“Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” (An Open Letter)

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by KSA

I read this letter, and I do not really appreciate it. The author makes some good points, but they are buried under his lengthy diatribe about orthodox Trinitarian theology. It seems that for him the main demarcation line between church and cult is the teaching about Trinity. Therefore, Christian orthodoxy is narrowed to a correct teaching. I cannot agree with this approach. First of all, very few, even among those with theological education, have clear understanding of this teaching (saying nothing about those who do not have such education). Second, I do not think that the main problem with LC is there teaching about Trinity. Once again we are distracted from real stories of real people to abstract theological discussions.
Abused person is abused, even though an abuser is orthodox in his teaching about Trinity.

Sergei's word on abuse in the quote above highlight's a major burden in Jane's 60+ page writing on "Can the Local Church Leadership say, We Were Wrong. Sergei says, "Abused person is abused, even though an abuser is orthodox in his teaching about the Trinity."

Elliott Miller said CRI might have to investigate causes of division in the LC, which would certainly also uncover matters of abuse. They have not yet done so to substantiate their premature exoneration of the LC - or not, based on "further light and more complete information".

In the meantime, "Where is LSM's defense team" to dismantle Jane's writing, which was written in all sincerity to gain a commensurate response from them to her fair claims and valid concerns? Furthermore, "Where is the dismantling of my writings by DCP. If they have not taken apart Jane's writings or mine, this means they cannot do so or don't have enough ground to do so, or they certainly would have by now. They should then be pursued with all alacrity and righteous demand for an intelligent defense of general statements they've made concerning Jane and myself, if they have a defense; or else they should capitulate to the truth in Jane's writings and mine and allow the LC to be found out and razed to the ground in exposure of the falsehoods they represent and the truth they do not.

[John]

Can the Local Church leadership say, “We were wrong?” While doing some research related to a previous post, I re-read a letter from Benson Phillips, dated October 23, 1992. In it, I may have found some evidence that they can—in a back-handed sort of way. When I compared what Benson wrote with what came out of his mouth in 2005, I may have found evidence of a miracle. See what you think.


The letter

Here was what Benson wrote to me in a 1992 letter:

In your letter dated June 4, 1992, you wanted me to respond to a question as to whether I considered your wife and Jim’s wife as rebels. I feel the liberty to tell you directly that I have never condemned them as rebels, nor, as far as I can recall, have I ever had such a thought. I had not even considered this matter before it was bought to my consciousness by your letter. However, there is clearly one rebel in this universe, and even Christians are subject to his rebellious instigations and become involved in actions that are not profitable for the Lord’s interest and frustrate or damage the building of the Lords’ church. Such was the case in 1976 and 1977 when some sisters in a few of the local churches in the United States rose up to speak unhealthy words and engage in certain activities that became a damaging factor to some individuals and the church life in those places, but, to my realization, those that became involved were surely not rebels; at least the ones that I knew in this region were not such. …

If you have read it carefully, which you have to do, since they often use words like lawyers, Benson actually stated that he never condemned the sisters in Texas as rebels. In other words, he still may have considered them as rebels, but he didn’t exactly say so. Then, he stated that there is one rebel and that those sisters who rose up in 1976 and 1977 were subject to his rebellious instigations and blah, blah, blah. Okay, so he says that they were not rebels; instead, they were only subject to Satan’s rebellious instigations. Whew, what a relief. For a minute there, I thought he was going to say something bad about Jane … uh … I mean “some sisters” .


The footnote

Keep in mind that the letter, from which I previously quoted, was written by Benson after he received a letter from Jane about another sister’s situation (who was also labeled as rebellious in 1977). In her letter, she wrote that to call someone a rebel is to not only go against the Lord’s word in Matthew 5:22, but also to go against Witness Lee’s footnote on the verse.

Mr. Lee brought out that to call someone “Moreh,” or “a fool,” is to use a “Hebrew expression of condemnation indicating a rebel,” and that this makes a person liable to the judgment of the Gehenna of fire. Possibly, wanting to move himself out of reach of Lee’s footnote, Benson tried to obfuscate the matter and tap dance around the word, “rebel.” Nevertheless, he still left a certain “unnamed” sister in his category of one who had been involved in rebellion (but somehow not quite a rebel?).


The modus operandi

Later in his letter, Benson wrote the following, testifying for the leading brothers in the region (not just the elders in Houston, of which he wasn’t one) that they followed due process:

Also, you consider that I and the elders acted according to rumors and half-truths when we dealt with the problems that were manifested in 1976 and 1977. I want to testify for the brothers that this was altogether not the case. We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment. The attitude of the leading brothers in this region has always been to deal with negative matters so that those involved may repent and be recovered.

One little problem with Benson’s wide-ranging investigation and judgment: He never presented his “evidence” to the accused. He just pronounced the judgment. In addition, he apparently didn’t give much weight to what the leading elder in Houston had to say; he just had him replaced.

In what I’ve quoted from Benson’s letter, it was as if he could remember nothing of what he did to Jane in 1977. I mean, he just couldn’t remember mistreating Jane at all. He just wrote of nameless sisters motivated by the devil. Who’s to say who they were? All he and the brothers seemingly did was “protect” the Local Churches from those who were being motivated by the devil. All he did was just co-ordinate all the leading brothers in the region to render a judgment about some sisters who were engaging in certain activities that became a damaging factor … blah, blah, blah.


