Now's good - byHismercy

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

I never experienced anything resembling what you describe.

Drake

Most of the rest of us have witnessed this. "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" was the song. Don't think, it will only confuse you.

Witness Lee said he did all the "cooking" (assembling doctrine). All we had to do was "eat" (brainlessly imbibe his doctrine).

Not sure what patch of the LC you were in. Your anecdotal experience doesn't match most of the testimonies I've seen.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Most of the rest of us have witnessed this. "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" was the song. Don't think, it will only confuse you.
Witness Lee said he did all the "cooking" (assembling doctrine). All we had to do was "eat" (brainlessly imbibe his doctrine).
Not sure what patch of the LC you were in. Your anecdotal experience doesn't match most of the testimonies I've seen.

Your, and a dozen others in this forum, anecdotal experience, what is best described as oppressive and nutty, does not match mine or hundreds of thousands of others in the Lords Recovery.

I accept that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Your, and a dozen others in this forum, anecdotal experience, what is best described as oppressive and nutty, does not match mine or hundreds of thousands of others in the Lords Recovery.

I accept that.

10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

A bully will always attack the weakest, smallest, least able to defend themselves. Ignoring their testimony, dismissing their testimony, this is how predators are able to operate.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

A bully will always attack the weakest, smallest, least able to defend themselves. Ignoring their testimony, dismissing their testimony, this is how predators are able to operate.

I agree! There are many notable bullies in this forum who day in and day out launch vicious ad hominem attacks on current members in the local churches in and out of this forum.

Apparently that is why that sister left. The anger and bitterness created an environment that was too toxic.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Apparently that is why that sister left. The anger and bitterness created an environment that was too toxic.

So if she says we're "bitter and angry" you agree. If she says that we had "thwarted ambitions" you agree. But if I say that Lee was "bitter and angry" then that's a personal attack? If we say Lee was voracious for the parishioner's money that's an unfounded personal assault?

Why the double standards?

Have you ever read The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion? If you want to see ad hominem attacks, they're there. But I never once saw Lee called to task in the LC for his characterisations of others.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

So if she says we're "bitter and angry" you agree. If she says that we had "thwarted ambitions" you agree. But if I say that Lee was "bitter and angry" then that's a personal attack? If we say Lee was voracious for the parishioner's money that's an unfounded personal assault?

Why the double standards?

Have you ever read The Fermentation of the Present Rebellion? If you want to see ad hominem attacks, they're there. But I never once saw Lee called to task in the LC for his characterisations of others.

She is referring to the anger and bitterness served up in this forum day in and day out. You don’t see that? Or are you arguing for moral equivalency?

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

There are many notable bullies in this forum who day in and day out launch vicious ad hominem attacks on current members in the local churches in and out of this forum.

Name the vicious ad hominem attack. NAME ONE. POST THE QUOTE.
FOCUS, DRAKE, FOCUS!
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Name the vicious ad hominem attack. NAME ONE. POST THE QUOTE.
FOCUS, DRAKE, FOCUS!
-

I’ll open with this.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...6&postcount=90

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

I’ll open with this.

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...6&postcount=90

There's no there-there in pointing out your faux-rage, and since Philip Lee ran LSM for many years, your defense of LSM is a defense of Philip's bad behaviors.

Focus Drake, please Focus.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Drake

......moral equivalency..............

.......ad hominem.........

.......non-sequitur.........

Drake, I see you have knowledge of informal fallacies however your application of that knowledge is all wrong.

Informal fallacies are commited in the context of a formal debate.

We're all just regular people here on the forum having a discussion and sharing our personal views. There are no formal debates going on here.

When Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" was he committing a fallacy? No, he was speaking the truth.

Please don't make people here feel guilty for expressing their emotions and make it as if they're being stupid for doing so. Let the Lord sort it all out.

/rant off

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Your, and a dozen others in this forum, anecdotal experience, what is best described as oppressive and nutty, does not match mine or hundreds of thousands of others in the Lords Recovery.

I accept that.

