Whistleblower

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

I'm bringing this "Whistleblower" thread to the top because of Drake's comments on the "Self Serving Doctrine of Lee" thread. Specifically:



If you look at Drakes comments on this thread, you can compare for yourself what Drake SAYS he would do, and what he SAYS in responding to actual victims of sexual abuse in the Local Churches as these women have testified, in writing, on this forum.

Then you can decide for yourself the veracity of Drake's comments above.

Nell

In a rare moment of agreement with Nell I too encourage anyone interested in what Drake thinks to read the posts with the duck avatar straight through.... they are easy to spot starting with #44.

You will also notice that Nells assertion about actual victims.....

“actual victims of sexual abuse in the Local Churches as these women have testified, in writing, on this forum “....

.... are nonexistent. No actual victims of sexual abuse will be found herein, none have testified or written here, ...... and I, Drake, have never corresponded with an actual victim of sexual abuse in this thread or this forum as Nell claims... they simply do not exist.

Nell has asked you to compare what I have said and I join her in the request.....asking for your due diligence I challenge anyone who thinks I have spoken to actual victims then show us the post. Just follow the duck in this thread and tell us what you find.

Drake

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

In a rare moment of agreement with Nell I too encourage anyone interested in what Drake thinks to read the posts with the duck avatar straight through.... they are easy to spot starting with #44.

You will also notice that Nells assertion about actual victims.....

“actual victims of sexual abuse in the Local Churches as these women have testified, in writing, on this forum “....

.... are nonexistent. No actual victims of sexual abuse will be found herein, none have written here, ...... and I, Drake, have never corresponded with an actual victim of sexual abuse in this thread or this forum as Nell claims... they simply do not exist.

Nell has asked you to compare what I have said and I join her in the request.....asking for your due diligence I challenge anyone who thinks I have to show us the post. Just follow the duck in this thread and tell us what you find.

Drake

OK. Duly noted. Let me rephrase. Take a look at the posts of those who experienced sexual abuse, including those documented by John Ingalls, and how "the duck" responded (quacked?).

If you only "follow the duck", you will have a one-sided view of the topic. I did a quick read of the entire thread...it doesn't take long. Mostly I noted that the Duck, in his #44 (above) tried to change the subject and make it about how he would handle the reports of abuse. But please don't take my word for it. Read BOTH SIDES for yourself and then you decide. Never take someone else's "interpretation" of what was said. Go to the source.

The posts of those who experienced abuse (including the John Ingalls book) are: #27, #31, #32, #112 and #120. These posts contain links to the source posts.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

The posts of those who experienced abuse (including the John Ingalls book) are: #27, #31, #32, #112 and #120. These posts contain links to the source posts.

Nell

Thank you Nell. I read every one of them. And I call foul on my deleted post. It was not off topic, and it wasn't foul.

I still say I don't doubt the stories. I could tell ones that I know of.

[ZNPaaneah]

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. — Teddy Roosevelt

With both Ben M. and Philip L, you can argue that various elders in the Local church did not do the right thing. In both cases it was clearly "a moment of decision" and in both cases the elders were clearly offended and acted in a way to respond to the evidence of sin. PL would not have been so heinous had they not "done nothing" for so long. Still, it is slanderous to say that the Anaheim elders allowed sin to flourish. JI and the rest of them had a moment of decision. They sought fellowship and I think the response they got from RG and BP was reprehensible, still it was ultimately under their authority and they did the right thing.

No doubt the puppet elders that replaced them were culpable for their letter of apology.

As for Ben M., again you can argue that they ultimately did "the wrong thing" which is the "second best option". Immediately calling for the elders to meet and fellowship was the right thing. The reaction of the elders was the right thing. Involving WL in the fellowship was the right thing. Following his advice was certainly an understandable decision, though in hindsight was the wrong thing, still it was far better than doing nothing.

I agree with Awareness that it is absurd to think that in a church fellowship of tens of thousands of believers you are not going to have sins of this nature taking place. I completely disagree with the characterization of "sexual abuse by the Local Church leadership". We have not been given any evidence of that on this thread.