The motive

Now, let’s look at why Benson might have written to me in 1992 as he did. Consider the following background:

About the early 1980s, Witness Lee, Benson, and Ray Graver, along with three other leading brothers in Texas, had swept Ben McPherson’s sexual sin under the rug. Thereupon, Ben was “secretly” transported away from the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex to a small, off-the-beaten track meeting situation. This secret was kept close, and lies were told to support the story of what happened to Ben.

About a decade later, in the early 1990s, Ben’s condition came to the surface again when he was caught in adultery with a metroplex elder’s wife. This time, Jane and I found out about it too, and we intervened to try to save the sister’s marriage. We asked Benson to get with us and her to listen to her problem, since Benson and the Local Church had negatively impacted her marriage, but he stalled and stalled and never did it. Eventually, Ben and the one he had seduced divorced their spouses and married each other.

After this, I wrote Benson to confront him about the rebel issue as it related my wife and to get him to honor his earlier commitment to meet with us (which he never did honor). What I have quoted previously in this post was part of his reply.


The politics

In the 1990s, Jane and I didn’t know about Benson’s mishandling of Ben’s earlier sexual escapades in the 1980s. Benson probably thought that he needed political cover, because he was the one most responsible for having put Ben into leadership in three different localities, and he was also the one in Texas most responsible for hiding Ben’s sexual sin of the 1980s. So, in 1992, Benson realized that if he got into the light with Jane, this sister, a few others, and me that we might find out that Ray and he, as well as other leading brothers in Texas, under the advisement of Witness Lee, had colluded to cover up Ben’s sexual sin rather than deal with it biblically, thus leading to the whole sordid mess.

If the cover-up was discovered, Witness Lee, Benson, and the others could have been seen as indirectly responsible for the break-up of the two marriages; since, if they had dealt with Ben properly in the 1980s, Ben might have gotten help to overcome his temptations, most in Texas would have known about Ben’s problem and tried to help him, and the sister whom he seduced would have been on guard when he contacted her. But, instead, to protect The Vision and God’s man on the earth, Benson went a different route. “What to do?” he might have thought. “I’ll just do a little dance and feign innocence; and, if necessary, we can always blame Jane. Hey, it worked before when it came to the great sisters’ rebellion.” Actually, we did hear later that Ray told another person that it was Jane who was responsible for the break-up of two marriages!


The message

Now, let’s compare the statements in the above letter with what Mr. Phillips said in 2005 per portions of the 2005 Anaheim Winter Training transcription that we were given:

In order to maintain good order in the church, a factious, divisive person should be refused, rejected after a first and second admonition. … In 1987 [sic], we had some sisters out on the West coast—they started building up a kind of group around themselves. They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything. Then it spread to Texas. I don’t know where else it spread to, but anyhow, some sisters in Texas got into the same flow. And, because it had happened here in Anaheim and there in Texas, we brothers had to do something. … Brother Lee … said, “You three holy sisters, would you stand up? (I think he asked them to stand up.) Well, I learned a lesson there—he did not mess around with factious people. … Would you have the boldness to do that? Well, maybe one day you will have to do it.

Then, in Texas, let me tell you this, they had their so-called, you know, party. … Well, this one sister that we had to deal with, she was the leader. That was over thirty years ago by now. You know what she just came out with? A book against the recovery! Was she the right kind of person? Did we do the right thing? Absolutely, we did the right thing! … Brothers, these kind of people, the factious people, those who form parties within the church, they have to be dealt with. Why? Because they are destroyers of God’s building.

The lesson

Benson began with a very serious topic: rejecting a divisive person. Of course, in the Local Church environment, where everyone is judged according to oneness, being divisive is something akin to being a murderer. He mistakenly identified the year as 1987 instead of 1977. Then, he let us know that it’s about some sisters, and he tells us their heinous crime:

They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything.

Uh-oh, sisters were getting into the Word; and, maybe worse, they were talking about doctrine! “Then it spread to Texas.” Well, that did it; those brothers just had to do something to save those poor, weak, misguided sisters from their Bibles and the big, bad doctrines. Then, he inserted what we now know was a lie, stating that Witness Lee said in a public meeting to the Anaheim sisters, “You three holy sisters ….”

Next, we’re told that Benson learned a lesson from Mr. Lee. “What did he learn?” you might ask. He apparently learned how to smash sisters without hesitation. Then, he suggested that the rest of the brothers should learn from him, too, because, I suppose, they might be called upon to intimidate sisters one day.


The miracle

Benson continued with his message: “Then, in Texas, let me tell you this, they had their so-called, you know, party.” So, you’re telling us, Benson, that the sisters themselves called what they were involved in a party? I doubt that. Anyway, here’s how it works as far as Benson is concerned: Sisters are not allowed to be in a party; only the elders get to be in a party. Then, with the following statements, he inadvertently admitted that he was wrong in his 1992 letter:

Well, this one sister that we had to deal with, she was the leader. That was over thirty years ago by now. You know what she just came out with? A book against the recovery! Was she the right kind of person? Did we do the right thing? Absolutely, we did the right thing!