Don't forget about the thousands in the Midwest and Brazil who have suffered LSM's rampant abuses, lawsuits, and divisions.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

A bully will always attack the weakest, smallest, least able to defend themselves. Ignoring their testimony, dismissing their testimony, this is how predators are able to operate.

One of my first conclusions, when departing from the LC, was that "this program changes beloved brothers into bullies." I saw this on every level.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't forget about the thousands in the Midwest and Brazil who have suffered LSM's rampant abuses, lawsuits, and divisions.

Focus Ohio.

Focus.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

Most of the rest of us have witnessed this. "Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear" was the song. Don't think, it will only confuse you.

I understand now where the LC's teaching that thinking is bad originated from. It comes from a twisted interpretation of Matthew 16:23.

Below Evangelical gave the interpretation;

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was Peter's own human reasoning "the things of men" that was an adversary to Christ, so Christ called him satan.

So the interpretation here is that Christ is rebuking Peter's human reasoning rather than Satan himself operating through Peter. This view essentially makes "human reason" satanic thus rendering thought evil.

My question is if human reason is the "adversary to Christ" then what do you use to make your arguments?

Coincidentally Buddhism and other New Age philosophies teach that in order to acheive enlightenment, one needs to "empty the mind". This isn't Christian doctrine.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

So the interpretation here is that Christ is rebuking Peter's human reasoning . .

My question is if human reason is the "adversary to Christ" then what do you use to make your arguments?

This was a ploy to get us afraid to think. When Peter made a mistake, he was using "human reasoning", or as Lee often put it, "natural thinking" or "fallen human concepts". Yet with Lee (and Nee) we were supposed to take it as "God's oracle". Lee was free to question anyone, including the writers of the scripture (Peter, James, Jude, various OT prophets). But God forbid anyone should question Lee!

Originally Posted by Jo S

Coincidentally Buddhism and other New Age philosophies teach that in order to acheive enlightenment, one needs to "empty the mind". This isn't Christian doctrine.

I think there is an "altered state" that comes in when you "empty" thus. It's not entirely foreign to the Christian experience; however in the hands of Lee et al it's main function seems to have been to make you brain-dead and keep you that way.

I've repeatedly raised the example of the questionable assertions made in RecV footnotes, which ostensibly were run verbally past thousands of attendees at various meetings and conferences. In one place the psalmist is dipping his feet in his enemy's blood - this is "Christ defeating Satan". In other places, such violent and/or adversarial sentiments are strongly criticized as not Christian. In the OT, yet! But Samuel hacked Agag to bits and that was okay...?

Or, in one place (e.g., Psalm 16) the psalmist says that he's pleased God and God will protect him/save him/reward him. Lee says this is Jesus Christ. Elsewhere (e.g., Psalm 15, Psalm 17-19) the same sentiments are panned as "natural" and "vain concepts" and so forth.

My question is, did not one person dare to think for themselves, here? To challenge what was being put in front of them? To question any of this? No, all the hundreds of testimonies after these messages were about how wonderful they were, bringing "Christ" to us. As far as I know, nobody ever challenged Lee publicly on any of his thousands of public messages, even when they had such contradictory assertions, or departed from apostolic precedent.

Everything was designed to keep one in a state of non-thought. Only Lee could think. Just be "positive". Be "one". Even when the messages make no sense.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by aron

I think there is an "altered state" that comes in when you "empty" thus. It's not entirely foreign to the Christian experience; however in the hands of Lee et al it's main function seems to have been to make you brain-dead and keep you that way.

I feel for you guys coming out of the LC. I understand what you're taking about Aron. I have had first hand experience of the strange unison between the members of this church.

Christ said to "deny yourself", meaning your evil desires but not to "deny thought". There's a difference. The point isn't to stop thinking but to align our thoughts with the Lord's. Paul speaks about holding every thought captive and making it obedient unto Christ and that those that are born of God's spirit are given a new mind, the mind of Christ. If you empty your mind, you're emptying yourself of Christ. When that happens, believe me, something/someone else will fill that void. Think about Luke 11:25.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Christ said to "deny yourself", meaning your evil desires but not to "deny thought". There's a difference. The point isn't to stop thinking but to align our thoughts with the Lord's. Paul speaks about holding every thought captive and making it obedient unto Christ and that those that are born of God's spirit are given a new mind, the mind of Christ. If you empty your mind, you're emptying yourself of Christ. When that happens, believe me, something/someone else will fill that void. Think about Luke 11:25.

