Generalizations Of The Characteristics Of The Local Church

[Covert]

I am making this thread due to recent on this forum regarding accurate descriptions and hyperbole in regards to certain characteristics in the LC. I wanted to aim at analyzing certain behaviors and practices of the LC and determine if it is widespread and common enough to labeled and associated with the local churches. Here are some points that I think are accurate descriptions of the local churches (based on my anecdotal experience and others on this forum).

1. An overwhelming majority (I will say alteast 7/10 ratio) of the leadership in the lords recovery going from elders to coworkers are absolute for witness lee ministry. Meaning that will abide by his ministry no matter if its un-biblical, devious, harmful, manipulative, or counter productive in any way. Approaching these individuals and having a dialogue that involves questioning and dissenting towards lee ministry would lead to one sided conversation of an obstinate mind blockading any productive conversation.

2. An overwhelming majority (7/10 min) of local church members prioritize and/or have a mandatory emphasis of witness lee doctrine/ ministry/footnotes in their faith.

3. There is an stigma or even disdain for members to pursue personal and essential aspects of their lives in their own accords ("no fellowship") such as marriage, career, where to live, field of study, etc.

4. Vainglory- An overwhelming majority of local church members (7/10) has a dubious amount of pride that aims to disparage all other believers for flaws while having those very same flaws or even more faults then the very people they criticize.

5. Peculiar Narcissism- The local church has this culture of strange narcissism that revolves around controlling the lives of the members in making sure it aligns with the objective, standards, and practices of the local churches. This peculiar narcissism goes deeper in which I personally notice a lot of exalting and obsessing over the self in which their are lots of moments in which they focus on praising themselves more than God. Aaron talks about this in various posts and I brought it up cause it is very strange to me to. Also their disdain for good works also adds to this peculiar narcissism of the LC culture (IMO). Overall I feel like this peculiar narcissism is strange because it is not that the individual LC member is narcissistic as an individual but moreso about the collective of the LC lifestyle. So when a member does something that is absent of anything related to the LC as a long term thing such as a hobby that results in missing some meetings or traveling to visit family during conferences, it results in some negative stigma or even rebuke from lots of posts I have seen.

6. Cult- this infamous word that the LC hates and some posters feel uneasy about. I feel the LC is a cult, whether you feel it is a personality cult at best or just a full on cult is up to the individual. I feel as though witness lee ministry made the local churches a cult. You can literally see duplicates of witness or the many offspring he has created due to his domineering over the Local churches and making indoctrination institutions such as the FTT. Im sorry but at a minimum if one is being generous, this is a personality cult.

Well I will start off with 6 points so far. Feel free to express your thoughts on my points in either dissent, approval, or expansion. Even make more points on generalizations/characteristics of the LC that you feel need to be spoken about. Heck if you want to, discuss if you feel some generalizations that posters on the forum make about the LC are just hyperbole or over exaggerated to an extent.

[Sons to Glory!]

I can agree with almost all of what you said, and any disagreement is not worth mentioning. All these points have been talked about on here over the years, but it's always good to summarize again, so new readers can see the errors listed again. I do believe most in the LC are real believers, but as you say, at "the very least it is a cult of personality." Quite true with the extreme emphasis on the man, Witness Lee.

On the recently closed, "Examining LC Spinoffs" thread, I listed eight things that we in Scottsdale (a so-called LC spinoff), "have seen and freely acknowledge & repudiate among ourselves" concerning WL/LSM/LC teachings and practices (a few of which you already mentioned with some additional).

"Below from Examining LC Spinoffs" thread post #28

1. The teaching of fear as the basis of performance - e.g., a thousand years in outer darkness or God being out to whack us for whatever is way off! (In reality, His banner over us is love and is the real reason why He has His eternal purpose)

2. The centralized control

3. The "God becoming Man so man can become God" teaching

4. The so-called "Ground of Oneness" which was really eletism

5. The degrading of other Christians

6. The myriad covert rules and regulations (albeit often conveyed by LC culture)

7. The focus on Lee as the one whatever

8. The teaching that God is not moving among any others; that no other Christian authors have a fresh experience of Christ or have received fresh revelation (therefore don't go looking for other good Christian sources, because there aren't any!)

This list is certainly not meant to be all-inclusive, but was just a start to base the conversation on (though these points were not really addressed much in that thread).

[OBW]

Now, having identified these things that you think are so egregious (and I am not necessarily diasgreeing), to have a real discussion in which we provide evidence, you may find that there is a problem trying to establish things in the terms you have given. The problem is that these are at least partly descriptives that can be applied based on opinion and therefore not as easily identifiable as a kind of scriptural or moral error, or psychological/sociological problem.

