NIGEL TOMES: LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obsession with Succession: With an established construct of one-man leadership firmly embedded in all dedicated members, the inevitable result was bitter infighting as to who was the next "oracle of God."

Actually it's worse. They are not fighting about who was going to be the next oracle of God, they are fighting to keep Witness Lee as the only oracle of God. To many, God stopped speaking 20 years ago when Lee died. So now, all they have is a "paper oracle". God stopped speaking, God stopped "recovering" - all the "high peak truths" have been released, and the only thing left to do is repeat and regurgitate. For better or for worse, the movement is frozen in time. Let us pray that some will wake up, and see that God is still indeed active and speaking among his people today. "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Mark 12:27)
-

[Drake]

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched scriptural arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

In similar vein we could say they are incapable of agreeing with Lee. They seem to be in a world of their own making. The "anti-Lee sect".

This is evident because even when I post articles from well known tv-evangelist Don Stewart they are reacting as if I am quoting from the Recovery Version footnotes. Likewise, a Protestant now Catholic apologist is not good enough for them.

The funny thing is I'm said to be staunch here, but in Alternative views I'm said to be not that deep in the Recovery because I use the internet and a leading brother said don't use the internet in the 1970's before the internet even existed. Isn't it silly?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In similar vein we could say they are incapable of agreeing with Lee. They seem to be in a world of their own making. The "anti-Lee sect".

This is evident because even when I post articles from well known tv-evangelist Don Stewart they are reacting as if I am quoting from the Recovery Version footnotes. Likewise, a Protestant now Catholic apologist is not good enough for them.

The funny thing is I'm said to be staunch here, but in Alternative views I'm said to be not that deep in the Recovery because I use the internet and a leading brother said don't use the internet in the 1970's before the internet even existed. Isn't it silly?

You think like that because you are afraid and taken captive. Therefore, why should anyone listen to you?

You see, if folks had to argue and debate you on the merits of your posts that might lead to having to agree with something you said, regardless of who you reference be it the Pope, or a Protestant minister, or a respected theologian , and if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel. Therefore, given the choice of the fabric of the universe unravelling or retreating to a happy place where all will be safe in the knowledge that the issue is all about you because you are afraid and have been taken captive, well, it is a simple choice, then isn't it?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel. Therefore, given the choice of the fabric of the universe unravelling or retreating to a happy place where all will be safe in the knowledge that the issue is all about you because you are afraid and have been taken captive, well, it is a simple choice, then isn't it?

This is unreal, come back to reality.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

This is unreal, come back to reality.

Huh? Where did I lose you?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Huh? Where did I lose you?

Probably when you brushed aside a serious assertion with nothing but dripping sarcasm.

The fact is, Drake, it is very unlikely that you would agree with Lee on EVERYTHING or not be willing to honestly discuss what you disagree with him about unless there were some aberrant psychology at work. And it is much less likely that almost every staunch LCMer would behave the same way without something highly abnormal going on.

Name one group in history where everyone agreed with and defended everything their leader ever said or did that wasn't a personality cult.

Why can't you guys disagree with him on anything or discuss your disagreements with him? Sure sounds like mind control and fear to me. Do you think someone who is being controlled in such a way would know it? Probably not. And if they refuse to consider the possibility they probably will never discover it.

As I said, I agree with Lee on many things. But the stuff that seems wrong to me I feel free to disagree with him about.

That's the difference between me and you. You don't feel free to disagree with him. You forget I was in the LCM for years. I know the mindset, don't try to BS me about it.

Now, bring on the sarcasm since it seems the only defense at this point.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

You think like that because you are afraid and taken captive. Therefore, why should anyone listen to you?

You see, if folks had to argue and debate you on the merits of your posts that might lead to having to agree with something you said, regardless of who you reference be it the Pope, or a Protestant minister, or a respected theologian , and if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel.

This is more disingenuousness than I'm used to see coming from you, Drake.

So I must be hitting close to home.

In the first, place. I have debated with Evangelical many times. So please don't accuse me of not doing that.

(My frustration with him, and you, is that neither of you seem at all open to the idea that Lee was in error about anything. Debating with people with closed minds starts to feel pretty pointless. So eventually I feel to point out that their minds are closed. Your sarcastic response did nothing to change my feelings about that.)

In my experience Evangelical cherry-picks stuff from the Internet that agrees with him and then acts like that establishes his position as a winner. Well, as you both should know, it ain't necessarily so. That's why I don't do that. I could find a lot more quotes that contradict Lee about a lot of things, but if I did it wouldn't faze you. You'd just say everyone else was unclear.)

