Angel of Light Ministers in the LC

Indiana · 08-01-2012, 11:33 PM

Angel of Light Ministers

What a stark difference between the apostle Paul and the super-apostles he addressed in 2 Corinthians! (11:5) He was very much disturbed by their falsehood and drew the contrast between him and them. He was a genuine apostle; they were not. Concerning taking care of the ministry, he said, "we have renounced the hidden things of shame and did not walk in craftiness or adulterate the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth, commended themselves to every conscience of men before God." (5:11) The super-apostles could not do this.

Although Paul never campaigned for leadership in the churches, his apostleship was manifest to God, and he and those with him behaved in such a way that others would not be offended or stumbled by them. So Paul could say to the Corinthians, "for I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God, for I betrothed to one husband to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” (11:2) Paul could do this because he was pure (of God); and they were not.

The Falsehood of the Blending Brothers

Those today who feign purity in their roles of global authorities over the federation of churches they manage have problems today matching Paul in character and purpose. In outward appearance they seem to match; but they do not have the same heart. (5:12) When Paul says, “We gave no occasion of stumbling in anything that the ministry may not be faulted, he said this in purity; he was not covering up unrighteous matters to protect the ministry. Paul could say with a pure conscience, “in everything we commend ourselves as ministers of God in much endurance…” (3:4); “make room for us, we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. (7:2) Our mouth is opened to you Corinthians, our heart is enlarged…you also be enlarged (6:11)…be reconciled to God" (5:20). He had the ground to speak like this, with much entreaty to the Corinthians.

The blending brothers’ record of impurities are well-documented by several brothers and sisters. And the blending brothers' appeal for cooperation with them falls on many deaf ears as a result. These men, in essence, are false brothers, daring to mix the impure things with the New Testament ministry and pretend that there will be a pure result, as Paul betrothing saints as a pure virgin to Christ.

The Record

Their falsehood is found in their record of behavior Their actions have manifested their impurity toward God and toward men. They do not follow Paul’s footsteps in caring for the churches, which “cares” pressed upon him daily with a heart for "each one" and to present "every" member full-grown in Christ. The blending brothers' impurity is basely manifested in their endorsement and ongoing practice of the bearing of false witness against their brothers in Christ and also in cutting off, not caring for, a number of churches and saints around the world. Not recognizing their evil practice or caring about their wicked sin shows their lack of spiritual character and heart, and simplicity and purity toward Christ.

Ministers of Christ are they, said Paul. “I more so”. (11:23) Yet Paul would not be recognized by them today. And they would not be recognized by Paul. Paul’s line is pure according to New Testament revelation. Their line is impure, narrow, and divisive as their record sadly shows.

And they are super. Rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ, they would be rebuked by Paul and shamefully discounted by him in their super-Apostle, super-ministry orientation and ministry, which misleads the saints from the “simplicity and purity toward Christ” (11:3) to something different. (11:4)

“For such ones are deceitful workers transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ.” (11: 15) To be genuine apostles they must be pure (of God). And pure they are not, as seen in their super-elevation of themselves as global authorities of the church of God without regard for genuine oneness in the Body.

(They themselves might not think of themselves as apostles, but many would think this way because of their outward appearance and assertion as authorities.)

The Most Evil Book

Where is the outrage over the most evil book published in the Local Churches? The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. This is a book of lies and impurity from start to finish, under the authorship of Witness Lee, with support from several of his co-workers. The sister books of evil from Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux, and Andrew Yu are likewise full of lies and misrepresentation of men and events. DCP (Defense and Confirmation Project) has numerous books produced by men appearing to be ministers of righteousness, but they lie. They do not always confirm and defend the truth. They deny it, as when the truth sheds light on their deceitful work in the name of Christ and of Witness Lee.

Agents of Satan

For those interested in how ministers of God can also become agents of Satan as apparent ministers of righteousness, please read on. It is very important to become aware of Satan’s work, for as Paul says, “Satan himself transfigures himself into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if also his ministers transfigure themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” (11:15)

The Challenge and Boast in Christ

Of course, if anyone wants to challenge what I say, it will be the first time in 11 years of my writing. These blending brothers and DCP do not speak since what they might say would only further expose them and their falsehood, and show with each effort they make that they are not interested in the truth.

As Paul says, “the truthfulness of Christ is in me” and this boasting will not stop as it regards me in the regions of Achaia.” And also, my own boasting is present today because of the “simplicity and purity” I have toward Christ in these matters, even as Paul had in his writing to the Corinthians.

Witness Lee
http://www.twoturmoils.com/Deviating...dsRecovery.pdf

Andrew Yu
www.twoturmoils.com/AndrewYuDeputyAuthority.pdf

Ron Kangas
http://www.UnfaithfulWitness.org/Eig...considered.pdf

DCP
www.twoturmoils.com/SteveLinks.pdf

(In March this year, 2012 I was in Southern California and asked Bill Buntain of DCP to join me at a table of fellowship to discuss how to end much of the internet activity against them. There was no response from these men who still have not confirmed or denied the truth I represent. I also left a message with Ron Kangas to join me to discuss and explain his covert evil speaking against me in Ecuador, but he will not respond or take care of his outstanding sins against me made in public and recorded on tape. Cowards are they? Yes. And, they have proved it by their silent printing press and non-appearance on this public forum. They have no confidence in themselves that they hold the truth in this case, and no courage either to admit this.)

Ohio · 08-02-2012, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

(In March this year, 2012 I was in Southern California and asked Bill Buntain of DCP to join me at a table of fellowship to discuss how to end much of the internet activity against them. There was no response from these men who still have not confirmed or denied the truth I represent. I also left a message with Ron Kangas to join me to discuss and explain his covert evil speaking against me in Ecuador, but he will not respond or take care of his outstanding sins against me made in public and recorded on tape. Cowards are they? Yes. And, they have proved it by their silent printing press and non-appearance on this public forum. They have no confidence in themselves that they hold the truth in this case, and no courage either to admit this.)

Yet they spend more time teaching the so-called "ministry of reconciliation" than any others. They talk the talk of reconciliation, while they walk the walk of backstabbing, lawsuits, and quarantines.

Indiana · 08-02-2012, 07:37 PM

Paul actually had a testimony of his conscience that he could not be blamed in anything, in word or conduct. Former leader, Don Hardy said, on the other hand, he didn't know how some brothers could sleep at night for what they know.

"For our boasting is this, the testimony of our a conscience, that in singleness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and more abundantly toward you." (2 Cor. 1:12)

BROTHERS WERE INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY?