It’s a miracle! Benson admitted he was wrong; or, … wait a second … maybe he experienced a healing and his memory was restored! He remembered that Jane was not only just one of the nameless sisters, she was the one who was leading the rebellion, or party, or whatever he wanted to call it that day. The point is: His memory was now crystal clear, 28 years after the 1977 meeting!


The conclusion

What can we possibly conclude about the major discrepancies between the 1992 Benson and the 2005 Benson? In 1992, Benson seemed to have absolutely no idea of why I would bring up to him what he did to my wife in 1977; but, in 2005, 13 years later, Benson’s memory miraculously returned when it became expedient to excoriate Jane again because her book threatened The Vision. If his new mental clarity wasn’t the result of a “miracle” for the 2005 meeting, then I would have to conclude that Benson was lying in 1992. Come to think of it, that is my conclusion.

Since those who form parties within the church have to be dealt with, as Benson himself says, then I would say that the elders are the ones who most need to be dealt with, since they are the ones most responsible for the factions that exist in the Local Churches.

Finally, after Benson did some big talking about how he exercised his “authority” to put down some sisters, he went on to tell us why he just had to deal with those Bible-reading, doctrine talking sisters: “Because they are destroyers of God’s building.” Wow, and I thought that being the leader of a sisters’ rebellion in Texas was bad.


The stand

The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception, where up is down, and down is up. In short, the leaders in both entities cannot be trusted.

This is why it is so important that we stick with our Christian virtues and, even, enhance them, as Peter says, lest we fall into the same vices. To faith, we are to add virtue, or excellence, not lying and playing politics, especially with others’ lives and their freedom to follow the Lord. Jesus is our Lord and Master; and, it is before Him that we stand or fall.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

Finally, after Benson did some big talking about how he exercised his “authority” to put down some sisters, he went on to tell us why he just had to deal with those Bible-reading, doctrine talking sisters: “Because they are destroyers of God’s building.” Wow, and I thought that being the leader of a sisters’ rebellion in Texas was bad.

Destroyers of God's building? Since I first heard that quote, my spirit was bothered. How can God's building be destroyed? Simply, it cannot.

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church ; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."
Matthew 16:18

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

Can the Local Church leadership say, “We were wrong?”

Here was what Benson wrote to me in a 1992 letter:

In your letter dated June 4, 1992, you wanted me to respond to a question as to whether I considered your wife and Jim’s wife as rebels. I feel the liberty to tell you directly that I have never condemned them as rebels, nor, as far as I can recall, have I ever had such a thought. I had not even considered this matter before it was bought to my consciousness by your letter. However, there is clearly one rebel in this universe, and even Christians are subject to his rebellious instigations and become involved in actions that are not profitable for the Lord’s interest and frustrate or damage the building of the Lords’ church. Such was the case in 1976 and 1977 when some sisters in a few of the local churches in the United States rose up to speak unhealthy words and engage in certain activities that became a damaging factor to some individuals and the church life in those places, but, to my realization, those that became involved were surely not rebels; at least the ones that I knew in this region were not such. …

Later in his letter, Benson wrote the following, testifying for the leading brothers in the region (not just the elders in Houston, of which he wasn’t one) that they followed due process:

Also, you consider that I and the elders acted according to rumors and half-truths when we dealt with the problems that were manifested in 1976 and 1977. I want to testify for the brothers that this was altogether not the case. We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment. The attitude of the leading brothers in this region has always been to deal with negative matters so that those involved may repent and be recovered.

The message

Now, let’s compare the statements in the above letter with what Mr. Phillips said in 2005 per portions of the 2005 Anaheim Winter Training transcription that we were given:
[INDENT]In order to maintain good order in the church, a factious, divisive person should be refused, rejected after a first and second admonition. … In 1987 [sic], we had some sisters out on the West coast—they started building up a kind of group around themselves. They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything. Then it spread to Texas. I don’t know where else it spread to, but anyhow, some sisters in Texas got into the same flow.


The stand

The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception, where up is down, and down is up. In short, the leaders in both entities cannot be trusted.

This is why it is so important that we stick with our Christian virtues and, even, enhance them, as Peter says, lest we fall into the same vices. To faith, we are to add virtue, or excellence, not lying and playing politics, especially with others’ lives and their freedom to follow the Lord. Jesus is our Lord and Master; and, it is before Him that we stand or fall.

John, in Benson's 1992 letter he stated per your post,
"However, there is clearly one rebel in this universe, and even Christians are subject to his rebellious instigations"

I agree with Benson's assessment. Even asmuch the one rebel, the devil is unrelenting in deceiving God's children. Are we as members of the Body conscious of the deception?

I'll be going back to that point, but first several items of your post I'd like to comment on.

"We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment."

At what point was Jane's testimony and admission listened to by the brothers? In reading The Thread of Gold, the event comes across as blindsiding accusations levied against her. Is that your recollection?

"They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything. Then it spread to Texas. I don’t know where else it spread to, but anyhow, some sisters in Texas got into the same flow."

