Whistleblower

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Wait, not fair? Let me clarify why your questions are not simple and straightforward and why they are entrapment questions.

Of course you have another question. That was purpose of the last one! You have several more to follow. Your questions are like bird crumbs that lead to a box propped up by a stick with a string attached to the stick. Oh my, what’s that all about?

It is craft on your part. If Drake answers this way then you’ll ask that ... but if he answers that way you’ll accuse him of that..... ad nauseam. That is why you won’t answer my questions to you. Yours are leading questions like a lawyer who insists “Mr. Drake, just answer the question! I’m asking the questions here!”

But, no worries. I don’t feel entrapped because it is not that clever. It is kinda cute actually but not funny because the topics are so serious. I don’t find that kind of engagement meaningful or beneficial and since that is the mode you are operating in I put you on my ignore list. If you ever want to have a dialogue then I am always willing to converse with a brother.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, I am willing to answer most any question you ask of me--but to make it work, you have to answer mine too. And since you did, I'll give you yours:

Do you think excommunication was sufficient?

No. However, to me--it is almost a moot point, as the Anaheim elders were not responsible. For whatever reason, you want me to fault the Anaheim elders for not doing enough. And yet you believe--presumably--that Witness Lee was right to quarantine them for involving themselves at all. This does not make sense.

[UntoHim]

Thread is back open
PLEASE ADDRESS THE ISSUES AT HAND AND AVOID GETTING PERSONAL.
IT IS THE VICTIMS THAT DESERVE CIVIL DISCOURSE HERE, SO LET'S ALL TRY TO REMEMBER THIS WHEN POSTING.
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PRESSING OR EVEN INQUIRING ABOUT A POSTER'S IDENTITY, AFFILIATIONS OR LOCATION.
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANYTHING PERSONAL.

-

[ZNPaaneah]

My issue with the LRC is not PL, or Ben M., etc. An individual who sins does not destroy the entire assembly, particularly since the vast majority of saints in the LRC were unaware and uninvolved in PL's sins or BM's, etc.

My issue is with the way in which the LRC dealt with the sins, especially those that did become aware.

What did WL do when he first became aware of PL's sins? How did he act to protect saints serving in the LSM? How did he work with PL for him to deal with his sins? Regardless of how you want to cut it the evidence strongly supports the assertion that WL worked to cover up his son's sins, to slander and discredit any who might know of his sins, and to excommunicate any who would stand for righteousness.

Likewise I don't have an issue with JI and the other elders. They were clearly in a very difficult situation, between a rock and a hard place. If any is going to judge them it should be the Lord. Perhaps they could have done a better job, I don't know. What I do know is they took this seriously and acted to deal with the sin.

My issue is with the puppet elders who took their place and wrote an apology letter to PL because "it pleased WL".

In the world if a person in authority like the FBI or College President, or key Olympic official is aware of allegations of misconduct they need to take responsibility. You can claim that you are not responsible right up to the moment you learned of the allegations. From that moment on you will be held accountable for how you act. If further misconduct takes place after you have learned of the allegations then that may be held to your account.

I have not heard any evidence that WL or other key elders were involved in sexual misconduct, however I have heard evidence that their actions after learning were not without reproach.

In this recent Olympic scandal I am most impressed with one girl who was 17 when she made her allegations. It took 14 years for others to finally do their job and convict this guy, but she stood her ground for 14 years.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Drake, I am willing to answer most any question you ask of me--but to make it work, you have to answer mine too. And since you did, I'll give you yours:
No. However, to me--it is almost a moot point, as the Anaheim elders were not responsible. For whatever reason, you want me to fault the Anaheim elders for not doing enough. And yet you believe--presumably--that Witness Lee was right to quarantine them for involving themselves at all. This does not make sense.

Koinonia,

Of course, the elders are responsible for the administration in the local church. Scripture is clear on that point.

If crimes were being committed then of course, they should have done more.

If immorality, sin, and other such awful things were happening then they were responsible to address it in their office as elders..... but if no crime then it would have been dealt with according to their judgement.

If this was the only reason they were quarantined then I do not think they should have been. Was this the only reason John Ingalls was quarantined? What was the stated reason? Let's have a look and we can agree or disagree.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,
Of course, the elders are responsible for the administration in the local church. Scripture is clear on that point....