John Ingalls – “It is not our desire, nor has it ever been, to overthrow anyone’s work or ministry, neither have we desired to put anyone’s ministry aside, but rather to bring everything to the light and put everything in the proper context. A report has been circulated that we would not be satisfied until we brought a certain person down; this report was erroneously applied to us. We never had any such intention, nor have we ever conspired against anyone – the Lord knows this and can testify for us. The accusation of conspiracy made against us is an utter falsehood – our testimony as recorded in this account bears this out. Rather we have grieved over those in leadership who have swerved from the path they once proclaimed and espoused. We desperately hoped there would be some change to resolve the serious problems that had emerged, and we fellowshipped earnestly with Brother Lee to this end. We have lamented the damage inflicted and suffered by many saints through practices and attitudes that we too in some measure participated in… For my part, I humbly repent of this”. (Speaking the Truth In Love conclusion, 1990)

Al Knoch – “Anyone who knows John Ingalls knows that he is not ambitious; he is not that way. Who would want that responsibility [of taking over the recovery]. There was no conspiracy” (from an interview with Al, Nov 2000).

John So – In his Manila presentation, John So expressed surprise at the conspiracy charge: I would like to just go through Brother Lee’s outline concerning the rebellion. It says the rebellion began to ferment from Stuttgart in 1986. What I would like to do is just give you the chronological events of what took place. I will only deal briefly with things that I personally know quite well, concerning myself, Stuttgart, and Europe. I don’t know and I am not thoroughly familiar with what went on in Hong Kong. I really do not know and I cannot say anything in details. So, I cannot speak for brother Joseph Fung. And I didn’t know exactly what happened in Anaheim in the very beginning. So I cannot speak for brother John Ingalls. I really cannot. And when things happened in Rosemead, I really had no idea what was going on there until I read the literature that they had put out. I did not even know that we had ever formed together an “international conspiracy ring” until Witness Lee said so. I am quite surprised. None of the places I’ve mentioned involved me. Okay, Witness Lee claims that rebellion and conspiracy started to ferment in Stuttgart in 1986. I’m going to start at this point….(1990, John So’s testimony given in Manila by their invitation)

John Ingalls – John Ingalls speaks of having the same “heart’s burden” as others.

"Brother Lee mentioned then that Bill Mallon, John So, and myself all used the
same term – central control. He deduced that we must have consulted or
“conspired” together. The fact was that we all had the same realization
because of separate similar experiences without any consultation and
certainly without any “conspiring“ with each other. John So began to be
concerned in 1986, Bill Mallon in the spring of 1987, and myself in the fall of
1987. Eventually, as we had done for years, we had telephone contact with
each other, and our heart’s burden came out.

John Ingalls – John shares the following refutation of the conspiracy charge:

At this point we felt that it would be useful for the brothers we had contacted to come together to fellowship and pray in preparation for going to see Brother Lee, so that we would be clear concerning the issues we would present to him. Moreover, we believed it would be best not to create any stir among the saints or other elders by doing this openly; so we sought some place where we could all meet privately. This was by no means a conspiracy, as we are being charged. At no time did we ever meet with the purpose of plotting to overthrow Brother Lee and his ministry. That is utterly ridiculous. We never had such a thought – the Lord can testify for us. A private meeting or a secret meeting does not constitute a conspiracy. A conspiracy takes form from the content of the meeting. Is it a conspiracy to pray and fellowship together in preparation for visiting Brother Lee and opening our hearts in frank fellowship? Of course not. We were very concerned for the saints and sought for an extended period to cover the grave matters from them lest they be distraught and we suffer worse consequences. One of the brothers I sought to contact and confer with was Ray Graver, an elder in the church in Irving, Texas, and the manager of the LSM branch office there. I called him in Texas and proposed that I come to see him in Irving. It was thought, however, for us to meet in Irving would attract too much attention; so we settled on meeting midway in El Paso, Texas. This decision is being censured now as a plan for a secret meeting, as if that in itself is evil and a conspiracy. But I fail to see anything wrong with this. It was with a pure motive and desire and certainly was not a plot to draw him into a conspiracy to overthrow anyone’s ministry. Ray was quite willing to do this until Benson Phillips, another co-worker and elder in Irving, Texas, who was then in Taiwan, advised him against it. Had Benson been in Irving, I would have sought to speak with him also. I enjoyed a very good and close relationship with both Ray and Benson for many years.

John So - John So speaks straightforwardly to Brother Lee:
Originally, I did plan to go to Anaheim to have some personal fellowship with you [Witness Lee] as you requested by phone early December. (I must say at this time I was not too polite anymore. If you would consider that as maybe a rebellion, that’s fine with me. Consider it as a rebellion. Conspiracy, that is also fine with me.) In my last page, I told him, please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry. Neither do I have any desire to convince any brother. By the Lord’s grace, I like to be straightforward and follow my conscience, not to hide anything and not play politics, not to please anyone, or to offend anyone. May the Lord have mercy on all His churches. (I ended the letter that way.)

Bill Mallon - Bill Mallon was very concerned over serious developments in the Southeast churches and of course he opened to other brothers about his concerns, but he spurns the idea that there was ever a conspiracy to overthrow someone. He said this “would be funny if it were not so tragic” to be charged in this way. The brothers simply came together to discuss their serious concerns and desired to bring those concerns into fellowship with other brothers, including Brother Lee. John Ingalls approached Brother Lee sixteen times on behalf of the feeling of many brothers and the burden that many of them had at that time. Ken Unger went to Brother Lee twenty times. After a considerable amount of time had passed with little progress being made, certain brothers began to speak out according to their convictions, based on the Word of God, prior church ministry, and their conscience. This, however, was interpreted by some as speaking differently, and negatively, and being against the new way in the churches.

Indiana · 08-07-2012, 10:05 PM

Angel of light ministers claimed and still claim,after much warning to them, that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So were leaders of a rebellion. Since they still do not listen, and sin willfully, they graduate to the distinction of being called angel of light ministers. A lawsuit was actually filed against two angel of light ministers, Sherman Robertson and Ron Kangas, which was brought to the attention of all elders attending an international meeting Dec 2010. The lawsuit went on for four months, with neither one of these so-called leaders capitulating to the truth and fellowship with me, and others, over my writings that they condemn but no angel of light minister has yet refuted with intelligence or fact.

The Claim that the Dissenting Brothers Were Rebellious (p. 74-75, FPR)

John Ingalls – The following word from John Ingalls is taken from the conclusion of his book.

We are also widely and vociferously accused of being rebellious and of fermenting and fomenting rebellion. This also is an extremely serious charge, and one which I feel obliged to respond to and deny. Against whom, I would ask, are we rebelling. And what was our act of rebellion? For my part I have always sought to have a good conscience before God and man. To remain silent in a situation of departure and degradation, or to withdraw into “judicious obscurity”, as some have done, would have been for me unconscionable. Not to speak out or to refrain from warranted action would have been for me a form of rebellion against the Lord’s inner speaking and urging. My object was to follow the Lord, obey His Word, and practice the truth, fearing only Him. Perhaps I fell short in some particulars. Apart from that, however, “I am conscious of nothing against myself,yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord” (I Cor. 4:4). I therefore consider the charge of rebellion to be totally inappropriate and unfounded. Is it rebellious to voice one’s concerns, care for one’s conscience, obey the Lord’s Word, and follow the inner anointing? This is what I did and sought to do, as this account testifies. Was I ambitious for position or did I seek to raise a following for myself, as some say? The Lord knows that this is far from the truth. I can only consider the charges of rebellion and conspiracy to be a form of character assassination, and a means to cover one’s own track.

