Whistleblower

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Here's another story from a young woman who says "It is quite liberating to be out of the LC and live like a normal person again.".

Her apparent support for the lqgbtqy makes me suspicious. Then again that and feminism go hand in hand dont they? Feminism is about getting rid of men and lesbianism is about filling the void.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Her apparent support for the lqgbtqy makes me suspicious. Then again that and feminism go hand in hand dont they? Feminism is about getting rid of men and lesbianism is about filling the void.

Women being sexually abused in the Local Church for decades and it being covered up by Née, Lee and the current leadership makes me suspicious.

Don't blame the victim for the damage done to them.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Nell

Don't blame the victim for the damage done to them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Women being sexually abused in the Local Church for decades and it being covered up by Née, Lee and the current leadership makes me suspicious.
Don't blame the victim for the damage done to them.

There is no indication in her post that she was sexually abused for decades. She cites passive aggressiveness from a racist roommate.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no indication in her post that she was sexually abused for decades. She cites passive aggressiveness from a racist roommate.

But that's hardly the point, is it?

The point is the hypocrisy of Witness Lee's ministry and the fruit it has been bearing ever since his son Philip was caught in the LSM office with a sister who was another man's wife. The point is Benson and Ray listening to Witness Lee and not dealing with BenM as they KNEW they should and influencing three other elders in Texas to do the same. The point is these men LIED to the saints and didn't protect the sisters with the truth. The point is BenM later seduced his brother's wife, breaking up two marriages and marrying his brother's wife. The point is that sexual sin continues in the Local Churches TO THIS DAY.

If you want to make a meaningful contribution to this topic, why don't you print it out and carry it to Benson Phillips, Ray Graver and Ron Kangas. Tell them that sexual abuse in the Local Churches cannot continue. Tell them that this sexual abuse in the Local Churches is to the point of being "common knowledge". Tell them this is sinful hypocrisy and makes a mockery of the Lord's name. Tell them this hypocrisy exposes the ministry of Witness Lee as a sham. Tell them that women in the Body of Christ who touch the Local Churches are becoming shipwrecked in their faith because of the predators who abuse women and because of the "brothers" who condone such behavior by their inaction. Tell them you will not stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ with this on your conscience.

Tell them that if THEY DON'T do something about it, YOU WILL. Then YOU stand up in the meeting and TELL THE CHURCH. Otherwise, you're just the same old troll you've been since began posting on this forum. All your pontificating about the wonderful Local Churches and the ministry of Witness Lee are blatant hypocrisy. You're just as big a hypocrite as they are.

Blow the whistle on this criminal behavior before it becomes a police matter.

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Watchman Nee

LEADING IN THE WORK

When God’s work started in several places in China in 1921, some truths were not clearly distinguished. For instance, grace and law were not clearly defined; nor were the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, grace and reward, or salvation and victory clearly differentiated. The understanding of truths in the Lord was neither deep nor rich enough. However, the understanding of the gospel of grace was comparatively clear, and it was being quite clearly preached at that time when Mr. Wang Ming-dao was in Teh-Chow, Sister Pearl Wang and Ruth Lee were in Nanking, and some other workers and I were in Foochow.

Look at any LSM history and it's rife with statements like this. Clearly women were instrumental in "Leading the Work" at one point. But they were railroaded when they were no longer expedient, and were a potential threat to those who held power. When the organisation-building process reached critical mass, suddenly they had to "know their place".

The Recovered Church aka Little Flock aka Local Church became another human institution, with all the attendant issues, not unlike the NCAA's Big Ten Sports programs (see, Penn State U. and Michigan State U. athletic departments).

People covered the crimes to protect the institution, and they protected the institution because it fed them power. They had power to abuse, control, manipulate. But no power to heal.

[Drake]

First, I have said it many times.... if there is criminal behavior it should be reported to the police.

Yet, this whole conversation begs the questions....

Why did John Ingalls, or Godfred who knew before John mentioned it to him, not report the criminal behavior to the police? Did John or Godfred not consider the behavior criminal but rather immoral?

If immoral then why was it so and not criminal?

If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

This forum asks probing questions about why Witness Lee didnt take his son out back behind the barn and shoot him....in a manner of speaking. How about factoring in what Brother John actually said since he is being quoted extensively. What did he say that indicates he thought this was criminal behavior? You may think it was but did he?

Drake

[Ohio]

Why didn't Witness Lee call the police?

Was not he the spiritual leader? The Minister of the Age?

The one who claimed to be today's Paul, yet unlike Paul, he never exercised to have a good conscience void of offense.

Why did Witness Lee promise to take care of these matters, assuring the brothers around him, and then covered up criminal activity.

The elders and saints wanted to go to the police. It was Lee who stopped them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

If immoral then why was it so and not criminal? If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

Some of Phillip Lee's actions were immoral, and some criminal. Your post conflates the two.