What I did is produce many verses from the Bible itself that basically show that Noah's behavior violated direct teachings from the Bible on how we are to behave, especially when in leadership and positions of correction. I think those verses at least justified re-consideration of the knee-jerk belief that Noah's curse was righteous.

How did Evangelical respond? By equating my argument with those who justify gay "love." You call that a reasoned argument?

I wish Evangelical would quote Bible instead of Google.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

You think like that because you are afraid and taken captive. Therefore, why should anyone listen to you?

You see, if folks had to argue and debate you on the merits of your posts that might lead to having to agree with something you said, regardless of who you reference be it the Pope, or a Protestant minister, or a respected theologian , and if that were to happen that might imply an agreement with Witness Lee on something and then the very fabric of the universe would unravel. Therefore, given the choice of the fabric of the universe unravelling or retreating to a happy place where all will be safe in the knowledge that the issue is all about you because you are afraid and have been taken captive, well, it is a simple choice, then isn't it?

There are those on this forum who are not debating him on certain points because we do agree with WL. Our universe has not unraveled. For example, Witness Lee taught that a counterfeit bill is not completely wrong, it is 99% correct. The 1% where it is not correct, that is what identifies it as counterfeit.

I may not agree with 99% of WL, but I do agree that it is certain teachings of his that cause all the trouble: MOTA and Ground of the church.

I even created a thread where I showed that if they eliminated those two teachings they could eliminate being viewed as a cult.

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I think that WL primarily repackaged existing brethren teachings, pretended they were his, and then sold them as his. There are some very strange teachings sprinkled in like the double S spirit that may very likely have originated with him. He also probably coined some phrases that he was very insistent on taking credit for (again suggesting that he and others were well aware that most of his teachings were not original but lifted from others). I imagine someone who was an expert in both brethren teaching and WL could highlight the very few "original" tidbits that could be credited to WL, but most of those would be things I have chosen to discard, ignore or feel were wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He also probably coined some phrases that he was very insistent on taking credit for (again suggesting that he and others were well aware that most of his teachings were not original but lifted from others).

Lee always sold "the sevenfold-intensified Spirit" like it was one of his greatest revelations. But he probably got it from the Amplified Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I think that WL primarily repackaged existing brethren teachings, pretended they were his, and then sold them as his.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee always sold "the sevenfold-intensified Spirit" like it was one of his greatest revelations. But he probably got it from the Amplified Bible.

Interesting find, Igzy.

Let me provide an interpretation for one of those "Recoveryisms" we used to regularly hear:

"Standing on the shoulders" of other Christian authors: Plagiarism by WL

The reference to Isaiah 11.2 is also interesting since it provides description to the Seven Spirits before His throne:

1. Spirit of Jehovah
2. Spirit of wisdom
3. Spirit of understanding
4. Spirit of counsel
5. Spirit of might
6. Spirit of knowledge
7. Spirit of the fear of Jehovah

Which rest upon the Christ, the shoot out of the stock of Jesse.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In my opinion, and I could be wrong, but I think that WL primarily repackaged existing brethren teachings, pretended they were his, and then sold them as his.

One for example was The Economy of God. Not so much a Brethren teaching, but notes taken from a conference another brother gave.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Terry

One for example was The Economy of God. Not so much a Brethren teaching, but notes taken from a conference another brother gave.

Yes, many of WL's teachings were variations of teachings given by T. Austin-Sparks.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

In similar vein we could say they are incapable of agreeing with Lee. They seem to be in a world of their own making. The "anti-Lee sect".

False. I agree with Lee on many things.

Now, disprove my assertion about you. Tell me what you disagree with him about.

And Drake, nice try with the sarcasm, but you could help us all by telling us what you disagree with Lee about, too.

I'll say it again. Lee's authority doctrine is craven psychological pressure to agree with him, to discount evidence against him, and to champion evidence in his favor.

I'm not anti-Lee, but I am anti-Lee-as-MOTA and spiritual bully. There is a difference.

I wish you guys could appreciate these subtleties.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

False. I agree with Lee on many things.

Now, disprove my assertion about you. Tell me what you disagree with him about.

And Drake, nice try with the sarcasm, but you could help us all by telling us what you disagree with Lee about, too.

I'll say it again. Lee's authority doctrine is craven psychological pressure to agree with him, to discount evidence against him, and to champion evidence in his favor.

I'm not anti-Lee, but I am anti-Lee-as-MOTA and spiritual bully. There is a difference.

I wish you guys could appreciate these subtleties.

I've been posting about how the story of Noah could have been about castration or incest. That seems different to what Lee taught. He would probably disagree with me and stick to the traditional interpretation.

Like I wrote to Drake:

"even when I post articles from well known tv-evangelist Don Stewart they are reacting as if I am quoting from the Recovery Version footnotes".