John So – John So describes the relationship that he was expected to have with LSM that he could not go along with. The course he then took was perceived as rebellion:

In my last page, I told Brother Lee, “Please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry”.

At that time, I really meant what I said according to my understanding of the function of the ministry office; and I fully agreed with Witness Lee that if the LSM is only operating on the business side to print books and to distribute tapes, then we brothers should accept this, and cooperate with them.
Well, the question is this: I was accused here in Fermentation of pretending to be one with LSM, but that really I was against them [rebelling__ED]. Tonight let me say a word. I don’t want to vindicate, but I just like to share at least the way we look at it. Everything has two sides. I’m sorry to say, it is not that I am pretending. It is because the LSM office really has a double standard. There is a public declaration that the office is only for the business side to print books, to duplicate tapes, and to send them out to serve the churches. But to my realization, there is another aspect expected of us. During the visit of these five brothers to Stuttgart, two of them stayed with me in my home—two of them. And these brothers began to fellowship with me concerning the office, that it is really brother Philip Lee and that brother Philip Lee is the closest and most intimate co-worker of Witness Lee. And that I need to get into the fellowship with him, and that our brother, Witness Lee, needs his son. And after almost every meeting in Stuttgart, they made a long-distance call to the office to report everything that is happening. To the office! The report went to the office.

I was, in short, expected to do the same. I told the brothers in a very good way—we were not fighting—I said, “Brothers, I’m sorry, in short, I just cannot do that. You have the grace to do it, that’s fine, but I just cannot do that.” I told the brothers maybe some other German brothers, like Jorn Urlenbac could do it. I was told, No, no, no, you are the right person to do it. I said, Thank you, but I can’t do it. This is what I realized later was the cause of many problems that we in Stuttgart began to experience with the LSM. Report had gone back to Philip Lee that I refused to do what the brothers were doing. Looking back, this is what caused a serious problem with him.

In my view, however, what they were doing in reporting everything to the office had nothing to do with Witness Lee’s public declaration of what the office is. I didn’t feel there was a need for me to report to the office what we were doing. But these brothers who came to Stuttgart were telling me that Witness Lee’s son is his closest and most intimate co-worker. I have to say I had never heard such a thing before. But these two brothers who stayed with me assured me that this was true though Brother Lee doesn’t say this publicly. Well, I say, if I haven’t heard of this, I just haven’t heard of it. Anyway, a report went back to Anaheim, and somebody wasn’t happy with me. I was happy with everybody, but somebody wasn’t happy with me. I didn’t realize it at first, but as time went by I could see that we had problems with “the office” because we lacked cooperation with the manager of the office.

It is not right, therefore, to say that on one hand I declare that I am for the ministry office, but on the other hand, I don’t cooperate with it. I want to let you know that something more was expected of us at LSM that we could not cooperate with. And, someone was not happy with us about that. Witness Lee should know about our fluctuation. Why? My goodness, if he knows about the consideration of the whole earth, this is a little matter. He should know why there was a fluctuation. The fluctuation was due to the new expectation “the office” had for us, which we could not cooperate with. Of course this made it difficult for us to work together in one accord with LSM.

Bill Mallon – In the Southeast, Bill Mallon endeavored to be one with Brother Lee, the co-workers, and the new way, but ran into serious problems with LSM representatives, who avoided fellowship with him, and other elders, in order to establish LSM influence in the Southeast churches. His reaction to their usurpations and control of the churches was perceived as rebellion by brothers and sisters in the churches who didn’t know his circumstances.….

Indiana · 08-09-2012, 10:20 PM

The Claim that the Brothers Were Against the New Way

On page 51 in Fermentation is a claim indicating that the brothers were not for the new way to build up the churches. In reading the accounts of these consecrated brothers to the Lord’s recovery, it is easy to understand why they became alarmed over serious developments in “the Lord’s new move” and why they began to meet together to discuss those developments and, eventually, to speak out concerning them.

Their main concern was for the real situation and condition of the churches, and they endeavored to minister to the saints accordingly. It was said that they were not for the new way in the churches and that they were ambitious. Yet, their own accounts tell otherwise, that they were indeed for the new way and that they were also for the building up of the church and the churches. The following excerpts show their supportive position for the new way before the disturbing elements from LSM began to arise in the implementation process of the new way that forced them into a different and unpopular stance.

John Ingalls – “That afternoon I went to Brother Lee’s apartment according to our appointment. My desire was to assure him that I was not opposing his burden as set forth in the main points of the “new way” (as it was defined in those days). He had indicated that we were indeed opposing. I told him that I was absolutely not against the preaching of the gospel by door-knocking or by any way; that I was absolutely not against the practice of home meetings; and that I was not against any other matter he emphasized.

Rather, I was for these things. Brother Lee received my fellowship and remarked that he had never had any problem with me; he only felt that I should have stayed in Anaheim more and not traveled so much. Our talk ended peacefully, but I was not encouraged.”

Bill Mallon Letter to Witness Lee, “You mentioned about what Watchman Nee saw in 1937 and 1949, how he saw the new way of practice for the church life, and now is the time for us to fulfill his vision. I truly want to be a part of this also and give my absolute and overwhelming support… While we need to fulfill Watchman Nee’s and your burden, yet at the same time we must also beware of another side element subtlely creeping in.

"Brother Lee I have drunk of your spirit, and I absolutely followed spiritual authority and the intrinsic element in the flow of the river, which brought in the mutual life and love of the local churches. But I fear that another thing is coming in … May it be exposed before there is a total collapse.”

“Is it too much for me to make this honest assumption: Is the one accord which the office promotes the one accord of fellowship, or is it the one accord of lining up with the office?

"Let me strongly declare that the brothers in the South are committed to do anything and everything in their power to cooperate with any burden you, Brother Lee, may have, but why this harangue?”

“I know that this is a big recovery, and I feel very happy that we are trying to return to the scriptural way, and God forbid that I should try to hinder what has been gained already. For me to take the attitude and action that I have taken, however, indicates that I am desperately concerned …lest the subtle enemy sneaks some leavening corruption into the fine flour. We must be warned of certain danger-signs and beware of our vulnerability for being baited into a snare”.

John So - Letter from John So and 63 leading ones to Witness Lee - …“In these days, through the fellowship of the brothers you have sent, the vision of God’s New Testament economy and the new move in His recovery has been renewed and strengthened in us.
Furthermore, through the sweet fellowship with the brothers a deep desire for fellowship with all the brothers in the Lord’s recovery has been awakened in our hearts.”