Mr Drake,

You have been with LC for 4 decades, you should know the actual reasons why John Ingalls was quarantined, instead of asking, could you share why he was quarantined? I am quite eager to know the truth also.

If you don't know, why don't you ask Ron Kangas?
Thanks.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you don't know, why don't you ask Ron Kangas?

Uummm. Because Koinonia and I are conversing?

[OhLordJesus]

Originally Posted by Drake

Uummm. Because Koinonia and I are conversing?

Mr Drake,

Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I am eagerly to know some of the details in this thread especially whether PL sexual abuse is true or not. If so, what was the decision made by WL as a father or a responsible one from the LSM. I thought you had all the details since you asked many challenged questions to some members here. Could you please enlighten me?

Thank you, sir.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OhLordJesus

Mr Drake,

Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I am eagerly to know some of the details in this thread especially whether PL sexual abuse is true or not. If so, what was the decision made by WL as a father or a responsible one from the LSM. I thought you had all the details since you asked many challenged questions to some members here. Could you please enlighten me?

Thank you, sir.

OhLordJesus, did you read John Ingalls' lengthy account of these events in Speaking The Truth in Love?

It's posted on the sub-forum "Writings of former members."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OhLordJesus

Mr Drake,

Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I am eagerly to know some of the details in this thread especially whether PL sexual abuse is true or not. If so, what was the decision made by WL as a father or a responsible one from the LSM. I thought you had all the details since you asked many challenged questions to some members here. Could you please enlighten me?

Thank you, sir.

You are not interrupting. That was an answer to a question you asked me.

My enlightenment for you is this.....If you read this thread and others like it from beginning to end you will know who knows what, who thinks what, and why they believe as they do and any assumptions they are making, what is based on sound reasoning verses fallacy in argumentation and where fact ends and opinion begins. Ohio has pointed you to reference material that we sometimes use as a basis for our conversations. Read that too. All for free unless you feel to contribute monetarily to the cause.

Since you are a self admitted eager learner knowing little about this topic then I suggest you start there. Once you understand what has already been discussed then you will offer your own informed opinion and insight and may have some questions along the way. Some here will become your cheerleaders like LofT, some may challenge you, and some may pay no attention to you at all. Some may even become your teachers. Choose wisely. No worries though, it’s all part of the discourse that takes place in here so don’t take anything personal.

Well, that should jump start you here so I hope that helps.

Oh, one more thing... I almost forgot... silly me. If you find someone is baiting you, or asking entrapment questions, or starts badgering you, my advice is that you put them on your ignore list. Works every time. So, if someone stops answering your questions you might be on that person’s ignore list. Or maybe that person just thinks your posts are irrelevant.... but if that happens to you don’t be alarmed because you’ll learn.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are not interrupting. That was an answer to a question you asked me.

My enlightenment for you is this.....If you read this thread and others like it from beginning to end you will know who knows what, who thinks what, and why they believe as they do and any assumptions they are making, what is based on sound reasoning verses fallacy in argumentation and where fact ends and opinion begins. Ohio has pointed you to reference material that we sometimes use as a basis for our conversations. Read that too. All for free unless you feel to contribute monetarily to the cause.

Since you are a self admitted eager learner not knowing little about this topic then I suggest you start there. Once you understand what has already been discussed then you will offer your own informed opinion and insight and may have some questions along the way. Some here will become your cheerleaders like LofT, some may challenge you, and some may pay no attention to you at all. No worries though, it’s all part of the discourse that takes place in here so don’t take anything personal.

Well, that should jump start you here so I hope that helps.

Oh, one more thing... I almost forgot... silly me. If you find someone is baiting you, or asking entrapment questions, or starts badgering you, my advice is that you put them on your ignore list. Works every time. So, if someone stops answering your questions you might be on that person’s ignore list. Or maybe that person just thinks your posts are irrelevant.... but if that happens to you don’t be alarmed because you’ll learn.