Jo S, have you also witnessed Lee's awful exposition of natural affection in action? Lee taught that this "natural" affection damaged believers by "spoiling their offering," imagining that honey in the Old Testament was a type of brotherly love.

Yet Apostle Paul prophecies in II Tim 3.1-5 that Christians in the last days will be "without natural affection." Many of these descriptors have long been evident in those who were LSM's more ardent zealots.

[Jo S]

..................

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

You guys would know better but it seemed to me like she suddenly recognized I was no longer a part of the program and instantly put this guard up. It's like her natural inclination was to be warm and you know...human but training kicked in to suppress all of that.... Weird and quite frankly sad.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts on that.

Jo S, I can't tell if you are a brother or sister by your name, but if a brother then perhaps she suddenly realized that she needed "distance" from a brother. I can't second guess her thoughts.

Let me tell you my own experience. After 15 years in the program, I concluded that the only person totally safe to trust was Witness Lee. I had seen and heard enough by then not to trust any man completely, but was always taught in so many words that Witness Lee was the only completely faithful Christian on the whole earth today. I was not alone in that conclusion.

Now what does that tell you?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I understand now where the LC's teaching that thinking is bad originated from. It comes from a twisted interpretation of Matthew 16:23.

Nope. The full saying is

"get out of your mind and into your spirit". You left off the last part "get into your spirit".

It comes from:

Eph 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

It also comes from the Scripture where it talks about living and walking in the Spirit.

The focus is always about getting into the Spirit, not "out of the mind". In Eastern religions, it is different, their goal is to get out of their mind to escape reality, pain, suffering etc. Our goal is to enter into the reality of Christ by getting into the Spirit. Big difference.

Originally Posted by Jo S

So the interpretation here is that Christ is rebuking Peter's human reasoning rather than Satan himself operating through Peter. This view essentially makes "human reason" satanic thus rendering thought evil.

There is little support for "Satan himself operating through Peter". This view makes Peter, a genuine believer basically into another Judas!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says:

Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our designs.
It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-23.htm

Originally Posted by Jo S

My question is if human reason is the "adversary to Christ" then what do you use to make your arguments?

Coincidentally Buddhism and other New Age philosophies teach that in order to acheive enlightenment, one needs to "empty the mind". This isn't Christian doctrine.

There is a big difference between the Eastern religion "empty the mind" in silent meditation. Clearly if we are functioning in the meetings (singing, speaking, talking, moving) our mind cannot be empty.

Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nope. The full saying is

"get out of your mind and into your spirit". You left off the last part "get into your spirit".

It comes from:

Eph 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

It also comes from the Scripture where it talks about living and walking in the Spirit.

The focus is always about getting into the Spirit, not "out of the mind". In Eastern religions, it is different, their goal is to get out of their mind to escape reality, pain, suffering etc. Our goal is to enter into the reality of Christ by getting into the Spirit. Big difference.



There is little support for "Satan himself operating through Peter". This view makes Peter, a genuine believer basically into another Judas!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says:

Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our designs.
It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-23.htm





There is a big difference between the Eastern religion "empty the mind" in silent meditation. Clearly if we are functioning in the meetings (singing, speaking, talking, moving) our mind cannot be empty.

Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".

You should review Lee's teachings before posting, it would save you some embarrassment as you appear to be an opinionated person without much facts to support what you write.

Not even a single "I" in that entire post Bless your heart, Evangelical.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Not even a single "I" in that entire post Bless your heart, Evangelical.