“We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in the new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to get every member used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers…” [1986]

John Ingalls – “On the weekend of January 27-29, 1989, Brother Lee had a conference in San Diego. He believed he had discerned the reason why some of the older elders and co-workers had some concerns regarding his work and the local churches, and he enunciated his feelings in one of the conference meetings. He spoke as follows:

Witness Lee – “So today, let me tell you, the problem among us is this: there is a kind of consideration among the older co-workers -- not all, but some. There was a kind of consideration -- Where shall they be? Brother Lee was the one who brought the recovery to this country and was the one who through the Lord’s ministry brought many, many of the older co-workers into the recovery. But now this one who brought the recovery to this country is seemingly deviating. Deviating from what? Into what? That’s right, deviating from the old into the new. Now some of the co-workers have to consider where they should be. Shall they remain in the old, or shall they go forth into the new? Go forth? To say this is easy. You have to pay a price, especially the older ones. They have made a success in the recovery according to the old way, but now the old way was annulled. Then what shall we do? If you were them, surely you would consider. I must tell you, this is the root of all the troubles among us today. All the other things are on the surface; the root is here. Now you know.”

John Ingalls - “This analysis absolutely missed the mark. I was surprised when I read the transcript that he could judge so superficially by saying that the root of all the problems is that the older co-workers would not leave the old way and take the new. At the present time he has revised his explanation, yet still misjudges.”

TLFisher · 08-10-2012, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

“We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in the new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to get every member used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers…” [1986]

Taking this quote to the present time in 2012. If the intent in practice is for every member to function, what is the functioning based on?
Could a brother or sister be encouraged to function through the Bible if they did not want to use The Holy Word for Morning Revival?

Indiana · 08-13-2012, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Angel of Light Ministers

What a stark difference between the apostle Paul and the super-apostles he addressed in 2 Corinthians! (11:5) He was very much disturbed by their falsehood and drew the contrast between him and them. He was a genuine apostle; they were not genuine apostles. Concerning taking care of the ministry, he said, "we have renounced the hidden things of shame and did not walk in craftiness or adulterate the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth, commended themselves to every conscience of men before God." (5:11) The super-apostles could not do this.

The angel of light ministry appears most profoundly in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, where God's heart and mind is supposedly being represented by local church authorities in their condemnation of former elders and co-workers. Representing God, however, could not be further from the truth of what they were doing, as the book features the angel of light speaking on every page in his ministers, appearing as ministers of righteousness in the Local Churches.

from Deviating from the Path in the Lord's Recovery

The story of Eli from the book of First Samuel:

Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel...
And he said to them, why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people. No, my sons: for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating.

Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord..."Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me...
And the Lord said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli." (1 Samuel 1:12 - 3:21)

Although clear indications warranted it, Brother Lee complained of being “portrayed as the old Eli” from the Old Testament (p. 70, FPR). Instead of acknowledging his record of leniency with his two sons, he complained about the comparison, as he did about every legitimate complaint made about him.

Brother Lee had two sons who were reputed as sinful men and evildoers. Many saints knew this and had to live with this knowledge in the church. Both sons were placed in prominent positions in two different businesses of their father. One was made president of a secular, saints-supported business called Daystar, a builder of luxury motor homes. The other was made general manager of a church-related business, the Living Stream Ministry. Both brought corruption to the businesses and into the recovery and into saints’ lives. Both committed sins of sexual immorality at the “doors” of the church. Both the sons and the sins were tolerated.

The second son’s acts of immorality have been, in part, already represented in appendix 2,where two eye-witness accounts are given of his sexual improprieties.

The first son, Timothy, has his history also. It is said that he boasted to “have a woman in every major city in the world!” When work on the motor homes was taking place in Taiwan, rooms at a hotel were provided for the American workers. At the end of the hall from where one American worker stayed was a room where Timothy Lee resided. He frequently was visited by a “certain lady” or ladies and was caught and reported to Brother Lee. The brother, not Timothy, was dealt with, and sent back home to the U. S. This matter became known because of an elder’s wife (Don Hardy's wife) who knew Timothy’s wife and often had the “Lee clan” into her home where she learned many things. “Tim’s wife would phone my wife and pour her ‘guts’ out to her in anger. She had found out about Timothy’s escapades.”

This was the person who was put at the head of Daystar, Timothy Lee. Why would brothers with a conscience in the recovery not compare Brother Lee to the “old Eli”?

This same former elder, Don Hardy, reported: “Timothy had come into our bedroom [where his baby’s bassinet was] and he ended up trying to molest my wife, putting his arms around her. She ran him out of the house and went straight to Brother Lee and reported the incident to him. Witness Lee said, ‘Don’t tell your husband. I will handle it’. The way he handled it was to send my wife and I to San Francisco.” (This is also the way he handled the immoral problem with Philip Lee in the LSM office; he sent the woman and her husband and family away, not Philip.)

I am sorry to have to give such a report to the reader, but there are two sides to talk about concerning Brother Lee. The one side we have all enjoyed and appreciated, being the grateful recipients of the riches of Christ that he has dispensed into us through a heavenly ministry for many years; the other side is what we have not all seen, and we certainly cannot enjoy or appreciate, but, we can and should take into account its corrupting effect in the churches.

In Brother Lee’s final words of his dishonoring talk to the elders and co-workers in The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion, he said, “instead of excellent Christian virtues, what we see in the present rebellion are exaggerated criticisms…” (p. 75). Is the portraying of Brother Lee “as the old Eli” an exaggerated criticism? Actually not. It is a valid criticism, one that he should have humbly acknowledged.

Ohio · 08-13-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

I am sorry to have to give such a report to the reader, but there are two sides to talk about concerning Brother Lee. The one side we have all enjoyed and appreciated, being the grateful recipients of the riches of Christ that he has dispensed into us through a heavenly ministry for many years; the other side is what we have not all seen, and we certainly cannot enjoy or appreciate, but, we can and should take into account its corrupting effect in the churches.

Indiana, thank you much for your investigative reporting over the years.

Can you say more about Don Hardy? I know he was an early leader in Los Angeles during the early days of the Recovery in America. He and Samuel Chang, the brother-in-law of Watchman Nee, were very close together. Don personally knew all the leading brothers in the Recovery who originated in Southern CA. He was personally close to Witness Lee and his family while they lived in Los Angeles during the days of Elden Hall.

Don Hardy was an early elder, who was trusted with many responsibilities for the ministry, and later was appointed an officer of the Daystar business. He got to witness the behind the scenes operations of the ministry, formerly known as Stream Publishers. He was also supposed to keep his mouth shut about any "improprieties" as most of the other leaders had learned to do. As they say, "even when WL is wrong, he is right." That's because he was supposedly today's "Moses," who not only gave us the laws, but was himself above the law.

Don saw many precious saints who were "sacrificed" in order to maintain this bigger-than-life, pristine image of Witness Lee and his ministry. All brothers and sisters were expendable, and no one was exempt, as many precious ones would later learn. Only the Lee family was immune to accusations, whether true or false.