You need to find a way to restate these in terms that are less speculative as to what it is that makes them what you think they are. And while I actually generally agree with the label "cult," it is almost too vaguely defined anywhere to be of significant importance. Those who are members of what you want to call a cult will be quick to point out that they are nothing like groups like Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, or Peoples Temple (Jim jones). And they are right. On the other extreme, if you find a list of cult characteristics, it is arguable that any Christian group, from single assembly to large denomination is a cult because of adherence to certain norms and the following of a single individual (Christ).

Just an example.

You can say something similar about them all. You need something more concrete — either with an agreed definition, or that is rooted in Christian theology and the scripture. Anything else is trying to drive a stake into quicksand.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

You need to find a way to restate these in terms that are less speculative as to what it is that makes them what you think they are.

One observation that I have made, based on dozens if not hundreds of "training" and conference' meetings, and watching dozens more of videos in trainings, that not once did anyone stand up and subject the ministry to any kind of critical examination. Not once. To me that says "mind control cult" loud and clear.

Meeting after meeting, we'd run through various boilerplates of Christian faith, assuring ourselves of our "goodly heritage", then the self-proclaimed Seer would come up with some baseless over-generalization and nobody would say a word. Or he'd bash "Christless" and "deformed" Christianity then ask us to forgive his "messy kitchen". Or he'd contradict himself - he'd say in the same training that one Psalm of imprecation that was just fallen humanity expressed, because we were called to bless not curse, and then a few messages later he'd say that an imprecation was Christ defeating Satan in type. And nobody would say a word.

Or we'd hear that "women can't teach" and then Mary McDonough would be cited as "recovering the three parts of man" and even we'd see her book sold on LSM next to Lee and Nee. Or we'd read that the 7 golden lampstands show us that all local churches have to be "exactly identical" with "no differences whatsoever" - did you ever see a hand-beaten calyx or pomegranate? Are they all exactly identical? But why didn't anyone, ever, ask such questions? Probably because we were all cowed, mentally-conditioned not to be "negative".

It's a mind-control cult. If you're an elder you are either an enforcer or you have to sit quietly as the enforcers do their business. What's that called, legally, when you sit quietly as someone commits a crime?

When the ne'er-do-well sons of the supposed Seer set themselves on the lives and livelihoods of the church members, and time and again the few brave ones risked everything they had given their lives for, for decades even, to bring it to the Seer's attention, and were refused, and saw the basic Matthew 18 principles of accountability spurned, what does that look like? A personality cult masquerading as a church.

Here's one in Mexico. The cult leader is son of the founder, who was, yes that's right - Minister of the Age. Now the son has the MOTA mantle. Even though he's in jail, he's still God's Suffering and Persecuted Servant, to the brainwashed cult members.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexican...ns-11581637153

Here's one in South Korea. I read their translated web page and it says that God grants a special revelation to one person per generation, which in the present generation just happens to be their church founder. Gee, where did I hear that before? Sounds kinda familiar?

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-51851250

Groups like this are unfortunately far too common.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-ungodly-woman

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/910...till-haunts-me

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Covert

I am making this thread due to recent on this forum regarding accurate descriptions and hyperbole in regards to certain characteristics in the LC. I wanted to aim at analyzing certain behaviors and practices of the LC and determine if it is widespread and common enough to labeled and associated with the local churches. Here are some points that I think are accurate descriptions of the local churches (based on my anecdotal experience and others on this forum).

1 out of 10 express themselves in meetings as they would express themselves at home. Meaning no pretenses regarding their soulish nature. 9 out of 10 would put on a spiritual facade' to mask their true personna.

[aron]

Some have said not to paint too broad-brush: "All elders in LC are ...x..." And we've criticized WL and blended minions on this forum for the same thing: "Most Christians don't know ...x..." when WL hadn't been to a non-LC meeting for 45 years. How did he know what "most Christians" knew or didn't?

So in making assessments, it's good to consider the caveats and qualifiers put out by members of the forum.

Originally Posted by OBW

if you find a list of cult characteristics, it is arguable that any Christian group, from single assembly to large denomination is a cult because of adherence to certain norms and the following of a single individual (Christ).

Back to my post #4 -- WL gave messages for years in front of hundreds and even thousands of attendees, and none ever stood up and critiqued his categorical assertions. I never saw anyone question WL thus, yet he was a man who freely questioned and critiqued everyone else. Let's take OBW's remark for comparison: did you ever see anyone at the Middleville Congregational Church stand up and question Pastor Bob after his Sunday sermon? No? So then why make issue here?