As Drake said, this is a sign of "severe case of group think".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I've been posting about how the story of Noah could have been about castration or incest. That seems different to what Lee taught. He would probably disagree with me and stick to the traditional interpretation.

Adding something to what he said is not the same a contradicting something he said.

Tell me something major that he taught that you are willing to disagree with.

Son of man being Son-ized? (Romans 1:4)

Satan dwelling in man's flesh?

Man becoming God?

Any old thing will do, unless it's so minor to be insignificant.

How about you Drake?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Adding something to what he said is not the same a contradicting something he said.

Tell me something major that he taught that you are willing to disagree with.

Son of man being Son-ized? (Romans 1:4)

Satan dwelling in man's flesh?

Man becoming God?

Any old thing will do, unless it's so minor to be insignificant.

How about you Drake?

My views would diverge in the area of eschatology and the Creation account of Genesis. I don't really see the gap theory in Genesis and I lean towards Preterism and a highly symbolic view of Revelation.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy "Whatever Lee did, you would have agreed with him. That's why trying to convince staunch LCMers is generally pointless, because they are incapable of disagreeing with Lee. The reason is because they are afraid to, and the reason they are afraid to is because they have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. "

Wow.

Evangelical, I never really thought of you as "afraid" and "taken captive" but there you have it above in black and white. Therefore, it must be true. Your well researched scriptural arguments are pointless. Your logical presentations are a waste of time. Your propensity to appeal to the reason in a man is ineffective because you are afraid and have been taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines. Did you know that? I must confess I had no clue. Who knew? Glad that has been cleared up.

Quite honestly the point is missed unless I have misinterpreted Igzy's post.
How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

Quite honestly the point is missed unless I have misinterpreted Igzy's post.
How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

Terry,

I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that if I had experienced what some did I am not sure how I would have reacted. But also, I often hear some describe an experience that I can relate to yet we had very different outcomes.

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man. I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man. I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake, in a previous post I referred to passive aggressive behavior. This is a good example. The brother you were speaking to was taking a stand, but passively letting you make a choice. Enjoy the Lord as he suggested. Should you had taken the position "I'm not going to let this go", there would have been negative repercussions. As it would have been received as you rebelling against his authority. Rather many brothers in that position it's not a matter of rebellion nor a matter of authority, but a matter of honest mutual fellowship.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Terry

Drake, in a previous post I referred to passive aggressive behavior. This is a good example. The brother you were speaking to was taking a stand, but passively letting you make a choice. Enjoy the Lord as he suggested. Should you had taken the position "I'm not going to let this go", there would have been negative repercussions. As it would have been received as you rebelling against his authority. Rather many brothers in that position it's not a matter of rebellion nor a matter of authority, but a matter of honest mutual fellowship.

Terry,

The brother was more concerned about the person not the teaching. The Lord then had an opportunity to supply grace. The concern just disappated.

Yet there were other tines when more fellowship was required for some situation . Again, always a supply of grace and never a force fit.

Drake

[Cal]

The problem with Lee's authority doctrine is that it demonstrably forces people under it to shelve their consciences for the sake of "submission."

I've noticed when the LCM says "submission" they really mean "obedience." But these words don't mean the same thing.

The difference between "submission" and "obedience" is that "submission" allows for dissent for reasons of conscience. There is no teaching in the Bible that forces followers of leaders to compromise what they feel God is directly commanding them to do. We are to obey the Bible (interpreted wisely) absolutely, but not leaders.

Drake's story of his problem he took to a leader is an example of the insipid way the LCM allows for "dissent." In their view if you disagree with leadership strongly you can go to them so they can convince you they are right. Once they feel they've graciously explained things well enough to you, you are expected to agree and/or shut up. If you continue to disagree it shows you are "not under the Head" and are a rebel. There is no scenario in the LCM where you can honestly say, "I must obey my conscience and part ways" and the leaders respect that. As far as they are concerned that is rebellion and back-sliding.

That's not submission, that's absolute obedience.

However, the two truths "obey your leaders" and "let each be fully persuaded in his own mind" cannot co-exist without the concession that (1) we need to respect those who part ways with us for reasons of conscience and (2) the logical corollary that we must allow for and respect other gatherings in our locality.

If we insist our gathering is THE gathering then we are not respecting the consciences of others. (As evidence, there are many groups which meet as the church in the city which have no affiliation with LSM, and the LCM respects or recognizes none of them. This proves they are not truly for oneness except oneness that is centered around them.)

Lee's authority doctrine is designed to enforce compliance with his movement. It is not biblical. It's a conglomeration of Chinese Confuscianism, bad Bible interpretation and a self-serving agenda.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Terry,

I have acknowledged on more than one occasion that if I had experienced what some did I am not sure how I would have reacted. But also, I often hear some describe an experience that I can relate to yet we had very different outcomes.