Truth · 08-13-2012, 10:09 AM

I have a question about WL's 2 sons. Why were those incidences not reported to the police? Were things different back then? Today, the law takes incidences like this very seriously. If I were to report to the police something of this nature and there were eye-witnesses, for sure the villain would be charged with some kind of crime (or at least misdemeanor).

I understand the sisters (victims) probably did not want to report it because of fear of shame from the publicity. Anyways, I wanted to see if there were other reasons why they didn't report to the police (ie. the police wouldn't have taken it seriously).

Ohio · 08-13-2012, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth

I have a question about WL's 2 sons. Why were those incidences not reported to the police? Were things different back then?

Because Witness Lee promised the saints that he would take care of the matter. Who would you trust more, dear old Brother Lee or some LA cop?

The same thing happens over and over, whether the Recovery or the Catholic Church or the Penn State University. Someone in charge, well-trusted and highly respected, whose credentials in your eyes are without reproach, says to you, "I'll take care of this matter."

Truth · 08-13-2012, 12:12 PM

I understand. However, because this was not brought to the proper authorities, this kind of behavior in the WL's sons perpetuated, and some others were wounded as well. This is what happens when you idolize someone above the law. No one is above the law (even human government laws), except God Himself.

One my favorite the books is Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, where the main character had a thought that he was above the law. He commits a serious crime (2 murders) and his conscience tortures him, until he gives himself in to the police. During this process, he receives the salvation of God.

It is sad that WL was not only saved but considered a spiritual giant, and yet he had no conscience in this matter (regarding his sons).

TLFisher · 08-14-2012, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Because Witness Lee promised the saints that he would take care of the matter. Who would you trust more, dear old Brother Lee or some LA cop?

The same thing happens over and over, whether the Recovery or the Catholic Church or the Penn State University. Someone in charge, well-trusted and highly respected, whose credentials in your eyes are without reproach, says to you, "I'll take care of this matter."

If you pay any attention to sports news, it is well-known how the US public has reacted to the Penn State situation. The reaction involves something that occurred more than 10 years ago. As for the recovery, this is how their Public Relations spokesperson responded to a concerned brother:

"As to the issues you have raised related to the events of the distant past, the brothers here just do not have the heart to reopen old wounds and delve into matters that we believe were resolved many years ago. After considering your manuscript, it just didn’t seem that anything new was there, so it’s hard to see what good could come of it. "

There is a comparison between Joe Paterno and Witness Lee. Both were highly respected men of their respective organizations. Each choose a path of controversy in handling a sensitive situation.
Difference being Penn State had Joe Paterno's statue torn down. In the recovery, history becomes selective to preserve an image.

TLFisher · 08-14-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

[B]
He was also supposed to keep his mouth shut about any "improprieties" as most of the other leaders had learned to do. As they say, "even when WL is wrong, he is right." That's because he was supposedly today's "Moses," who not only gave us the laws, but was himself above the law.

I'll say this much about brother Don. Even into his 80's, an extremely active servant of the Lord all over the earth.
The fact he did not keep his mouth shut over improprieties as current LSM co-workers did, meant he was one who "overturned the apple cart" and could not be counted one to go along with the "group think" apparatus.

Ohio · 08-13-2012, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indiana

Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the Lord..."Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at my offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me...

And the Lord said to Samuel, "Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever. So Samuel lay down until morning. Then he opened the doors of the house of the Lord. But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision to Eli." (1 Samuel 1:12 - 3:21)

In his Life-Study of First Samuel, Witness Lee ministered the following to the whole recovery ...

"The sons of Eli also committed fornication with the serving women. How terrible! History tells us that this kind of thing has happened repeatedly among God's servants...

The sons of Eli would not listen to the exhortation of their father. Eli attempted to say something to his sons, but it seems that he was somewhat loose and that his exhortation was not very strong, faithful, desperate, and absolute."

Our own history shows us how much destruction Witness Lee's own sons caused to the Recovery. Neither was considered by the ones with them to even be believers, yet they were continually placed in positions of tremendous charge. Timothy was president of Daystar and other business ventures, and Phillip was the LSM "Office Manager" who eventually ruled all the workers around the globe. The facts show how much they both loved their positions of power, yet held the teachings of their father and the Bible in disdain.

History also tells us that every "storm" and so-called "rebellion" in the Recovery, which regularly occurred in both Taiwan and the USA every decade or so, were never "rebellions" at all. They all started as failed business ventures, laden with ministry abuses, causing the God-fearing saints to cry out for reform, and or justice, which they never obtained. In every case on record, WL chose his own personal gains and those of his family over righteousness and the well-being of the children of God.

Sounds to me a lot like old Eli the high priest.