Drake

So Drake, I'm so surprised that you did not recommend that book of lies and smear job which Lee published about these same events called Fermentation of the Present Rebellion. What a libelous rag that was.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OhLordJesus

Mr Drake,

Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I am eagerly to know some of the details in this thread especially whether PL sexual abuse is true or not. If so, what was the decision made by WL as a father or a responsible one from the LSM. I thought you had all the details since you asked many challenged questions to some members here. Could you please enlighten me?

Thank you, sir.

This is laid out for you beginning with the first post of the topic. Note that even WL never disputed the accusations against his son. Also, since the article appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and since the LSM does not now OWN the LA Times we can conclude there was no libel lawsuit wherein the LSM prevailed.

This should save you some research time. However, do read Speaking the Truth in Love for a clear picture of the events.

Nell

[kumbaya]

Originally Posted by OhLordJesus

Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I am eagerly to know some of the details in this thread especially whether PL sexual abuse is true or not. If so, what was the decision made by WL as a father or a responsible one from the LSM.

Just a helpful suggestion, you can go back and see all members comments on this site. I noticed you were asking this to a specific person and I did the same thing when I first got on here! Trying to sort it all out and see who is who is really overwhelming. It's good to have some comradory and trust with certain people but you have to consider the source. Some people on here are intentionally frustrating, avoid answering logical questions, and talk in circles- avoiding the true points of discussion. Of course, it's good to get both sides of the story but I would suggest considering the source and the amount of evidence both sides have to offer.

I'm glad the others recommended "Speaking the Truth in Love," I was going to suggest that. It really helped me. Even then, you'll have to dig a little deeper because John Ingalls refrains from mentioning the specific details of the grave offenses by Philip Lee. He also (and someone please offer an explanation to why if you know!) doesn't mention that the "brother" being excommunicated that the elders were undecided about- was PL.

He mentions the "grave offenses" by PL, but he's very careful not to go into the details. Obviously, we know they were serious in nature due to the fact that excommunication was on the table....

I'm just saying this to encourage you to read ALL the accounts, testimonies, and personal experiences that so many people have to offer before making a judgement. It's been a hard thing for me to do and I'm still coming to terms with the idea that the local church isn't what I thought it was.

Just be careful (and I'm telling myself this too) of who you go to to get the "truth" on here. The truth is somewhere in the middle of these two sides everyone is on, I'm sure. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life- that's all we really know.

I think it's really easy to get caught up in all the "bad things" that happened in the church. Obviously, where there's smoke- there is fire. But that was in the past and there's never going to be a clear answer, just speculation....

For me, I had to look at what Christian scholars and psychology recommends in terms of healthy/unhealthy spiritual boundaries, abuse, and best/worst practices in Christian movements. Once I did that- it was very clear. The local church is a breeding ground for spiritual abuse, manipulation, mind control, and exploits genuine believers mentally and financially. I'm not saying that was ever the intention, but sin has turned it into that. The people that are in are involved in cult mindsets/practices that have weaved their way into Christian circles. They associate their experience with the Lord with the local church and can't separate the two, all while under the influence of group think and mind narrowing thought reform techniques.

There's a lot of info about it on here, and elsewhere. Everything good I read on it doesn't even mention the LC, just helps you identify bad practices and abuse. I would definitely recommend looking into that.

Peace and love

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

I'm glad the others recommended "Speaking the Truth in Love," I was going to suggest that. It really helped me. Even then, you'll have to dig a little deeper because John Ingalls refrains from mentioning the specific details of the grave offenses by Philip Lee. He also (and someone please offer an explanation to why if you know!) doesn't mention that the "brother" being excommunicated that the elders were undecided about- was PL.

He mentions the "grave offenses" by PL, but he's very careful not to go into the details. Obviously, we know they were serious in nature due to the fact that excommunication was on the table....

I'm just saying this to encourage you to read ALL the accounts, testimonies, and personal experiences that so many people have to offer before making a judgement. It's been a hard thing for me to do and I'm still coming to terms with the idea that the local church isn't what I thought it was.

Kumbaya, few comments here.

This post shows you have studied LC history well.

John Ingalls' account STTIL is absolutely trustworthy in every detail.

John's reluctance to expose some of the worst details PROVES that he never harbored any ill will towards Witness Lee or LSM. It also PROVES that everything written by Lee and LSM about him and others like So, Mallon, and Fung was all lies. History shows us conclusively that there never was a conspiracy to destroy Lee or LSM. What we were told about Ingalls et. al. in meetings and in the book Fermentation... was all lies.