I say alright, let's consider Pastor Bob. Suppose every Sunday morning, Pastor Bob's sermons blasted other Christian believers from stem to stern. All of them hopelessly deficient. Pastor Bob continually came up with new 'revelations' that strained the limits of orthodoxy. Pastor Bob had a self-publishing house and only allowed his books to be sold in church. Some of Bob's later revelations, so-called, were directly contradictory of what was spoken previously. (yet no one said anything) Pastor Bob solicited money from church members to support his son's business, and when it went bankrupt his lackeys said, Consider it a donation. Sexual abuse by family members he appointed to church/ministry leadership got whitewashed and witnesses relocated or run out of town.

At some point most observers would say, "There's a sign out front that says, 'Church' but that group neither reflects the message of Jesus Christ nor the historical testimony of churches in the Bible." Whether it's a pseudo-Christian mind control cult or a deranged and marginally-Christian personality cult is just an academic question.

[OBW]

My overall point on chasing after the "cult" label is not found in one single post. It has included different and overlapping analyses of the practical use of the term and the negative effects it tends to have on the willingness of current members of such a group to listen to anything you say after slapping on the label.

The problem with the practical use is that no one has an iron-clad definition. There are varying lists of characteristics, each coupled with some kind of reference to needing several of them to rise to the level of a cult. But if there are 10 characteristics supplied (hypothetical), what clearly constitutes having any particular characteristic? Are they all weighted equally? What kind of "score" is required? And even where you think that any particular group is guilty of a particular item on the list, they may disagree with it. For example, when we talk about the RCC, one of the first things that many Protestants bring up is the worship of Mary. Yet many devout, practicing RCC members do not consider that they are worshipping Mary. What gives? Are they just lying to protect their status quo? Or are we working with two different definitions of "worship?" And if that is the case, then which one is "right?" And given some of the discussions and disagreements about how Protestants "worship," it is not certain that even "we" all agree on what is worship.

Then, no matter how you manage to frame your case for applying the label, it is viewed as an ad hominem. A general and vague attack of the person/group rather than of specific reasons to avoid them. We cease real dialog related to actual errors and problems and make the fight about labels. And those you are putting the label on tend to simply dig in and fight, or just go away. Either way, you fail to get them to stop and consider that they may be wrong. And you don't simply start with "you are wrong about the whole thing." You start with a specific issue. One point of disagreement. Then another. Once you can start them looking at separate items along with sound support for each position, there is a chance you can sway them. But as long are you make it about the whole thing, it is almost like Lee declaring that if you read through the whole Bible you will see that (something about God's economy is a prime example). You are never going to actually read through the whole Bible to try to see it for yourself. You are either going to accept his word (which they are already prone to do) or you will reject it outright as a rhetorical trick to fool you. But since they are already too invested in Lee's stuff, they are unlikely to stop to consider. It could happen, but the more likely response is to simply continue to accept Lee and reject the entire discussion against him. To either just fight without basis or leave. Either way is to fail to get them to engage in consideration.

In a less extreme way, StG's recent thread about his assembly in Scottsdale was effectively a request to have his group declared not a cult. (That is not what was asked, nor was it what anyone thought about the request. Rather just a declaration that it was "OK" was sought) We didn't say it was a cult or not a cult, instead, we stated that it is too difficult to base any decision on what people say about it, or on generalities at the broad level. It would take a detailed analysis of teachings and practices. Something that requires a full discussion of each issue. In the end, we have said nothing other than that many of us are uncomfortable that it is too lop-sided in its approach to scripture, as are so many inner-life groups. Neither an endorsement nor a definite warning.

If you want anyone that is currently in the LC to consider leaving when they currently don't see why, you can't have a discussion of whether the group is a cult in the recent record. It is, to them, a red flag to avoid contact. It makes the invitation to discuss almost impossible to accept.

That is my problem with trying to pin down vagaries like "cult." I agree with aron's comparison of the regular church preacher that takes questionable positions — from a little to a lot. There is something there. And it may help some of us who have escaped. But it is almost sure to terminate the participation of any regular member that we might hope to persuade. Most of them will simply stop coming and declare the environment to be too hostile.

Am I making any sense? And if you really want to see a discussion about the LC as a cult, There was probably one many years ago that you can find by using the search feature. Maybe the last real pointed discussion was in the old Berean forum (which is no longer accessible), but think it has been repeated here. But also understand that I am not suggesting that such a thread, if it exists, be posted to so that it appears on the current list. Just read through it where it is. Let it be. The acrimony that so often occurs with such threads is not worth resurrecting.

[OBW]

And a follow-on to my last post.

Think back to all of Lee's negative talk about Christianity. All that "poor, poor" or "poor, pitiful, mooing cow" Christianity. All those references to the Harlot, or Whore of Babylon and her harlot daughters.

That is the flip side of declaring any group to be a cult. It is the cult making brash declarations about those who would give it the negative labels. And what is the result of all that negative talk? Even when the LC's members leave, too many of them are so infected with all that negative talk that they are unable to go back to any normal Christian group. And they even seem to struggle with small free groups unless it is just a group of ex-LCers "trying to get the feeling again"[1] by doing it again without Lee or some specific abusive elder(s).