08-01-2012, 11:33 PM	#1
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 713	Angel of Light Ministers in the LC Angel of Light Ministers What a stark difference between the apostle Paul and the super-apostles he addressed in 2 Corinthians! (11:5) He was very much disturbed by their falsehood and drew the contrast between him and them. He was a genuine apostle; they were not. Concerning taking care of the ministry, he said, "we have renounced the hidden things of shame and did not walk in craftiness or adulterate the word of God, but by manifestation of the truth, commended themselves to every conscience of men before God." (5:11) The super-apostles could not do this. Although Paul never campaigned for leadership in the churches, his apostleship was manifest to God, and he and those with him behaved in such a way that others would not be offended or stumbled by them. So Paul could say to the Corinthians, "for I am jealous over you with a jealousy of God, for I betrothed to one husband to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” (11:2) Paul could do this because he was pure (of God); and they were not. The Falsehood of the Blending Brothers Those today who feign purity in their roles of global authorities over the federation of churches they manage have problems today matching Paul in character and purpose. In outward appearance they seem to match; but they do not have the same heart. (5:12) When Paul says, “We gave no occasion of stumbling in anything that the ministry may not be faulted, he said this in purity; he was not covering up unrighteous matters to protect the ministry. Paul could say with a pure conscience, “in everything we commend ourselves as ministers of God in much endurance…” (3:4); “make room for us, we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. (7:2) Our mouth is opened to you Corinthians, our heart is enlarged…you also be enlarged (6:11)…be reconciled to God" (5:20). He had the ground to speak like this, with much entreaty to the Corinthians. The blending brothers’ record of impurities are well-documented by several brothers and sisters. And the blending brothers' appeal for cooperation with them falls on many deaf ears as a result. These men, in essence, are false brothers, daring to mix the impure things with the New Testament ministry and pretend that there will be a pure result, as Paul betrothing saints as a pure virgin to Christ. The Record Their falsehood is found in their record of behavior Their actions have manifested their impurity toward God and toward men. They do not follow Paul’s footsteps in caring for the churches, which “cares” pressed upon him daily with a heart for "each one" and to present "every" member full-grown in Christ. The blending brothers' impurity is basely manifested in their endorsement and ongoing practice of the bearing of false witness against their brothers in Christ and also in cutting off, not caring for, a number of churches and saints around the world. Not recognizing their evil practice or caring about their wicked sin shows their lack of spiritual character and heart, and simplicity and purity toward Christ. Ministers of Christ are they, said Paul. “I more so”. (11:23) Yet Paul would not be recognized by them today. And they would not be recognized by Paul. Paul’s line is pure according to New Testament revelation. Their line is impure, narrow, and divisive as their record sadly shows. And they are super. Rich in a ministry, but poor in Christ, they would be rebuked by Paul and shamefully discounted by him in their super-Apostle, super-ministry orientation and ministry, which misleads the saints from the “simplicity and purity toward Christ” (11:3) to something different. (11:4) “For such ones are deceitful workers transfiguring themselves into apostles of Christ.” (11: 15) To be genuine apostles they must be pure (of God). And pure they are not, as seen in their super-elevation of themselves as global authorities of the church of God without regard for genuine oneness in the Body. (They themselves might not think of themselves as apostles, but many would think this way because of their outward appearance and assertion as authorities.) The Most Evil Book Where is the outrage over the most evil book published in the Local Churches? The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. This is a book of lies and impurity from start to finish, under the authorship of Witness Lee, with support from several of his co-workers. The sister books of evil from Ron Kangas and Kerry Robichaux, and Andrew Yu are likewise full of lies and misrepresentation of men and events. DCP (Defense and Confirmation Project) has numerous books produced by men appearing to be ministers of righteousness, but they lie. They do not always confirm and defend the truth. They deny it, as when the truth sheds light on their deceitful work in the name of Christ and of Witness Lee. Agents of Satan For those interested in how ministers of God can also become agents of Satan as apparent ministers of righteousness, please read on. It is very important to become aware of Satan’s work, for as Paul says, “Satan himself transfigures himself into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if also his ministers transfigure themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.” (11:15) The Challenge and Boast in Christ Of course, if anyone wants to challenge what I say, it will be the first time in 11 years of my writing. These blending brothers and DCP do not speak since what they might say would only further expose them and their falsehood, and show with each effort they make that they are not interested in the truth. As Paul says, “the truthfulness of Christ is in me” and this boasting will not stop as it regards me in the regions of Achaia.” And also, my own boasting is present today because of the “simplicity and purity” I have toward Christ in these matters, even as Paul had in his writing to the Corinthians. Witness Lee http://www.twoturmoils.com/Deviating...dsRecovery.pdf Andrew Yu www.twoturmoils.com/AndrewYuDeputyAuthority.pdf Ron Kangas http://www.UnfaithfulWitness.org/Eig...considered.pdf DCP www.twoturmoils.com/SteveLinks.pdf (In March this year, 2012 I was in Southern California and asked Bill Buntain of DCP to join me at a table of fellowship to discuss how to end much of the internet activity against them. There was no response from these men who still have not confirmed or denied the truth I represent. I also left a message with Ron Kangas to join me to discuss and explain his covert evil speaking against me in Ecuador, but he will not respond or take care of his outstanding sins against me made in public and recorded on tape. Cowards are they? Yes. And, they have proved it by their silent printing press and non-appearance on this public forum. They have no confidence in themselves that they hold the truth in this case, and no courage either to admit this.)

08-02-2012, 07:37 PM	#3
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 713	Re: testimony of our conscience Paul actually had a testimony of his conscience that he could not be blamed in anything, in word or conduct. Former leader, Don Hardy said, on the other hand, he didn't know how some brothers could sleep at night for what they know. "For our boasting is this, the testimony of our a conscience, that in singleness and sincerity of God, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world, and more abundantly toward you." (2 Cor. 1:12) BROTHERS WERE INVOLVED IN A CONSPIRACY? John Ingalls – “It is not our desire, nor has it ever been, to overthrow anyone’s work or ministry, neither have we desired to put anyone’s ministry aside, but rather to bring everything to the light and put everything in the proper context. A report has been circulated that we would not be satisfied until we brought a certain person down; this report was erroneously applied to us. We never had any such intention, nor have we ever conspired against anyone – the Lord knows this and can testify for us. The accusation of conspiracy made against us is an utter falsehood – our testimony as recorded in this account bears this out. Rather we have grieved over those in leadership who have swerved from the path they once proclaimed and espoused. We desperately hoped there would be some change to resolve the serious problems that had emerged, and we fellowshipped earnestly with Brother Lee to this end. We have lamented the damage inflicted and suffered by many saints through practices and attitudes that we too in some measure participated in… For my part, I humbly repent of this”. (Speaking the Truth In Love conclusion, 1990) Al Knoch – “Anyone who knows John Ingalls knows that he is not ambitious; he is not that way. Who would want that responsibility [of taking over the recovery]. There was no conspiracy” (from an interview with Al, Nov 2000). John So – In his Manila presentation, John So expressed surprise at the conspiracy charge: I would like to just go through Brother Lee’s outline concerning the rebellion. It says the rebellion began to ferment from Stuttgart in 1986. What I would like to do is just give you the chronological events of what took place. I will only deal briefly with things that I personally know quite well, concerning myself, Stuttgart, and Europe. I don’t know and I am not thoroughly familiar with what went on in Hong Kong. I really do not know and I cannot say anything in details. So, I cannot speak for brother Joseph Fung. And I didn’t know exactly what happened in Anaheim in the very beginning. So I cannot speak for brother John Ingalls. I really cannot. And when things happened in Rosemead, I really had no idea what was going on there until I read the literature that they had put out. I did not even know that we had ever formed together an “international conspiracy ring” until Witness Lee said so. I am quite surprised. None of the places I’ve mentioned involved me. Okay, Witness Lee claims that rebellion and conspiracy started to ferment in Stuttgart in 1986. I’m going to start at this point….(1990, John So’s testimony given in Manila by their invitation) John Ingalls – John Ingalls speaks of having the same “heart’s burden” as others. "Brother Lee mentioned then that Bill Mallon, John So, and myself all used the same term – central control. He deduced that we must have consulted or “conspired” together. The fact was that we all had the same realization because of separate similar experiences without any consultation and certainly without any “conspiring“ with each other. John So began to be concerned in 1986, Bill Mallon in the spring of 1987, and myself in the fall of 1987. Eventually, as we had done for years, we had telephone contact with each other, and our heart’s burden came out. John Ingalls – John shares the following refutation of the conspiracy charge: At this point we felt that it would be useful for the brothers we had contacted to come together to fellowship and pray in preparation for going to see Brother Lee, so that we would be clear concerning the issues we would present to him. Moreover, we believed it would be best not to create any stir among the saints or other elders by doing this openly; so we sought some place where we could all meet privately. This was by no means a conspiracy, as we are being charged. At no time did we ever meet with the purpose of plotting to overthrow Brother Lee and his ministry. That is utterly ridiculous. We never had such a thought – the Lord can testify for us. A private meeting or a secret meeting does not constitute a conspiracy. A conspiracy takes form from the content of the meeting. Is it a conspiracy to pray and fellowship together in preparation for visiting Brother Lee and opening our hearts in frank fellowship? Of course not. We were very concerned for the saints and sought for an extended period to cover the grave matters from them lest they be distraught and we suffer worse consequences. One of the brothers I sought to contact and confer with was Ray Graver, an elder in the church in Irving, Texas, and the manager of the LSM branch office there. I called him in Texas and proposed that I come to see him in Irving. It was thought, however, for us to meet in Irving would attract too much attention; so we settled on meeting midway in El Paso, Texas. This decision is being censured now as a plan for a secret meeting, as if that in itself is evil and a conspiracy. But I fail to see anything wrong with this. It was with a pure motive and desire and certainly was not a plot to draw him into a conspiracy to overthrow anyone’s ministry. Ray was quite willing to do this until Benson Phillips, another co-worker and elder in Irving, Texas, who was then in Taiwan, advised him against it. Had Benson been in Irving, I would have sought to speak with him also. I enjoyed a very good and close relationship with both Ray and Benson for many years. John So - John So speaks straightforwardly to Brother Lee: Originally, I did plan to go to Anaheim to have some personal fellowship with you [Witness Lee] as you requested by phone early December. (I must say at this time I was not too polite anymore. If you would consider that as maybe a rebellion, that’s fine with me. Consider it as a rebellion. Conspiracy, that is also fine with me.) In my last page, I told him, please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry. Neither do I have any desire to convince any brother. By the Lord’s grace, I like to be straightforward and follow my conscience, not to hide anything and not play politics, not to please anyone, or to offend anyone. May the Lord have mercy on all His churches. (I ended the letter that way.) Bill Mallon - Bill Mallon was very concerned over serious developments in the Southeast churches and of course he opened to other brothers about his concerns, but he spurns the idea that there was ever a conspiracy to overthrow someone. He said this “would be funny if it were not so tragic” to be charged in this way. The brothers simply came together to discuss their serious concerns and desired to bring those concerns into fellowship with other brothers, including Brother Lee. John Ingalls approached Brother Lee sixteen times on behalf of the feeling of many brothers and the burden that many of them had at that time. Ken Unger went to Brother Lee twenty times. After a considerable amount of time had passed with little progress being made, certain brothers began to speak out according to their convictions, based on the Word of God, prior church ministry, and their conscience. This, however, was interpreted by some as speaking differently, and negatively, and being against the new way in the churches. Last edited by Indiana; 08-02-2012 at 07:45 PM. Reason: testimony of our conscience