Same flow? Considering jane had not met these sisters until 2006, yes I do accept they were in the same flow of the Holy Spirit. If we as members of the Body are honest, and especially those members meeting in the local churches, we will concede at times the local churches have been exceedingly spiritual. To the extent of neglecting our humanity. Which is why our souls need shepherding. Not knowing these sisters in California, or Jane, or the sisters she fellowshipped with, it's my feeling they were shepherding the soul.


John, my final comment from your post is on "The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception, where up is down, and down is up. In short, the leaders in both entities cannot be trusted."

I cannot say for certain either way. I do feel there are those in entrusted leadership positions like Ray and Benson who have been deceived by the enemy. I also feel there are those like John Ingalls, Al Knoch, etc who had no idea what was transpiring in the office. I feel there are local church elders who if they had known be in "a state of shock and utter disgust" over what has happened in our local church history as respected brothers were looking the other way.

[UntoHim]

***rayliotta

05-18-2011 12:54 AM

Re: perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah (Post 11903)

It is impossible to respond to this without being forced to do all kinds of research. Instead of taking a tiny snippet of what is said why can't you quote the entire sentence so I know what was being repudiated. Or at least give me the Post #s. I have responded in great detail already to this in my response to John. In that response I made it very clear that when I was talking about control in Houston I was referring to the elders controlling the campus work on Rice. In that Post I agreed that the elders and LSM hacks did in fact control the work on houston, that this control had no fruit, and that the elders exercised control over the church as a whole. I also pointed out that there is nothing in the word "control" that is amiss. Therefore in later posts it was agreed to use the term "abuse" as a form of misused control.

Also, please note that most of my posts on this thread were prompted by direct questions to me asking me what my experience was since I also was in Houston at the same time. Obviously I would answer a question like that with my experience. I am drawn into this thread by some asking for my experience in Houston in 1978, and then you complain that I am sharing my experience in Houston?

There, in #76, you wrote, "2. Again, I don't think in the 70s it was that clear there was a central leadership. I cannot think of any other church that had any influence on how Houston was operated, and even if LSM did exercise influence at that point it was embraced by the elders and invisible to me."

Does that point sound like it was written by someone who believes the campus work at the University of Houston was controlled by LSM hacks? Can you understand why some of us are left scratching our heads?

(The other point I referred to was #73, your response to AZ's point #2.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


***Suannehill

05-17-2011 12:50 PM

Re: Phillips vs. Phillips

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah (Post 11904)

... The arrogance, even 20 years later, is incredible. If an elder feels you are guilty after interviewing a number of saints then that is it, no one should question it. The reality is there was no righteousness, and as a result 30 years later we are still discussing it. I thank the Lord that He is as tenacious as a a pit bull.

Boy, does this bring back some bad memories...one elder on a fairly regular basis called me out on any number of infractions...after going to the Lord I was able to be at peace...but it never really stopped...
Looking at it now, it seems that perhaps it was gossip by others that triggered his tirades.
Regardless of the source...it was usually false, but it didn't seem to stop the nonsense, nor was there an appology.
This all fits the pattern.
I'm so grateful to Jesus for my peace of mind!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


***Terry

05-17-2011 12:41 PM

Re: The Thread of Gold - Jane Carole Anderson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane (Post 11834)

Thank you for your sharing about Rice. What you described happening at Rice is very much like what happened at the U of H with us before Captain Don Looper came on the scene to begin commanding the troops.

John and I had, of our own initiative, moved by the campus in late 1973 to provide a living place for two campus sisters. In early 1975, after we had been living there for about a year, without any kind of plan or program to have a campus work, the elders told John that they wanted us to move back to Hall One because there was nothing happening on campus (to their way of thinking). I had a strong burden from the Lord to be right where we were and didn’t want to leave. I was having a wonderful experience with Jesus and loved being around the campus sisters and their friends. I had free time to read the Bible and other Christian books. I also loved being far enough away from the main hall (without a car during the day) so that I no longer received the constant barrage of daily calls to come and serve in some capacity.

John told them we did not want to leave the campus and they decided to give us three more months. They said if nothing had happened by then, we had to move back to the Hall. When the three months were almost over, all of a sudden the Spirit began to move on campus. The sisters came home every day with amazing stories about what the Lord was doing and fruit started coming in off of the campus. This got the attention of the leadership. Instead of moving us away, they did an about face and sent Don Looper to take over what they then christened as the “campus work” (comment, Thread, 152). Don arrived and began to organize the troops. Having witnessed the Spirit’s working and blessing, I was reluctant (mainly in heart) to embrace Don’s organizational techniques and schedules; however, I gradually succumbed to the pressure and fell in with his program. He orchestrated our moving to another, larger living place, on a busy street adjacent to the campus and had more sisters move in with us. I don’t think Don was ever satisfied with my level of cooperation because he shortly began to background us and to use the home of another brother and sister who also lived near the campus. There Don held meetings and ran his “campus work headquarters” (my choice of words, not his). That sister told me years later of her frustration with becoming Don’s “slave” as she put it; but she went along like a good soldier.

After a year of managing a very large corporate living situation and trying to keep up with Don’s agenda and schedules, etc., I was drained. My joy was gone. Our marriage was suffering. John was battling with being jealous of Don whose interests seemed be getting more of my time and energy than his did. (Years later someone told me that Don’s wife had also had struggled with jealously related to me because Don spent so much time involved in the campus work. This stunned me when I heard it. What a mess.) We decided to move away from the campus by the fall of 1976 and left it to Don and his lieutenants.