It puts up barriers to real inquiry, study, and contemplation. Like pulling the bullet out but never dealing with the bleeding and sepsis.

[1] apologies to Barry Manilow.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

In a less extreme way, StG's recent thread about his assembly in Scottsdale was effectively a request to have his group declared not a cult. (That is not what was asked, nor was it what anyone thought about the request. Rather just a declaration that it was "OK" was sought) We didn't say it was a cult or not a cult, instead, we stated that it is too difficult to base any decision on what people say about it, or on generalities at the broad level. It would take a detailed analysis of teachings and practices. Something that requires a full discussion of each issue. In the end, we have said nothing other than that many of us are uncomfortable that it is too lop-sided in its approach to scripture, as are so many inner-life groups. Neither an endorsement nor a definite warning.

If you want anyone that is currently in the LC to consider leaving when they currently don't see why, you can't have a discussion of whether the group is a cult in the recent record. It is, to them, a red flag to avoid contact. It makes the invitation to discuss almost impossible to accept.

That is my problem with trying to pin down vagaries like "cult." I agree with aron's comparison of the regular church preacher that takes questionable positions — from a little to a lot. There is something there. And it may help some of us who have escaped. But it is almost sure to terminate the participation of any regular member that we might hope to persuade. Most of them will simply stop coming and declare the environment to be too hostile.

Appreciate your observations here. Trying to prove some group is a cult can be pretty difficult. Too loose a definition and you would snag most Christian groups I think, and too tight, then only the most blatant (think Jonestown) would fit. And proving that someone isn't a cult can be difficult too, for much of the same reasons.

I've heard the more general term "cult like" bandied about many times in referring to the LC. Wikipedia defines "cult" this way:

In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

Does the LC fit this general definition? I would say so on both the above two points:

1) "Unusual religious, spiritual or philosophical beliefs"

2) "Common interest in a particular personality"

(maybe a #3 for "particular . . . goal" - one church one city)

The second point regarding a "particular personality" certainly fits with the almost totally exclusive focus on WL/WN. But then who is to define what is unusual according to the 1st point? (Of course, that's what this forum has been attempting to determine and convey for many years.) So while we get all hung-up on the first point and all the beliefs and practices of the LC, to me, it seems the second point is much easier to support.

[OBW]

The University of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Ohio State, the Univesity of Oregon, etc., are all cults.

Am I right or what??

And the problem with the "modern definition" is that is so vague as to be virtually useless.

And while the list of general characteristics under which this thread was started we not all as vague as "cult," it is the fact of "general" characteristics that makes it difficult. Saying that 7/10 "whatevers" (elders, localities, average members, etc.) are anything is problematic to define. Even for an assembly (locality) that someone really knows well, the actual percentage that is exactly as stated is difficult to specify with enough accuragy to be helpful. Are particular elders 100% for Lee's teachings? Does that mean that they know that those teachings are actually bad and therefore are just trying to have a position by sticking with the LC? Or might it be that they really believe them? Maybe evidence of actual abuse of the members suggests that they have really bought into the worst version of some things. But even then . . . .

[Covert]

Obw, you are a beloved poster, I actually appreciate your push back and participation.

Let me answer your questions to your recent post
1. Colleges=cult, short answer no.
2. Modern descriptions/definitions of cult are too vague and not really definitive/reliable?

I definitely agree to that to some extent.
3. Generalizations of the local churches such as numerating some charateristic of the LR solely by anecdotal experiences. I mean brother, do you expect to around as researchers/statisticians and travel around to different regions of the world examining different localities. Asking them how absolute they are to teh ministry and whether they believe that the LC teachings are false only stick with the LC for various personal/practical reasons. Then after many years of data gathering and research publish some sort of paper with large sample sizes across the world detailing certain attributes/characteristics of the LR/LC?

- Im sorry brother but that is not happening. I mean heck you would have a hard time approaching an LC member and engage in dialogue with the subject of questioning witness lee ministry. But of course this is just my anecdotal experience and definitely many others but who cares for the most part right?

Ok, now that I released some of my slight frustration with your expectations, I can maybe satisfy your desire to proficiently define cult in which you recommended having "roots from scripture. I will now try to use scripture, the word of God, the truth unveiled to man, in order to satisfy your desire for an accurate description of these cults/NRMS. The following post I am going to make are catered toward "Christian Related Cults/NRMS/Sects". I am sure my post can possibly describe non christian related cults out there but for the most part, these consecutive post of mine are towards Christian Offshoots NRMS/SECTS/CULTS.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Covert

Obw, my brother you are a pain in butt, but you are a beloved poster nonetheless. I actually appreciate your push back and participation. ...