[eDh22]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing. — Teddy Roosevelt

Originally Posted by Nell

I would not tell anyone what to do, but I would like to encourage those who were abused in the Local Churches to consider their options today. Think about the others who come after you. Pray about it.

When I was meeting with the LCs and the hymn "I'm so happy in this lovely place" was called, I would laugh and roll my eyes. I wasn't "happy" and this place wasn't "lovely" but that's not why I was there. I believed that the Lord's Recovery was the one true way. I wasn't particularly fond of the saints in any of the localities in which I had lived and I was comfortable maintaining a slight unspoken disagreement with our local elders and with Anaheim, but prided myself in being silent and unshaken from the true way of the Lord's Recovery, no matter what.

I'd dare to say that human behavior ranging from wacky to dangerous can be found in any gathering of humans, and that fear of confrontation is a fairly universal human sentiment, so my relative state of self-induced subjugation, while arguably part of LC enculturation, is likely being repeated day in and day out in various situations around the globe.

It took years before I allowed myself to recognize that I was existing in a state of avoidance. I was exhausted from parsing through a range of quality of teachings and behavior of the leadership but not addressing them with the saints, because of my fear of being cut off. I had seen so many brothers and sisters, some beloved, some less so but still, dismissed from the community over the years. One almost comical example was when fairly new sister gave a testimony that was, I thought quite unintentionally, "outside the party lines", and was very publicly obliterated. I remember my strong feeling of justification ("that's what happens when you don't read from the Life Studies!") being mixed with a whisper of envy ("but maybe now she is free"), watching her walk alone out the meeting hall door for what I knew would her last time.

This thread has been helpful to me. What was really my life's intension at the time? Was it affected by a lack of self-respect or by too much self-consideration? Did I allow an organization or principle to become my "false idol"? In my pride of being steadfast, who or what was I betraying?

In contrast with - "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" 2 Timothy 1:7 (NKJV)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by eDh22

One almost comical example was when fairly new sister gave a testimony that was, I thought quite unintentionally, "outside the party lines", and was very publicly obliterated. I remember my strong feeling of justification ("that's what happens when you don't read from the Life Studies!") being mixed with a whisper of envy ("but maybe now she is free"), watching her walk alone out the meeting hall door for what I knew would her last time.

Publicly ambushed by the LC version of PC police?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by eDh22

When I was meeting with the LCs and the hymn "I'm so happy in this lovely place" was called, I would laugh and roll my eyes. I wasn't "happy" and this place wasn't "lovely" but that's not why I was there.

I identify with just about all you said above eDh22.

When I first 'joined' the local church I could sing "I'm so happy in this lovely place" and feel it and mean it. Back then I was discovering God's eternal purpose, and diving into it.

I diligently absorbed and sucked in everything I could by Nee and Lee. Then, as I got ever more and deeper involved -- with the soon to be golden boy, Kangas, if he wasn't already golden -- I started to see contradictions to what I was reading in their books going on. But I still believed I was in God's eternal purpose and trusted that it was coming from Gods' man.

But as I saw more and more contradictions, I couldn't just let it go and keep my mouth shut.

And irony of ironies, eventually I was accused of "using Lee's works to destroy Lee's works." In other words, holding Lee to his past teachings to destroy his present new and improved teachings, or something like that. It was crazy logic to me. It came to a head, and I got drummed out.

So how's it going for you eDh22?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree with Awareness that it is absurd to think that in a church fellowship of tens of thousands of believers you are not going to have sins of this nature taking place. I completely disagree with the characterization of "sexual abuse by the Local Church leadership". We have not been given any evidence of that on this thread.

Does that mean the sexual abuse reported by John Ingalls is OK? Not to worry. It's everywhere so...chill.

I think John Ingalls gave us plenty of evidence. The women who posted told us what they could. Believe them or don't.

Regardless, I've said everything on this topic that I intend to say. I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I blew the whistle. That was my intention.