So, the U of H that you saw and described, ZNP, was the one that had been commandeered by the LC program; it was the one we had left. I could easily relate to your story of Kerry R and his boring Bible study, having sat through such things at the U of H under its new command.

By the way, the sister who became Kerry R’s wife was the first sister to come into the church through our campus home. She lived with us there and chose to move with us when we left the campus.

As you know from your experience at Rice, there is nothing like seeing God at work. Nothing. I can fully relate to the joy that you and those with you experienced seeing Jesus working spontaneously at Rice. The one who cannot stand to see God working and uses everything at his disposal to interfere is the old serpent. Unfortunately, many times he uses other believers and their good intentions and zeal to frustrate God’s own work.

Thankful Jane

Jane, from afar this is my perspective from your posts and from having read The Thread of Gold:

The hospitable nature of your household made for an easy transition for students to enter in. It was truly organic what the Lord was doing. Outwardly, this was the peak of your positive experiences in the local churches. That was until the brothers decided they needed put their own stamp on UH campus.
Following the event of memorial day weekend of 1977, essentially you were told "I have no need of you". This is contrary to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians,
"And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

So from 1977 until John and you parted from the local churches in 1990(?), it may have seemed negative outwardly. Of course, when we're pressed and tested is when the Lord is able to open our eyes, open our hearts, and burn what needs to burned.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


***ZNPaaneah

05-17-2011 07:37 AM

Re: Phillips vs. Phillips

Quote:
Originally Posted by John (Post 11891)

Can the Local Church leadership say, “We were wrong?” While doing some research related to a previous post, I re-read a letter from Benson Phillips, dated October 23, 1992. In it, I may have found some evidence that they can—in a back-handed sort of way. When I compared what Benson wrote with what came out of his mouth in 2005, I may have found evidence of a miracle. See what you think....

The thing that is clear from this post is that publishing the book prompted Benson to respond. In earlier posts we were discussing how to respond and this was my point, sharing your testimony is the way to overcome the lies. This is what Jane did, this is what JI did, etc. This is what everyone should do. Even if it takes 10-20 years it clearly will have an impact.

The other thing that really bothers me is the way Benson feels that interviewing saints = a fair trial. That would be like a prosecuting attorney arguing that we interviewed a lot of people before deciding you were guilty, there is no trial. Read the testimony and where did Jane get a chance to make a defense or to hear her accusers? I thought righteousness begins with the house of God? The arrogance, even 20 years later, is incredible. If an elder feels you are guilty after interviewing a number of saints then that is it, no one should question it. The reality is there was no righteousness, and as a result 30 years later we are still discussing it. I thank the Lord that He is as tenacious as a a pit bull.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


***ZNPaaneah

05-17-2011 07:34 AM

Re: perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by rayliotta (Post 11895)

[I wrote this post a few days back. I realize this thread has "moved on" since then, and I don't want to take it off-topic. However, I would still like to post it, I feel it still has some relevance. So, I just put this out there...]

ZNP, it seems to me that you frequently make some very broad assertions, and then think that by peppering in the phrase "in my experience", you will be understood. Yet if you are only speaking from your own personal experience, how do you make such broad statements?

By way of example, you said in response to a particular point in AZ's 1989 letter, "I completely repudiate this." You then went on to describe your own experience, in the late 70's. Yet AZ, to my reading, was clearly speaking in the present tense, in the late 80's, about the present situation, at that time, post-"New Way".

So what is it you were repudiating?

Again, as an example, you disagreed with John about outside influence in Houston in the late 70's. Then when John wrote about the control of the campus work at UH, you said you were only speaking about Rice. No, actually, you weren't, look back at #27, your second point! ----> You reject the idea that there was outside influence in Houston, then acknowledge that, yes, of course, the UH campus work was run by "LSM hacks", but it was different at Rice.

Can you see why this is frustrating to some of us? You apply your experience broadly, apparently refuting people's points, then retreat back to your own experience (just Rice, not Houston at large), yet your broader assertion (about Houston) seems never to get addressed. (How is it you "cannot think of any other church that had any influence on how Houston was operated", and yet you say UH was run by LSM hacks? But more to the point, how is it that you can't see the contradiction?)

ZNP, my point in saying all this is just to try to get you to see how it can be difficult discussing with you sometimes. I wasn't in Houston, actually I was barely a twinkling in my daddy's underpants at the time, but obviously these matters are relevant to all of us to some degree, as they help us understand the way "the Recovery" operates, and the seeds that grew into what it is today.

It is impossible to respond to this without being forced to do all kinds of research. Instead of taking a tiny snippet of what is said why can't you quote the entire sentence so I know what was being repudiated. Or at least give me the Post #s. I have responded in great detail already to this in my response to John. In that response I made it very clear that when I was talking about control in Houston I was referring to the elders controlling the campus work on Rice. In that Post I agreed that the elders and LSM hacks did in fact control the work on houston, that this control had no fruit, and that the elders exercised control over the church as a whole. I also pointed out that there is nothing in the word "control" that is amiss. Therefore in later posts it was agreed to use the term "abuse" as a form of misused control.