Lord Jesus bless you too Jo S!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Witness Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

I must pass on a warning to you not to remain in your mind. When you exercise your mind, you go back to Babylon; you are not in chapters 21 and 22 of Revelation. Instead, you are in chapters 17 and 18; you are in Babylon. The call from the Lord in Revelation 18:4 is to come out of Babylon—“Come out of her, My people.” This means to come out of your mind. When you get out of your mind, you are out of Babylon. When you get into your spirit, you are in the New Jerusalem enjoying the riches of Christ.

If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?

Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?

Why can't we on this forum call out to those at LSM, "come out of her My people"?

Those who remain in bondage to LSM are remaining in Babylon.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?

And WL used his fallen human mind, not his spirit. Look at any Lee ministry passage - "This means that" and "this proves that". Why can't someone else say, "No that doesn't prove that"?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You sound like an idiot. That's what my mind is saying right now.

Hey! Ad hominem attack! Plus, I detect bitterness and anger. . .

The good news is, I don't detect any thwarted ambitions in your post.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."

But why the getting out of your mind was repeatedly stressed? (Other than to prevent the listeners to think). Did John write "I was out of my mind, and into my spirit on the Lord's day" in Revelation chapter 1? Whence the Lee formulation other than to suppress (competitive) thought in the listeners? Why was Lee alone capable of thought in the LC?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Hey! Ad hominem attack! Plus, I detect bitterness and anger . . .

The good news is, I don't detect any thwarted ambitions in your post.

Funny. Too funny.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?

As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

[least]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...
Rom 8:6
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

Hi byHismercy
The past few hours I've been thinking "are the mind and the spirit mutually exclusive?" I've not thought of it this way until E's post (the post you quoted), even tho for years I have been hearing and reading " get out of your mind, get into your spirit." Or " don't use your mind, use your spirit." Or "don't be in your mind, be in the spirit."

The same bible verse came to mind: For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

There are other verses I'm considering, eg. spirit of the mind, renewing of the mind, ...
-

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

Amen! I think some LCers have forgotten this after speaking too much "getting out of the mind and be in the spirit". That kind of "life" became a blackhole leading everything to "be in the spirit" but nothing comes out of it, not the love that God wants - And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength.

Paul pointed out clearly in Phi 1:9-10 the importance of knowledge and discernment which are matters related to the mind.

9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in full knowledge and all discernment,
10 So that you may approve by testing the things which differ and are more excellent, that you may be pure and without offense unto the day of Christ,

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

The reason Lee uses the language "get out of.. " is because he relates it to Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4, describing the three stages of getting out of Egypt, journeying through the wilderness, and getting into the good land. That is all documented in his book "The Kingdom". But people here fail to see that connection and the reason why Lee used the terminology "get out of the mind". Rather than consider the stated and obvious reasons why Lee would use that terminology, they prefer to jump to their own conclusions and blame Lee for teaching Eastern mysticism.

We get out of our mind (flesh/natural) by setting our mind (neutral) on the Spirit. That's what Lee taught. I think Lee used the same word mind with different connotations - one is negative, the other is neutral.

To express this more fully we could say:

We get out of our mind set on the flesh, by setting our mind on the Spirit.

Equivalently, we could say

"We get out of our mind set on the flesh and into a mind set on the Spirit by setting our mind on the Spirit."

More specifically, to break "mind" down into the three parts of will, thoughts and emotions:

"We get out of our natural thoughts and emotions and into spiritual thoughts and emotions by setting our thoughts and emotions on the Spirit."

It is important to note that here the will is used to set the mind on the Spirit, and this results in getting out of our mind set on the flesh. Setting the mind on the Spirit is the focus.

I don't see Lee ever teaching "get out of your mind" for the sake of getting out of the mind, as Eastern religions or drug users might. He always qualifies that with the goal of getting into the Spirit.

At least, people should read the book "The Kingdom" before jumping to conclusions about Lee's terminology.

If there is any group getting "out of their mind" in Christianity it is the tongue speakers, pentecostal worshippers who whip themselves into an emotional frenzy using choreography, dance and music, and sometimes mass hypnosis (Benny Hinn and others), drunk in the Spirit and "holy laughter", and Catholic contemplative meditators, not the local churches. Full control of mental faculties are retained before, during and after a church meeting.