08-07-2012, 10:05 PM	#4
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 713	Re: Dissenting Brothers Were Rebellious? Angel of light ministers claimed and still claim,after much warning to them, that John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So were leaders of a rebellion. Since they still do not listen, and sin willfully, they graduate to the distinction of being called angel of light ministers. A lawsuit was actually filed against two angel of light ministers, Sherman Robertson and Ron Kangas, which was brought to the attention of all elders attending an international meeting Dec 2010. The lawsuit went on for four months, with neither one of these so-called leaders capitulating to the truth and fellowship with me, and others, over my writings that they condemn but no angel of light minister has yet refuted with intelligence or fact. The Claim that the Dissenting Brothers Were Rebellious (p. 74-75, FPR) John Ingalls – The following word from John Ingalls is taken from the conclusion of his book. We are also widely and vociferously accused of being rebellious and of fermenting and fomenting rebellion. This also is an extremely serious charge, and one which I feel obliged to respond to and deny. Against whom, I would ask, are we rebelling. And what was our act of rebellion? For my part I have always sought to have a good conscience before God and man. To remain silent in a situation of departure and degradation, or to withdraw into “judicious obscurity”, as some have done, would have been for me unconscionable. Not to speak out or to refrain from warranted action would have been for me a form of rebellion against the Lord’s inner speaking and urging. My object was to follow the Lord, obey His Word, and practice the truth, fearing only Him. Perhaps I fell short in some particulars. Apart from that, however, “I am conscious of nothing against myself,yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord” (I Cor. 4:4). I therefore consider the charge of rebellion to be totally inappropriate and unfounded. Is it rebellious to voice one’s concerns, care for one’s conscience, obey the Lord’s Word, and follow the inner anointing? This is what I did and sought to do, as this account testifies. Was I ambitious for position or did I seek to raise a following for myself, as some say? The Lord knows that this is far from the truth. I can only consider the charges of rebellion and conspiracy to be a form of character assassination, and a means to cover one’s own track. John So – John So describes the relationship that he was expected to have with LSM that he could not go along with. The course he then took was perceived as rebellion: In my last page, I told Brother Lee, “Please do not think that I’m against you or am opposing you because of my writing you this letter. I do not have the slightest intention to oppose your work or your ministry”. At that time, I really meant what I said according to my understanding of the function of the ministry office; and I fully agreed with Witness Lee that if the LSM is only operating on the business side to print books and to distribute tapes, then we brothers should accept this, and cooperate with them. Well, the question is this: I was accused here in Fermentation of pretending to be one with LSM, but that really I was against them [rebelling__ED]. Tonight let me say a word. I don’t want to vindicate, but I just like to share at least the way we look at it. Everything has two sides. I’m sorry to say, it is not that I am pretending. It is because the LSM office really has a double standard. There is a public declaration that the office is only for the business side to print books, to duplicate tapes, and to send them out to serve the churches. But to my realization, there is another aspect expected of us. During the visit of these five brothers to Stuttgart, two of them stayed with me in my home—two of them. And these brothers began to fellowship with me concerning the office, that it is really brother Philip Lee and that brother Philip Lee is the closest and most intimate co-worker of Witness Lee. And that I need to get into the fellowship with him, and that our brother, Witness Lee, needs his son. And after almost every meeting in Stuttgart, they made a long-distance call to the office to report everything that is happening. To the office! The report went to the office. I was, in short, expected to do the same. I told the brothers in a very good way—we were not fighting—I said, “Brothers, I’m sorry, in short, I just cannot do that. You have the grace to do it, that’s fine, but I just cannot do that.” I told the brothers maybe some other German brothers, like Jorn Urlenbac could do it. I was told, No, no, no, you are the right person to do it. I said, Thank you, but I can’t do it. This is what I realized later was the cause of many problems that we in Stuttgart began to experience with the LSM. Report had gone back to Philip Lee that I refused to do what the brothers were doing. Looking back, this is what caused a serious problem with him. In my view, however, what they were doing in reporting everything to the office had nothing to do with Witness Lee’s public declaration of what the office is. I didn’t feel there was a need for me to report to the office what we were doing. But these brothers who came to Stuttgart were telling me that Witness Lee’s son is his closest and most intimate co-worker. I have to say I had never heard such a thing before. But these two brothers who stayed with me assured me that this was true though Brother Lee doesn’t say this publicly. Well, I say, if I haven’t heard of this, I just haven’t heard of it. Anyway, a report went back to Anaheim, and somebody wasn’t happy with me. I was happy with everybody, but somebody wasn’t happy with me. I didn’t realize it at first, but as time went by I could see that we had problems with “the office” because we lacked cooperation with the manager of the office. It is not right, therefore, to say that on one hand I declare that I am for the ministry office, but on the other hand, I don’t cooperate with it. I want to let you know that something more was expected of us at LSM that we could not cooperate with. And, someone was not happy with us about that. Witness Lee should know about our fluctuation. Why? My goodness, if he knows about the consideration of the whole earth, this is a little matter. He should know why there was a fluctuation. The fluctuation was due to the new expectation “the office” had for us, which we could not cooperate with. Of course this made it difficult for us to work together in one accord with LSM. Bill Mallon – In the Southeast, Bill Mallon endeavored to be one with Brother Lee, the co-workers, and the new way, but ran into serious problems with LSM representatives, who avoided fellowship with him, and other elders, in order to establish LSM influence in the Southeast churches. His reaction to their usurpations and control of the churches was perceived as rebellion by brothers and sisters in the churches who didn’t know his circumstances.….