Also, please note that most of my posts on this thread were prompted by direct questions to me asking me what my experience was since I also was in Houston at the same time. Obviously I would answer a question like that with my experience. I am drawn into this thread by some asking for my experience in Houston in 1978, and then you complain that I am sharing my experience in Houston?

[Ohio]

UntoHim, did you delete those posts?

[UntoHim]

No, was just doing some housekeeping and accidentally ripped up a couple of the floorboards by accident - was hoping nobody would notice

[ZNPaaneah]

Quoted from rayliotta: There, in #76, you wrote, "2. Again, I don't think in the 70s it was that clear there was a central leadership. I cannot think of any other church that had any influence on how Houston was operated, and even if LSM did exercise influence at that point it was embraced by the elders and invisible to me."

Does that point sound like it was written by someone who believes the campus work at the University of Houston was controlled by LSM hacks? Can you understand why some of us are left scratching our heads?

OK, got it, sorry. When I say "LSM Hacks" I am referring to a brother named Ken who was in charge of the UH campus work, also KR, EM, and even RG. These were all local Houston saints who have gone on to become LSM hacks, sorry for the confusion.

[Also I don't understand the numbers 76 and 73, both posts 73 and 76 were not made by me.]

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No, was just doing some housekeeping and accidentally ripped up a couple of the floorboards by accident - was hoping nobody would notice

You are so busted!

[John]

Originally Posted by Terry

"We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment."

At what point was Jane's testimony and admission listened to by the brothers? In reading The Thread of Gold, the event comes across as blindsiding accusations levied against her. Is that your recollection?

Terry, as I wrote in post #48 to Ohio, “I recommend that you re-revisit The Thread of Gold for the answer to your question about what led up to the 1977 ‘fellowship’ room experience by reading pages 151–189.” There is a PDF link to the book on the home page of www.TheThreadOfGold.com. The whole experience was far too complex to encapsulate in a sentence or two. You may re-read about the events that preceded it and decide for yourself.

Originally Posted by Terry

John, my final comment from your post is on "The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception, where up is down, and down is up. In short, the leaders in both entities cannot be trusted."

I cannot say for certain either way. I do feel there are those in entrusted leadership positions like Ray and Benson who have been deceived by the enemy. I also feel there are those like John Ingalls, Al Knoch, etc who had no idea what was transpiring in the office. I feel there are local church elders who if they had known be in "a state of shock and utter disgust" over what has happened in our local church history as respected brothers were looking the other way.

First of all, thank you for your comment. Let me provide some explanation and, then, amend the portion for you.

You wrote that some in leadership have been “deceived by the enemy.” I would say that probably all of those in leadership have been. That is why I pray for them and still hope that they will turn from their ways.

Then, you mentioned John and Al as being examples of those who had no idea of what was going on in the Living Stream Ministry office. Terry, what I wrote is about those who are in the entities, that is, those who are in them now. If you think that there are some in them now who have no idea what is going on, I can agree with you. That is the nature of the beast, as I stated in a previous post. The people in the system, including those in leadership, have differing degrees of knowledge about what is going on.

As to John and Al, they got out a long time ago, after the 1987 exposure of Philip Lee, so my statement in my previous post does not apply to them. However, I would not go quite as far as you did to state that they had no idea of what was going on. In John Ingall’s own book on the subject, he recounts how they knew of a similar sexual sin committed by Philip Lee ten years before, not to mention that the Local Church there was having problems with how Philip was running the Ministry Office. This does not mean that I am indicting John or Al with some sin, however. I still respect them and would trust them, and others like them.

For those leaders who are out, if you want to know, I do have varying levels of trust. There are some who are out who have basically the same Local Church elder attitudes, seem to think that they know it all, and want to teach the rest of us how we should be (still have on an elder hat). I usually just try to stear clear of them. There are others who are very humble and want to fit in as just “regular” brothers. (In addition, they will even fellowship with sisters on an equal footing.) With them, I can have mutual fellowship and, hopefully, mutual benefit.

Also, you may have misunderstood the following portion: “… it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception ….” The “They” refers not to the people but to the two entities. So, the sentence actually says that it is the two entities that are full of deception, not the leaders per se. Then, I concluded that, because the entities are full of deception, the leaders cannot be trusted.

I hope that my explanation has made my meaning more clear to you. Again, thank you for your comment. While considering your response, I decided that it might be better if I personalized the paragraph under review, so I have rewritten the final section as follows:

The stand

The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. While seeking to understand, I find myself in a land where up is down, and down is up. Because of what I’ve found, I can no longer trust the leaders in either entity.

It is very important that we stick with our Christian virtues and, even, enhance them, as Peter says, lest we fall into the same vices. To faith, we are to add virtue, or excellence, not lying and playing politics, especially with others’ lives and their freedom to follow the Lord. Jesus is our Lord and Master; and, it is before Him that we stand or fall.

[John]

I mentioned (in my post #48) that I might post excerpts from a letter from a sister who was in The Church in Houston for a time just after its incorporation.