Why? Simple. To preserve the pristine image of WL. In order to do that, he and all his accomplices at LSM had to destroy the reputations of the whistleblowers.

[OhLordJesus]

Originally Posted by kumbaya

Just a helpful suggestion, you can go back and see all members comments on this site. I noticed you were asking this to a specific person and I did the same thing when I first got on here! Trying to sort it all out and see who is who is really overwhelming. It's good to have some comradory and trust with certain people but you have to consider the source. Some people on here are intentionally frustrating, avoid answering logical questions, and talk in circles- avoiding the true points of discussion. Of course, it's good to get both sides of the story but I would suggest considering the source and the amount of evidence both sides have to offer.

I'm glad the others recommended "Speaking the Truth in Love," I was going to suggest that. It really helped me. Even then, you'll have to dig a little deeper because John Ingalls refrains from mentioning the specific details of the grave offenses by Philip Lee. He also (and someone please offer an explanation to why if you know!) doesn't mention that the "brother" being excommunicated that the elders were undecided about- was PL.

He mentions the "grave offenses" by PL, but he's very careful not to go into the details. Obviously, we know they were serious in nature due to the fact that excommunication was on the table....

I'm just saying this to encourage you to read ALL the accounts, testimonies, and personal experiences that so many people have to offer before making a judgement. It's been a hard thing for me to do and I'm still coming to terms with the idea that the local church isn't what I thought it was.

Just be careful (and I'm telling myself this too) of who you go to to get the "truth" on here. The truth is somewhere in the middle of these two sides everyone is on, I'm sure. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life- that's all we really know.

I think it's really easy to get caught up in all the "bad things" that happened in the church. Obviously, where there's smoke- there is fire. But that was in the past and there's never going to be a clear answer, just speculation....

For me, I had to look at what Christian scholars and psychology recommends in terms of healthy/unhealthy spiritual boundaries, abuse, and best/worst practices in Christian movements. Once I did that- it was very clear. The local church is a breeding ground for spiritual abuse, manipulation, mind control, and exploits genuine believers mentally and financially. I'm not saying that was ever the intention, but sin has turned it into that. The people that are in are involved in cult mindsets/practices that have weaved their way into Christian circles. They associate their experience with the Lord with the local church and can't separate the two, all while under the influence of group think and mind narrowing thought reform techniques.

There's a lot of info about it on here, and elsewhere. Everything good I read on it doesn't even mention the LC, just helps you identify bad practices and abuse. I would definitely recommend looking into that.

Peace and love

My mind is always very clear since day 1 I attended LC. I remain neutral until I can see official report to the Authority for illegal activities otherwise the cover up stuffs which some of you discussed here could be just a group of responsible ones handled issues incompetently.

I read some of threads and I knew who is for and who is against LC in this forum. The question is those who support LC, what are their motives of staying here?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Koinonia,

Of course, the elders are responsible for the administration in the local church. Scripture is clear on that point.

If crimes were being committed then of course, they should have done more.

If immorality, sin, and other such awful things were happening then they were responsible to address it in their office as elders..... but if no crime then it would have been dealt with according to their judgement.

And what was Witness Lee's role?

If this was the only reason they were quarantined then I do not think they should have been. Was this the only reason John Ingalls was quarantined? What was the stated reason? Let's have a look and we can agree or disagree.

Drake

The May 15, 1990 "An Open Letter From the Churches in California" document reads (in part):

Since the fall of 1987, the churches here have suffered under the dissension and rebellion led by four brothers who were once among us: Joseph Fung, John So, Bill Mallon, and John Ingalls. In the beginning many things were done and said by these brothers in a way that was both subtle and hidden. As a result, a number of saints were deceived and thus did not know the true nature of what was taking place. Today, however, there is no question about where these brothers stand. We do not like to see any more of the saints damaged by opening themselves innocently to the words spoke by these brothers. Therefore, we feel that we must warn the churches of the true standing of these four and their followers.

These four brothers 1) have denied the standing of the churches in the Lord’s recovery; 2) have produced divisive meetings; 3) have attempted to draw saints away from the local churches to follow after themselves; and 4) have made unfounded and malicious attacks upon some leading brothers in the recovery, and especially upon Brother Lee and his ministry.