I simply have never been afraid of fearing man in the Lords Recovery, any man.

I explained once about a strong disagreement with something that was said and when brought up to a leading brother he said "don't worry about it, the speaking was not for you, just enjoy the Lord." But again, I am aware that others may have had a different experience.

Drake

Drake, did you sign that letter of allegiance to Witness Lee in early 1986?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

How I received what Igzy was saying "taken captive by Lee's authority doctrines" equates to fearing man more than fearing God. "What the brothers say" bears more weight than the Word or our human spirit.
When the term "get right with the brothers" is used, that implies whether one is a brother or sister, they cannot communicate with the one out of favor until that brother or sister "gets right with the brothers".
Ever take time to read Hear the Cases article? A clear indication what happens to be taken captive by the deputy authority doctrine. If a co-worker (James Lee) says something, it must be true. Thus there became a couple not welcome to meet with the Church in Vista.

Aside from the lack of scriptural support for the teaching of Deputy Authority, it seems like those who are in support of it really don’t understand the inevitable problems it creates. I’m not out to be dismissive of what people say they have or haven’t experienced, but at least speaking from my own experience, I don’t think the authoritarianism always manifests itself overtly.

When you look at the LCM environment, you see people who are often afraid to voice concerns. There are people who feel it is better to just drop issues instead of trying to resolve the issue. People get told to not worry about something. All of these things are evidence of authoritarianism and the fearing of man.

I had a situation where a ‘responsible’ brother approached me and gave me a talk about dating. The essence of that his talk was to let me know that if I knew what was good for me, I would discuss anything related to dating with the brothers. And he wanted me to consult with him specifically.

Even before the conversation was over, I was enraged that he had dared to approach me in that way. However, because it all was done suggestively or in a way that he purposely portrayed as being “optional fellowship,” there was nothing I could do about it, without making myself look bad in front of bystanders. Consider if I had reacted strongly to what he said and let him know it was inappropriate. I might have been told to “drop the issue” or to “not worry about it.” When I later expressed my disgust with what happened to someone else, this person asked me why I didn’t stand up to the 'responsible' brother. Well it’s nice to think it would be so easy to do that, but the reality is completely different. Especially when the person who is approaching someone else directs that person to not object to what has been spoken.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Aside from the lack of scriptural support for the teaching of Deputy Authority, it seems like those who are in support of it really don’t understand the inevitable problems it creates. I’m not out to be dismissive of what people say they have or haven’t experienced, but at least speaking from my own experience, I don’t think the authoritarianism always manifests itself overtly.

When you look at the LCM environment, you see people who are often afraid to voice concerns. There are people who feel it is better to just drop issues instead of trying to resolve the issue. People get told to not worry about something. All of these things are evidence of authoritarianism and the fearing of man.

I had a situation where a ‘responsible’ brother approached me and gave me a talk about dating. The essence of that his talk was to let me know that if I knew what was good for me, I would discuss anything related to dating with the brothers. And he wanted me to consult with him specifically.

Even before the conversation was over, I was enraged that he had dared to approach me in that way. However, because it all was done suggestively or in a way that he purposely portrayed as being “optional fellowship,” there was nothing I could do about it, without making myself look bad in front of bystanders. Consider if I had reacted strongly to what he said and let him know it was inappropriate. I might have been told to “drop the issue” or to “not worry about it.” When I later expressed my disgust with what happened to someone else, this person asked me why I didn’t stand up to the 'responsible' brother. Well it’s nice to think it would be so easy to do that, but the reality is completely different. Especially when the person who is approaching someone else directs that person to not object to what has been spoken.

Yes, you may have been told to drop the issue or don't make a mountain out of a molehill. It comes down to previous points I've made before. LSM/DCP apparently go into bunker mode whenever there's a counter. Brothers don't want to be put on defensive. That's the bottom line.
Take Steve Isitt for example. Nearly 6 years ago he wanted to make an appointment with DCP. There was no openness by DCP to receive an appointment. This is a recurring theme with rare exceptions. No matter how big or how minute the issue is. There's no counterpoint to be received.
In most instances a deacon/elder/co-worker may say something publicly or privately. Any rebuttal, counterpoint, etc is "stonewalled".
Many elders come across as passive aggressive. Few are downright aggressive. Deputy authority encourages aggressive behavior in an authoritarian way. Few come across as meek and humble and that's because deputy authority encourages authoritarian behavior. Whether passive or not. It's as if at any given moment deputy authority is a card to be utilized and not for elders/co-workers to conduct themselves humbly or meekly.