First, here is a little background behind her letter to Jane: This sister received a copy of a letter that Jane and I mailed to those who had started with us as The Church in Houston. Our letter described the abuse that leaders had exercised over an elder’s wife in 1977. We mailed out our letter because Benson Phillips, the main leader, would not attend a meeting with us and the elder’s wife to listen to her experiences in the Local Churches and possibly save her marriage.

The sister who received our letter identified with the elder’s wife, because she had experienced the same thing from the leaders in Texas. Here are portions from her letter to Jane:

Dear Jane,

I will be praying for [the elder’s wife] and [the elder]. My heart goes out to her. Reading her experience with the elders was like reliving my own. Although I had no husband, the experience was the same.

You’ve seen the situational comedies or cartoons in which some poor person, unaware that someone has stuck a sign on his back, goes about his daily life wondering why everyone is acting so strangely toward him. That’s what it’s like; we go on with our daily lives in the church, unaware there’s a sign on our backs (“rebellious,” “negative”), wondering why everyone is behaving toward us in unusual ways—until, of course, the elders tell us.

I sense from your letter that you are unaware how many hundreds of times this has happened or how many saints have been wounded, marriages destroyed, children hurt, homes that were happy made sad, and hearts broken. …

Skipping to the next paragraph, we can read her own testimony of despair in the Local Church after being branded:

The fruit of my having been branded “rebel” and “negative” was, ultimately, such deep despair and anguish I found living too hard a thing to do and tried to end my own life. God, who had carried me all the days of my life, carried me through that dark time. I was in deep coma for four days, but while the doctors were telling my family I could not survive, He was holding me close. He had other plans for me. …

Later, she let Jane know that she, too, had talked about teachings and gotten in trouble for it. The elders obviously had a problem with a sister who would dare to express any concern about a Local Church teaching.

If I am uncomfortable with a teaching, you do not know what is the root of my expression of concern about it. Perhaps it is love and not rebelliousness that is behind my discussing it. Only the head of the Body knows. …

Clearly the elders involved in the situation there … branded [the elder’s wife] a rebel, then compounded their deed by saying that individual members cannot understand the word without Lee’s interpretation. Having experienced the deadly results of such pronouncement by elders, I believe our loving Lord knew the use of such labels is tantamount to slaying one’s brother. It would have been much more merciful for one of the elders to have loaded his pistol and shot me than to do what they did when they called me “Moreh!”

The burden became too great. Living was too hard. … Lone-ness is sometimes fatal in depressed persons. …

She later wrote about how many of the people who left the Local Churches felt about the leaders there and their actions:

I can tell you, some of what [the elder’s wife] feels is shock. That is a common thread running through so many stories of saints who touched the local churches, gave their lives to them (some for years) and left because they could no longer stay. They go out with shock and pain, and try to find answers to two questions: (1) “What happened????!” and (2) “How could anything that seemed so right go so wrong?”

The answer to both questions is, of course, fallible men forgetting their place, taking into their fallible hands carelessly the very entity for which all things were created. They handle the Body of Christ carelessly. Protecting the Body Corporate, they will smash however many members they, in their human judgment, choose to smash. As if, Jane, He had not clearly told them their functions. As if, please, they can smash one little finger and not damage, hurt, cause pain to the whole Body, His Body.

In my experience it was clear that there are leaders whom the Lord set up and some who call themselves leaders which the Lord did not set up. To those whom He set up, He gave authority. Those whom He did not set up have and do exercise raw power. In my experience there were a few of the first kind and multitudes of the latter.

Next, she wrote that love is the important item but that “the vision” takes precedence, causing the leaders to mistreat the members:

I have always known that the highest expression of His life in us is love. … Today we stand too often terribly naked of the most important part of our “bridal attire.”

There are, and always have been, brothers who confuse the issue and turn things around. They “caught the vision of the church” and for reasons I do not understand, protect the vision at the expense of the reality—as if they could “fulfill” the vision (“… I will build my church …”). If the gates of hell have at times prevailed it was not against what Christ has built but against what man builds. The concept is “protected” at the expense of the Lord’s own members. …

In the last part of her letter, she wrote of her positive experiences with very caring elders in a traditional church. She ends up writing about her family. When writing about one of her children, she stated:

Our relationship is and always has been bumpy since the “local church.” She feels I should have taken them out (or, having left, should never have gone back) and holds me accountable for her pain.

As most are aware, a few who leave the Local Church return to it. Here is an example of a sister who, after leaving Houston, later gave the Local Church another try in another locality before leaving for the final time. Her case is one of many that show how abusive leaders can have long-lasting, detrimental effects on a family.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by John

Clearly the elders involved in the situation there … branded [the elder’s wife] a rebel, then compounded their deed by saying that individual members cannot understand the word without Lee’s interpretation.

This is the basis for causing a division as mentioned by Paul in Rom 16:17-18. If the BBs are teaching that you cannot understand the word without Lee's interpretation then they have clearly crossed the line and are causing divisions.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

Terry, as I wrote in post #48 to Ohio, “I recommend that you re-revisit The Thread of Gold for the answer to your question about what led up to the 1977 ‘fellowship’ room experience by reading pages 151–189.” There is a PDF link to the book on the home page of www.TheThreadOfGold.com. The whole experience was far too complex to encapsulate in a sentence or two. You may re-read about the events that preceded it and decide for yourself.