It is vague and "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo. To cover for the fact that the real issue that opened up the brothers "dissension and rebellion" was the ongoing sexual assault perpetrated by the LSM Manager Philip Lee, and Witness Lee's decade-long cover-up and refusal to deal with it.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And what was Witness Lee's role?



The May 15, 1990 "An Open Letter From the Churches in California" document reads (in part):

Since the fall of 1987, the churches here have suffered under the dissension and rebellion led by four brothers who were once among us: Joseph Fung, John So, Bill Mallon, and John Ingalls. In the beginning many things were done and said by these brothers in a way that was both subtle and hidden. As a result, a number of saints were deceived and thus did not know the true nature of what was taking place. Today, however, there is no question about where these brothers stand. We do not like to see any more of the saints damaged by opening themselves innocently to the words spoke by these brothers. Therefore, we feel that we must warn the churches of the true standing of these four and their followers.

These four brothers 1) have denied the standing of the churches in the Lord’s recovery; 2) have produced divisive meetings; 3) have attempted to draw saints away from the local churches to follow after themselves; and 4) have made unfounded and malicious attacks upon some leading brothers in the recovery, and especially upon Brother Lee and his ministry.

It is vague and "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo. To cover for the fact that the real issue that opened up the brothers "dissension and rebellion" was the ongoing sexual assault perpetrated by the LSM Manager Philip Lee, and Witness Lee's decade-long cover-up and refusal to deal with it.

Spiritual mumbo jumbo? Vague?

Let’s drill down on this vague spiritual mumbo jumbo.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Spiritual mumbo jumbo? Vague?

Let’s drill down on this vague spiritual mumbo jumbo.

Drake

Sure, go ahead.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

And what was Witness Lee's role?

It is vague and "spiritual" mumbo-jumbo. To cover for the fact that the real issue that opened up the brothers "dissension and rebellion" was the ongoing sexual assault perpetrated by the LSM Manager Philip Lee, and Witness Lee's decade-long cover-up and refusal to deal with it.

Along side the corruption at LSM offices, brothers from around the globe were resisting the onslaught of domination over all the LC's.

The situation in TLR was no different in principle from what we see in the book of Galatians. Judaizers were sent from *Headquarters* to bring the churches under submission to them and not to the Head. Read what Paul wrote as he fought this same battle two millennia ago:

"And it was because of the false brothers, brought in secretly, who stole in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into slavery. To whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. But from those who had a reputation as being somebody (whoever they were means nothing, since God does not accept man's person) for to me those who had a reputation imparted nothing." -- Galatians 2.4-6

I doubt the Judaizers even cared about circumcising the Gentiles. It was all to "make a show" anyways. Like LSM was doing behind the scenes, it was all about subjecting others under their control, because as we know power corrupts. Operatives from LSM, who supposedly had a "reputation" by being close to WL and PL were not received by spiritual men.

[Nell]

More fruit of Witness Lee's "ministry."

Originally Posted by KindnessNotBlindness

Zeek, thank you so much for the welcome. Before I respond to your question I will just say that being atheist has brought me so much peace after 34 years, I'm 36, of being in the "church life" and do not want to be persuaded back to religion. I think the transition was inevitable as I felt "God" or any other supreme being is wicked for letting people suffer and blame it on "Satan". ...

I am the victim of a sexual assault and I can promise you "God" was NOT there and neither was Satan. I was alone. ...

The full post is here: http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...97&postcount=3

Nell

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Nell

More fruit of Witness Lee's "ministry." . . . Nell

Part of the section you quoted says...

"...I am the victim of a sexual assault and I can promise you "God" was NOT there and neither was Satan. I was alone. ..."

Tell me, Nell...

Do you agree with this person that "...God" was NOT there and neither was Satan. I was alone. ..."?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Steel

Part of the section you quoted says...

"...I am the victim of a sexual assault and I can promise you "God" was NOT there and neither was Satan. I was alone. ..."

Tell me, Nell...

Do you agree with this person that "...God" was NOT there and neither was Satan. I was alone. ..."?

No. I do not agree.

Nell