I have some old friends, who left the LC, but later went back because they had an opportunity to minister. They are more like genuine shepherds than ministry robots. How and where they serve is not for me to criticize, since each of us have the liberty to follow the Lord. The LC's of these shepherding elders can be a healthy place for Christians. But those LC's with elders who are dogmatic zealots of WL are not healthy for any Christians.

Thanks for sharing that kind of guiding principle you use - a very good approach in my humble estimation (a princple I might follow from now on with my posts on here)!

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by theLCfurry

Hey guys,

Over the last 24 hours, something has been bugging me after an argument with my mom over making me read ministry digest to "get the other perspective from LSM" after she found out that I was hearing about the turmoils during the LC's history (and proceeded to even say that all of it was fake news and you guys are giving me fake news to lead me from the church for malicious benefits - she doesn't even know about this website - let alone that it was for discussion not like a news website - and proceeded to say these things *sighs*). Are any of the events and ESPECIALLY how the LSM, Lee/Nee, and the BB's reacted to the turmoils accurate as described on here? Can you guys also give me personal testimonies about what you guys when through during the Daystar, Phillip Lee, the lawsuits to Harvest House, Max Rapport + John Ingalls incident, etc. as well as experiences that gave you guys warning signs that the LC was probably a cult?

This was posted on the history of the "local churches" in the U. S.


http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...3&postcount=72