Also, you may have misunderstood the following portion: “… it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception ….” The “They” refers not to the people but to the two entities. So, the sentence actually says that it is the two entities that are full of deception, not the leaders per se. Then, I concluded that, because the entities are full of deception, the leaders cannot be trusted.

I hope that my explanation has made my meaning more clear to you. Again, thank you for your comment. While considering your response, I decided that it might be better if I personalized the paragraph under review, so I have rewritten the final section as follows:

The stand

The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. While seeking to understand, I find myself in a land where up is down, and down is up. Because of what I’ve found, I can no longer trust the leaders in either entity.

It is very important that we stick with our Christian virtues and, even, enhance them, as Peter says, lest we fall into the same vices. To faith, we are to add virtue, or excellence, not lying and playing politics, especially with others’ lives and their freedom to follow the Lord. Jesus is our Lord and Master; and, it is before Him that we stand or fall.

John, maybe this phrase is more concise when referring to LSM and the local churches, that is current leadership of LSM and current leadership of local churches. That my brother I can relate to.

Back to The Thread of Gold, a point was made on page 162 which coincides with one of your posts, it was this event at "Guy's" home that "Sam Jones" and "Dan Williams" is when Jane became a target. It could very well be these two were looking for a reason to make an example fo Jane? I don't know. It's speculative. I will say, this comment I've found lacking;

"We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment."

Whose testimonies? Whose admissions? A few? Was "Judy's" testimony taken into account? Was it just the testimony of one or two? Was there a spirit of partiality exhibited towards Jane? Suppose "we brothers" did listen to more than one or two testimonies, why not Jane? Same can be said for any sister or brother in this situation. Elders cannot be making decisions without thorough examination. That would be as Paul says, laying hands to hastily upon someone.

Here's the passage I'm referring to:

1 Timothy 5:21-22
"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. 22 Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others ; keep yourself free from sin."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

"We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment."

Whose testimonies? Whose admissions? A few? Was "Judy's" testimony taken into account? Was it just the testimony of one or two? Was there a spirit of partiality exhibited towards Jane?

It sounded to me, after reading that section in the book again, that BP held numerous interrogation sessions with many others such as the Mays' and the Andrews' before he conducted this second session with the Anderson's.

In BP's mind, he had "heard enough."

And this is perhaps the most pathetic and destructive characteristic of the whole "deputy authority" thingy. Here is BP, the supposed "deputy" of the greater Texas region, beating all others into submission, and then declaring that this is how "we brothers" feel. WL was a master at this.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In BP's mind, he had "heard enough."

What exactly was the great sin Jane had comitted? I could lay it out if John and Jane don't object to me using excerpts from Jane's book.

Jane was not absolute. So, it was not a matter of speaking heresy or comitting some grievous sin known to the assembly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It sounded to me, after reading that section in the book again, that BP held numerous interrogation sessions with many others such as the Mays' and the Andrews' before he conducted this second session with the Anderson's.

In BP's mind, he had "heard enough."

And this is perhaps the most pathetic and destructive characteristic of the whole "deputy authority" thingy. Here is BP, the supposed "deputy" of the greater Texas region, beating all others into submission, and then declaring that this is how "we brothers" feel. WL was a master at this.

This is why Paul said to "avoid the appearance of sin". For an elder or church leader in this situation, the question is not whether you have heard enough, the question is whether the case is clear enough for the church. Ultimately you have to "tell it to the church" and if they don't buy it then you have a problem. Why is it that 30 years later we are still discussing this? The issue is not whether BP had heard enough, but that we have not heard enough to justify this action. 2nd, to BP at the time it may have seemed like he had "heard enough" but had he gone the extra mile he might have avoided 30 years of the story never going away, he might even have discovered that WL testimony was not credible, he might even have avoided being the head cheerleader for the BBs.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Elliott Miller said CRI might have to investigate causes of division in the LC, which would certainly also uncover matters of abuse. They have not yet done so to substantiate their premature exoneration of the LC - or not, based on "further light and more complete information".

In the meantime, "Where is LSM's defense team" to dismantle Jane's writing, which was written in all sincerity to gain a commensurate response from them to her fair claims and valid concerns? Furthermore, "Where is the dismantling of my writings by DCP. If they have not taken apart Jane's writings or mine, this means they cannot do so or don't have enough ground to do so, or they certainly would have by now. They should then be pursued with all alacrity and righteous demand for an intelligent defense of general statements they've made concerning Jane and myself, if they have a defense; or else they should capitulate to the truth in Jane's writings and mine and allow the LC to be found out and razed to the ground in exposure of the falsehoods they represent and the truth they do not.

The resources are out there for CRI to do the investigative work on the causes of division. In your writings, the research has been done. CRI would need to utilize the same resources you used, Steve.

Where is DCP and the blended brothers to refute Jane's book and your writings as DCP has done to Norm Geisler?
I've contemplated you and Jane have been written off as disgruntled former lc attendees, meaning there's no weight for any credibility.
I've asked another brother about the subject matter such as Jane's book readily available on the internet and here's what he had to say, Any attention that the BBs bring to testimonies like this is a loss. This doesn't mean they don't care, it means they have no defense. This is why Revelation says "they overcame him by the word of their testimony"