Covert,

My brother, your posts are waaaaay too long. You don’t get to word us to sleep AND call OBW names. Don’t do it again. Ok? Your posterior lobes are of no concern to this forum.

Nell

[Covert]

Ok Nell, Edited certain comments regarding my frustration for the demands of the very intelligent and eloquent OBW . The post was long because OBW did have some seemingly demanding answers for us wanting to showcase how we can categorize the LC as a cult with some solid foundation/backing. I tried my best to do just that and hopefully it satisfies the beloved poster OBW and many others with his concerns.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Covert

Ok Nell, Edited certain comments regarding my frustration for the demands of the very intelligent and eloquent OBW . The post was long because OBW did have some seemingly demanding answers for us wanting to showcase how we can categorize the LC as a cult with some solid foundation/backing. I tried my best to do just that and hopefully it satisfies the beloved poster OBW and many others with his concerns.

Thanks.

N

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Covert

I mean brother, do you expect to travel around as researchers/statisticians to different regions of the world examining different localities. Asking them how absolute they are to the ministry and whether they believe that the LC teachings are false only stick with the LC for various personal/practical reasons.

(I edited your statements a little because (like me) I think you kept changing it and ended out with remnants of a prior pass.)

I actually do not expect anyone to do any of that. But that is what is needed to arrive at even a rough idea about much of anything. When I noted how much an elder may be 100% for the Lee/Nee/LC ministry yet not be in violation of what you are seeking to demonstrate, I was thinking of a specific person that I knew from the time of our "jump" into the LC until I left 14-1/2 years later, who had since become an elder in that city. I'm sure that he is truly for the thing. But not with some knowledge of what should warn him off. And not engaging in activities that place him among the abusive elders that are so often mentioned. And while he may hear of things like that, he probably doesn't know specifically of them (maybe excluding that thing with Colley Joseph in OKC that was mentioned in a recent thread). I'm pretty sure they don't let the "ministry office" force large quantities of excess books on them. ( have a little inside information on that.)

I realize that this is 1 out however many elders. But for all of us on this forum, coming up with a 7/10 number might be realistic for a particular locality that someone knows enough about to reasonably make that assertion. But for the whole of the "recovery" in the US?

My point is that you could be right. But you could be wrong. And the best we are going to do in any kind of broad, general way is speculate. Might as well ask them when they stopped beating their wives.

OK, I'm being a little funny there, but I hope you understand what I am saying. We ultimately accomplish nothing useful if we just speculate that 70% of the elders are aware of their position as leaders of a false ideology. And 70% of the members are gung ho for the system no matter what. And some other number believes it enough that they can't leave because they are either afraid of the threatened consequences of leaving or truly believe there is nowhere else to go even though "here" is a desert wasteland.

And when we declare our pulled out of the air (or other places) numbers mean something, does it really mean anything? I'm not trying to just stop this because I don't like where it is going, but because I think that once you consider the real value of it, it just might not be so important. Instead, careful study of specific things, one-by-one, collected together to show what is true and what is not is what will make your point. Something concrete and substantial.

[OBW]

Nell,

I didn't see any "names" thrown at me, though I could have missed them. If there were any, the most important thing for anyone to remember is that calling someone else a name does not win a discussion. It just changes it. If that is what is wanted, then I guess it might be the thing to do.

Covert,

The very long post kind of makes my point. I realize that I am also guilty of long posts, but I at least try to make each one about one thing. Your post seems to cover too much. (Or the one topic is actually a collection of smaller topics.) Too many points. Even if you want to hit it from many angles, try to make one point. Have some back and forth on it with some other participants. Then move on to another point. In the end, you will have something that we can talk about. A single, lengthy discussion of all the things that are wrong with the LC, or Christians on Campus turns into a shallow stab at a lot of stuff. It is probably all worth discussing. Let's take it point-by-point. Don't make us stand in front of the fire hose and try to drink it all in at once.

And that is also my complaint about the "cult" issue. Not that it is invalid, but that it shortchanges the meaty discussion on the points that ultimately make it true.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Nell,

I didn't see any "names" thrown at me, though I could have missed them. If there were any, the most important thing for anyone to remember is that calling someone else a name does not win a discussion. It just changes it. If that is what is wanted, then I guess it might be the thing to do.

You didn’t see it because Covert edited said name out of his post. It was a beaut’. I was afraid you would get your feelin’s hurt. (It was synonymous with “pain in the posterior lobe”.) Lookin’ out for ya’ dude.