When Max first confronted him, that event was immoral, and we know this because the sister confessed as much. Yet, it was still abuse because he used his power.

Since Phillip knew he could act with impunity, without accountability, and protected by his Daddy with his cadre of enforcers, his immoral actions became more aggressive. Eventually, the husband of one molested sister planned to shoot Philip.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

First, I have said it many times.... if there is criminal behavior it should be reported to the police.

Yet, this whole conversation begs the questions....

Why did John Ingalls, or Godfred who knew before John mentioned it to him, not report the criminal behavior to the police? Did John or Godfred not consider the behavior criminal but rather immoral?

If immoral then why was it so and not criminal?

If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

This forum asks probing questions about why Witness Lee didnt take his son out back behind the barn and shoot him....in a manner of speaking. How about factoring in what Brother John actually said since he is being quoted extensively. What did he say that indicates he thought this was criminal behavior? You may think it was but did he?

Drake

Hey Drake, I think you are right ... if there's a crime committed, like rape.

But the goings-on in the LSM office wasn't a crime, that I know of. From what I understand, it was consenting adults. And adultery isn't a crime.

As usual, the cover up is as bad as the infraction. Why keep it hush-hush?

That's obvious. To protect the integrity and reputation of the church.

Take John Ingalls. Did he follow Matthew 18:15-17? Yes. But he didn't "tell it to the church." (He did write a book, however).

My question is then, were there crimes committed? If so, it/they should have been reported to the authorities.

I still support the 'MeToo' movement, and think those abused in the LC should be included in it.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Drake

If immoral, then why did they as leading elders not take action for over a year or two? Why did it take a rambunctious crowd to spin out of control to incite the elders to take action shortly after?

This forum asks probing questions about why Witness Lee didnt take his son out back behind the barn and shoot him....in a manner of speaking. How about factoring in what Brother John actually said since he is being quoted extensively. What did he say that indicates he thought this was criminal behavior? You may think it was but did he?

Drake

How many times did the brothers go to Witness Lee? 12? 13? In my opinion they were looking to Witness Lee to do what was right and just. Longer it went on, the less patience many meeting as the Church in Anaheim had.
Speaking of John in particular when it came to the "fake news" of John being ambitious and "wanting to take over the recovery", by that time he had been a co-worker for more than 25 years. having served alongside him for all those years certainly there was a measure of respecting Witness Lee as a fellow brother and knowing the love a father has for his children. That he would defer to Witness Lee to do the right thing.
Regarding Witness lee, many viewed him as my serving ones taught me that Witness Lee is a modern day apostle Paul.
When you place a brother on such a pedestal, certainly you expect his actions to be in accord to his ministry.

[Ohio]

The tragedy of actual church history tells us, like the Catholic church scandal, that leaders will always lie and coverup criminal activities to preserve their "reputations."

Don't tell me leaders at LSM are any different than today's politicians either. They rule just "like the Gentiles" we were all warned about.

[Nell]

They lie and cover until someone blows the whistle.That's what I'm praying for.

Nell

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The tragedy of actual church history tells us, like the Catholic church scandal, that leaders will always lie and coverup criminal activities to preserve their "reputations."

Don't tell me leaders at LSM are any different than today's politicians either. They rule just "like the Gentiles" we were all warned about.

Women in Hollywood have the courage to stand up to Harvey Weinstein, by comparison Phillip Lee was nothing. The sister's in the church have the spirit of Jesus Christ within them. How are they going to rule the gentiles if they cannot stand up to little Phillip Lee?

I have no idea how many people covered up for PL, but if you knew you should have stood up regardless of whether you were a "small sister" or a "leader". This is what it means to "take up your cross and follow Me". You have to stand up for what you know is right regardless of the cost.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

But that's hardly the point, is it?

You cited someones post who did not say they were sexually abused and tried to make it sound as if they were. If they had issues with the roomate or the training that is a different matter altogether so I dont see the relevance. Clearly their experiences have nothing to do with the matters you have raised.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Her apparent support for the lqgbtqy makes me suspicious. Then again that and feminism go hand in hand dont they? Feminism is about getting rid of men and lesbianism is about filling the void.

Does the LC leadership take any responsibility for many young people who leave their faith and have negative attitudes towards men after being victimized?

What do you think "stumbling the least of these" looks like, Evangelical?

[aron]

Those who neatly side-step the issue of the long-standing (and continuing) treatment of women make me suspicious. Remember - Jesus met people where they were. He didn't say, "Go up to Jerusalem; there, I'll meet you by the altar." If you don't see this basic point how can you even preach the gospel?

You have to meet people where they are; if you can't meet people where they are and remain connected to God, then are you really connected to God?