08-09-2012, 10:20 PM	#5
Indiana Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 713	Re:Angel of Light ministry on the Rebellion The Claim that the Brothers Were Against the New Way On page 51 in Fermentation is a claim indicating that the brothers were not for the new way to build up the churches. In reading the accounts of these consecrated brothers to the Lord’s recovery, it is easy to understand why they became alarmed over serious developments in “the Lord’s new move” and why they began to meet together to discuss those developments and, eventually, to speak out concerning them. Their main concern was for the real situation and condition of the churches, and they endeavored to minister to the saints accordingly. It was said that they were not for the new way in the churches and that they were ambitious. Yet, their own accounts tell otherwise, that they were indeed for the new way and that they were also for the building up of the church and the churches. The following excerpts show their supportive position for the new way before the disturbing elements from LSM began to arise in the implementation process of the new way that forced them into a different and unpopular stance. John Ingalls – “That afternoon I went to Brother Lee’s apartment according to our appointment. My desire was to assure him that I was not opposing his burden as set forth in the main points of the “new way” (as it was defined in those days). He had indicated that we were indeed opposing. I told him that I was absolutely not against the preaching of the gospel by door-knocking or by any way; that I was absolutely not against the practice of home meetings; and that I was not against any other matter he emphasized. Rather, I was for these things. Brother Lee received my fellowship and remarked that he had never had any problem with me; he only felt that I should have stayed in Anaheim more and not traveled so much. Our talk ended peacefully, but I was not encouraged.” Bill Mallon Letter to Witness Lee, “You mentioned about what Watchman Nee saw in 1937 and 1949, how he saw the new way of practice for the church life, and now is the time for us to fulfill his vision. I truly want to be a part of this also and give my absolute and overwhelming support… While we need to fulfill Watchman Nee’s and your burden, yet at the same time we must also beware of another side element subtlely creeping in. "Brother Lee I have drunk of your spirit, and I absolutely followed spiritual authority and the intrinsic element in the flow of the river, which brought in the mutual life and love of the local churches. But I fear that another thing is coming in … May it be exposed before there is a total collapse.” “Is it too much for me to make this honest assumption: Is the one accord which the office promotes the one accord of fellowship, or is it the one accord of lining up with the office? "Let me strongly declare that the brothers in the South are committed to do anything and everything in their power to cooperate with any burden you, Brother Lee, may have, but why this harangue?” “I know that this is a big recovery, and I feel very happy that we are trying to return to the scriptural way, and God forbid that I should try to hinder what has been gained already. For me to take the attitude and action that I have taken, however, indicates that I am desperately concerned …lest the subtle enemy sneaks some leavening corruption into the fine flour. We must be warned of certain danger-signs and beware of our vulnerability for being baited into a snare”. John So - Letter from John So and 63 leading ones to Witness Lee - …“In these days, through the fellowship of the brothers you have sent, the vision of God’s New Testament economy and the new move in His recovery has been renewed and strengthened in us. Furthermore, through the sweet fellowship with the brothers a deep desire for fellowship with all the brothers in the Lord’s recovery has been awakened in our hearts.” “We further agree to practice the church life in our locality absolutely in the new way: to build the church in, through, and based upon home meetings; to get every member used to functioning without any idea to depend on any giant speakers…” [1986] John Ingalls – “On the weekend of January 27-29, 1989, Brother Lee had a conference in San Diego. He believed he had discerned the reason why some of the older elders and co-workers had some concerns regarding his work and the local churches, and he enunciated his feelings in one of the conference meetings. He spoke as follows: Witness Lee – “So today, let me tell you, the problem among us is this: there is a kind of consideration among the older co-workers -- not all, but some. There was a kind of consideration -- Where shall they be? Brother Lee was the one who brought the recovery to this country and was the one who through the Lord’s ministry brought many, many of the older co-workers into the recovery. But now this one who brought the recovery to this country is seemingly deviating. Deviating from what? Into what? That’s right, deviating from the old into the new. Now some of the co-workers have to consider where they should be. Shall they remain in the old, or shall they go forth into the new? Go forth? To say this is easy. You have to pay a price, especially the older ones. They have made a success in the recovery according to the old way, but now the old way was annulled. Then what shall we do? If you were them, surely you would consider. I must tell you, this is the root of all the troubles among us today. All the other things are on the surface; the root is here. Now you know.” John Ingalls - “This analysis absolutely missed the mark. I was surprised when I read the transcript that he could judge so superficially by saying that the root of all the problems is that the older co-workers would not leave the old way and take the new. At the present time he has revised his explanation, yet still misjudges.”

08-13-2012, 10:09 AM	#9
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC I have a question about WL's 2 sons. Why were those incidences not reported to the police? Were things different back then? Today, the law takes incidences like this very seriously. If I were to report to the police something of this nature and there were eye-witnesses, for sure the villain would be charged with some kind of crime (or at least misdemeanor). I understand the sisters (victims) probably did not want to report it because of fear of shame from the publicity. Anyways, I wanted to see if there were other reasons why they didn't report to the police (ie. the police wouldn't have taken it seriously).

08-13-2012, 12:12 PM	#11
Truth Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 104	Re: Angel of Light Ministers in the LC I understand. However, because this was not brought to the proper authorities, this kind of behavior in the WL's sons perpetuated, and some others were wounded as well. This is what happens when you idolize someone above the law. No one is above the law (even human government laws), except God Himself. One my favorite the books is Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, where the main character had a thought that he was above the law. He commits a serious crime (2 murders) and his conscience tortures him, until he gives himself in to the police. During this process, he receives the salvation of God. It is sad that WL was not only saved but considered a spiritual giant, and yet he had no conscience in this matter (regarding his sons).