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by OBW

And that is also my complaint about the "cult" issue. Not that it is invalid, but that it shortchanges the meaty discussion on the points that ultimately make it true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "cult" topic been discussed here numerous times? Has a case not been made yet where forum users collectively know that the points that make it true have already been made, and we can thus use the word without needing an accompanying dissertation each time, or am I imagining things?

[Covert]

1. The name calling situation Nell speaks of is when my original post said "you are a pain in the butt", I doubt this would have made you agitated but Nell thought otherwise and I had no problem editing, didnt mean much to me to keep that somewhat true comment.

2. Thats what I thought to trapped, but there are going to be some people who would like a more concrete and thorough explanation of a cult. There are numerous discussions revolving around this topic but I had no problem just adding my piece. My guess is that some people have a soft spot for the LC and still feel uneasy about calling the LC a cult because its the church they loved so much for many years. Not saying this is the reason for every ex-member who does agree with the cult label but its probably a good chunk of them.

3. OBW, Yes I am confident a 70 percent estimate is quite accurate for elders senior and junior. If you know of localities that have a majority leadership that is not absolute for witness lee, DCP and Co-workers are very curious and would love to forget out which localities they need to "fellowship" with. In my opinion the elders that would fight back against LSM are all gone or dead. The best case scenario of an elder not being absolute is someone who just talks some smack behind an elders back. I am sure among the elders, there are silent dissenters or subtle dissenters to be more specific but when push come to shoves those "subtle dissenters" are going to bow their head down when the co-workers come in town. Elders willing to disband from LC/LSM like Nigel Thomas are dead are gone from the LC for the most part. There might be some potential "rebellious ones" in the future if a humongous "storm" hits the LC but for the meantime the best you get are silent/subtle dissenters that are going to kowtow to the co-workers anyways.

So yes, an overwhelming majority of Elders in modern day lords recovery are absolute for witness lee ministry. If you know (OBW) or if anyone knows of any localities in which there is a significant majority of leadership that is not absolute for witness lee ministry then I am very curious to hear about this. The DCP lurkers are also very curious to hear about this. They would love check out this "open" locality for further inspection.

Any comments, feedback, contesting words, feel free to contribute.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "cult" topic been discussed here numerous times? Has a case not been made yet where forum users collectively know that the points that make it true have already been made, and we can thus use the word without needing an accompanying dissertation each time, or am I imagining things?

The cult topic has been discussed several times. And almost every one of them spent more time arguing about the benefits of doing the analysis. And I will admit that I was among those that pushed for the analysis in one of the earliest attempts. But so far, I have been unable to locate any meaningful working through the factors, although one thread did give a pretty decent list.

The problem that ultimately carries the day is that if this is to be a discussion about the Local Churches designed to persuade current members of the error of their ways, or those who are already on the fence or have left that they did the right thing and that it is more than just about practical problems in an otherwise great system, then you have to actually engage them in the process of discussion. Or at least interest them enough to read more and start to see the light.

In the modern art of argument (not aggressive arguing, but making, defending, and analyzing logical arguments) there is an error that ends the discussion cold. It is not a logical fallacy, but more of a rhetorical device that is almost guaranteed to end a discussion immediately upon its use. It is called "ad Hitlerum." In short, any reference to Hitler, no matter how small, tangental, or remote (and no matter how true), ends all discussion. And while not enumerated, there are a few similar names, words, or terms that have the same effect. One of them is "cult." I would agree that a sound determination as to whether the LC is legitimately a cult is worthwhile. But assuming I am right about its worth, to have that discussion as part of the "Local Church Discussions" forum is to insert it into the body of discussion and tends to have a somewhat sweeping effect on it all.

And one of the problems with these kinds of discussions is that they are prone to seeking "broad brush" solutions that are never as simple as a word or a term. And can't stand in as establishing anything as true. We had one of these kinds of discussions years ago and never heard from some of the participants again. And a few others only come around on rare occasions. And I am not talking about LC members who were turned off by the discussion. There were almost no LC members participating at the time. These were mostly long-time members of the forum.

So, my suggestion is that if you want to have a real discussion about the LC being a "cult," move it off the regular feed (sort of like the old Alt Topics used to be). And set some ground rules. Find a good list of characteristics. Agree that we are going to diligently analyze the applicability of each, not just say it is true. And spend time on each characteristic before moving on. I realize that some of them may seem obvious. But since the group gives push-back on so much of it, include serious consideration of their reasons for saying the characteristic does not apply. Or only applies in a manner similar to any other Christian group. Make it worth something.

Don't just approach this as a lynching. Don't come with the feathers already plucked from the chickens and the tar already being heated. And I mention this because already being so sure that some 70% of elders statistic is already true before anyone actually considers what it is that is being discussed seems like an answer looking for supporters, not a premise looking for investigation and testing. Don't skip the open analysis and back-and forth discussion. Assume that everyone is not going to agree. Be ready to both take time to give your reasons for your positions, and take time to carefully consider every argument against your positions. Remember, we all thought the LC was once the greatest thing since sliced bread. We had to have something or someone convince us otherwise. We had to be willing to consider positions that disagreed with the ones we already held. We weren't just forced to accept what someone was screaming about it. Reading The Mindbenders or The God Men wouldn't have done it for me (back in the 70s). I was closed. And a full treatise on the whole of being a cult was not the way to sway me. But after some chinks were put in the armor relating to one item, then another, then another, I could now read those books and say where I agree with them, and also where I think they went to far relative to actual facts.

[Covert]

Now here is my analysis of cults/nrm/sects using the bible. Please review the scripture I previously posted before reading this post. The post goes in an orderly fashion of describing cults/sects/nrm with the various scripture posted previously. You will notice it goes along very smoothly in regards to a top bottom approach of the various portions of the bible I used to describe/generalize cults.

Here it is

Title of Post- How the word of God warns of heretical/destructive Cults/Sects/NRM

I will attempt the general theme of cults using scripture, as some other poster requested. These cults I am describing are of some sort of Christian offshoot/relations. I think scripture does a great job in giving description of these specific kinds of cults or should I say, “New Religious Movements”.

Most Christian NRM/cults have some sort of disdain/discomfort/disapproval of some collective of a scripture with a certain theme. NRM are usually founded, and I would say further maintained/controlled by repelling portions of scripture that will potentially cause destabilization or disbandment of the NRM. There is certain scripture that breaks the foundation of the new religious movement or results in some sort of transformation or change the leaders of the NRM are not well suited to liking at all. For the Lord's Recovery scripture regarding works are their biggest discomfort and they try everything to sully the word of God when it comes to these parts of scripture. As for why witness lee hated works so much? Why did he make so many excuses and labels to throw off any efforts for works? Read Doug Krieger testimony on the introductions section of the forums and see why Doug left the church in Berkeley, then you will see what witness lee was afraid of. The same reason they don't' like good works, is the same reason they don’t have efforts to preach “their” gospel to the masses of the people and only stick-on college campuses hoping if they stuff enough food in kids mouths and enough acoustic guitars in kids ears then gullible college kids will be “open” to their “ministry”. If you still don't understand the real reason why witness lee hated good works (after reading Doug testimony), and why co-workers constantly say good works aren't “beneficial” to the “building of the body” then I will make a post about it one day. Hint- it was not just witness lee narcissistic/greedy of money and resources. Which was definitely a factor but not his biggest concern.

Most NRM/cults take this approach of plucking a certain theme that aims to appease man at the cost of degrading scripture. It does not agree with the sound word of Jesus Christ but sounds appealing to certain men. The goal is to be approaching the path unbiblical for the sake of gaining members and maintaining members by creating this cesspool of lies and delusion. For example- the local churches usually offset the fear of God and deemphasize repentance, while replacing it with just “enjoy the lord”. When thinking of all the witness lee mantra, strange doctrine, and funny practice/phrases. It produces this environment of peculiar mythics and psychological mantra.

Furthermore, the teachings of this NRM/Cult, produces much controversy and quarrels in regard to orthodox dispute. Dissension is very much present against this group, and slander/evil/suspicions is used as a toll by this group to offset such dissension. There are always storms within this group as the truth of the word is conflicting with the strange doctrine/mythics that is present in this group and there is a clash on who and what to follow- the conceited man (Lee/Blended) who causes turmoil’s, suspicions, and constant friction or those who the word in its purity and act on it (Ingalls, Mallon, So).
These Christian related NRM/Cults usually have a group of individuals who exalt themselves using biblical titles that have no real scriptural basis to apply to them in the context they wish to use it. As 2 Corinthians say, there will be false prophets, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves. In the lord's recovery we have such self-appointed men who use the term “apostle” and make it seem like they are “bond-slaves” or servants of righteousness, but their ends will correspond to their deeds (we all know a fair amount of things the co-workers do). They bring destructive heresies that aim to corrupt, tarnish, and forsake the individual for the sake of the “cult/NRM”. Many evils and injustices are perpetuated without rebuke, repentance, and proper dealing. They have greed and peculiar narcissism that aims to exploit all individuals within these groups for their cause (using false words), which in the lord's recovery is centered around maintaining the ground/true church so they can spread the “higher gospel” that is necessary for Jesus' second coming. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, their destruction is not asleep.

These groups usually cause division among the sound words of Jesus Christ and cause discord among those who have experience of reading the word of God. They many times will come across a scenario in which they say, “the word of God says this, but this man says that”. This strange/peculiar doctrine that does match with the sound word of Jesus Christ causes much division among the group from time to time and with the individuals who have to suffer this rift of truth and lies. These groups usually thrive from catering to the hearts of the naive to maintain their numbers and they fear those who know the truth well and have it woven into them. The lord's recovery primarily recruits college kids for a reason.

It is important to mention, Christian cults/NRMS/sects hate having the light expose their darkness. The truth will eviscerate the delusion that has been cast upon and entangled with the members of this group and result in mass destabilization, turmoil, and destruction. You are probably thinking no group likes dirt being exposed, well this is true. Well for these groups they rest upon a structure supported that are mainly supported by pillars of lies and even the foundation of this structure is a lie. If the light was to expose these lies, evil deeds, then they would have a calamity of destruction that results in their entire world being crumbled to pieces with hardly any truth that they held on to being able to support the oncoming avalanche of lies just crushing and consuming the little truth they had.

In regard to reproof/correction, these groups have disdain for such a thing. They founded on such a cluster of lies that any correction/questioning is beyond from happening in regard to a reformation of the practices/beliefs of these groups. If the peculiar and false doctrine of this group was to be ameliorated/rectified of any sort with the sound words of Jesus Christ, then these groups would lose their identity completely. They would not function the same or even function at all. and can't adapt with the cleansing/sanitation of their false doctrine simply because they live on a foundation and pillars of lies. If the sound words of Jesus Christ were to rectify much false teachings in this group, they wouldn't even be remotely close to resembling the identity they had before, that was built on lies. The truth would set them free at a heavy cost of forsaking their deceitful identity. Eventually calamity will come upon these groups and the fruits of their deeds will result in the awakening of destruction.

Lastly when it comes to “preaching the gospel”, these groups are very much afraid/ashamed of the gospel. Now the funny thing is that I will describe these Christian related cults/NRMS in two groups in relation to preaching the gospel. The illustrations I will use are locust, locust I believe if my memory comes correct are usually two states and that is solitary and gregarious. Gregarious cults like the JW and Mormons are not afraid to reach out to the masses of the people as they have much effort in doing so but they have no intention of simply preaching the sound word of Jesus Christ. In fact, one that is quite familiar with the word of God is an unsuitable recruit. The word of god is in fact their worst enemy, it is their most powerful enemy as it is the absolute truth that will destroy their foundation of lies. Mormons make themselves seem like Jesus’ lovers but only intend to such you into the destructive heresies of Joseph Smith. Jehovah witnesses try to allure you with “what did Jesus really teach” but in reality, have their corrupted bible that aims to put a false narrative of the sounds words of Jesus Christ with an emphasis of “witness”. These cults are gregarious as they swarm the world attempting to have this aggressive/confrontational nature that aims to quickly overrun/pass by dissenters and pick along naive ones to join the swarm. Instead of isolating themselves in a solitary state similar to that of the local churches, they take a more confrontational approach in an attempt to undermine the bible.

Solitary NRM/Cults/sects are quite the opposite in their approach of their gregarious locust cult brothers. The Lord's Recovery is a primary example of what I describe is a solitary locust. They do not swarm the world like the JW and Mormons. They carefully go into select environments where they find naive hearts to eventually succumb to their destructive heresies. They fear the gospel much more than their gregarious counterparts, they hide in the shadows and avoid preaching it to the masses. The idea of large numbers of people enthusiastic for the” sound words of Jesus Christ” and the “pure word” coming into their group like the floodgates opening, is a deathly fear. They use the word of God to lure in individuals, but they must quickly in some time frame drag these naive hearts into the quagmire of their destructive doctrine or else their identity is at risk. Their pillars and foundation of lies would ultimately collapse if those who are steadfast to the sound words of Jesus Christ were to come into their group in the masses. The sound words of Jesus Christ are their worst enemy as it exposes their destructive doctrine. Therefore, they do not have much effort to truly preach the gospel of Christ. Even more so, they are aware of their destructiveness of their heretical doctrine to some degree and this results from them not even preaching their “higher gospel”/destructive doctrine.

The local churches version of “spreading/preaching the heretical higher gospel” is really just going on college campuses, deceiving the heart of the naive, and hoping after multiple years of love bombing, acoustic guitars, food, and other various deceptive recruiting schemes- send them into the quagmire that is known as the full-time training. Where this “higher gospel” or better known as destructive heresy is drowning the heart of the naive and consuming them with lies and calamity. Solitary Locust Christian cults are cowardly, insecure, devious in nature, and are ashamed along with terrified of the sound words of Jesus Christ. Cults/NRMs like the Lord's Recovery are the precipice of dread of disaster and awakening calamity. They are the most volatile in terms of inner turmoil’s and destructive circumstances that constantly result in unrest/strife/collapse.

- They are afraid and ashamed of the gospel and sound words of Jesus Christ. Destruction shall await them.