Nell

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does that mean the sexual abuse reported by John Ingalls is OK? Not to worry. It's everywhere so...chill.

I think John Ingalls gave us plenty of evidence. The women who posted told us what they could. Believe them or don't.

Regardless, I've said everything on this topic that I intend to say. I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I blew the whistle. That was my intention.

Nell

If LSM was a secular company Philip would have been out on his ear in a flash ... #MeToo ...

But Lee had experience covering for Nee's sexual exploits. So covering for his son's exploits was just doing business as usual.

Lee was too uncomely and homely for sexual exploits. He went for the money. He went for none-of-your-business-LSM, and sales -- So let Philip and Timothy have their fun, as long as money is made.

Back when Lee started charging for conferences, tickets for Lee were more expensive than tickets for top-draw Rock bands. Lee the Rock star. And hey, let's make churches buy our materials.

So we had sex and money, but no Rock and Roll.

I'm ashamed to admit that, I was just as much a sucker as those joining NXIVM today, or Scientology.

[Drake]

I’m glad Nell brought this thread back to the top because in reviewing the arc of the discourse it brought to the forefront once again a recurring practice among a few members of this forum....

First, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Opinion springs out of a belief system and not necessarily based in fact. An informed opinion will try to bolster ones opinion with some facts but at the end of the day, it is still opinion.

Facts are what actually happened but may or may not necessarily be factually based. For instance, a dissenting brother may have written a letter , that is a fact, but the content of his letter may be just an opinion based on little or no facts. Just because someone wrote a letter does not automatically mean the content is factual. Or for example, a post in this thread referenced a sister who was molested as a young girl, a link was provided, but the sister said straightforwardly that no one in the local churches perpetrated that abuse upon her. Therefore, that lent no credence to the basic charge of this thread that sexual abuse is rampant in the local churches and yet the implication is foisted upon us by innuendo.

Which brings me to this next point that I find sorrow in having to say to fellow Christians. Bearing false witness. It occurred in this thread in two ways. First the outright allegation by Nell that there is sexual abuse among local church leadership and which charge ZNPs due diligence proved false in #302....then the allegation that I, Drake, was dismissive of actual sexual abuse accounts of women that have testified and posted on this forum by Nell #289...... again, this is bearing false witness as no women who were actually sexually abused posted here and therefore I never did as was alleged nor would dismiss such a tragic incident. Both of these allegations were simply the bearing of false witness and should never proceed from the mouth of a Christian and yet the scripture says plainly from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

And finally there is another destructive bearing of false witness presented in this thread... that of bearing false witness through innuendo. Perhaps this is the worst kind.

If the reader cares to understand my view on this serious matter and my challenges to the falsehoods presented in the examples above then start with #44 and follow my posts through this thread. Or jump to #115 and follow the duck after that.

Thanks,
Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Nell

Does that mean the sexual abuse reported by John Ingalls is OK? Not to worry. It's everywhere so...chill.

What is definitely not OK is to twist someone's words, quote out of context and then ascribe such a nasty response. I have made it clear repeatedly that PL was "not OK". I repeated that "I had condemned PL to the uttermost". You are distorting my comment. The church is a hospital, what is foolish is to think you will have a church anywhere without sinners and fleshly people. PL was not even a member of the church. You can second guess the way in which the elders dealt with PL, and with Ben M. But saying that the elders allowed "sexual abuse" to flourish is ugly. Hope was an elder, JI was an elder. Those are the two testimonies of elders showing their response and there is no justification based on their response to conclude that the elders were complicit in allowing sexual abuse.

But would it be OK for me to say that you committed the crimes that PL did without any supporting evidence? No, that is called libel. You blamed Local Church Leadership for the crimes of PL. Based on what? PL was not Local Church Leadership. JI was. Are you blaming JI for PL? If so, give us the evidence. You pointed to a number of testimonies on this thread, none of them provided any evidence of "sexual abuse" by "local church leadership".

So, to answer your question. No, PL's abuse is not OK. Therefore why do we need to make up false charges? Since we all agree that PL's abuse was heinous and involved sufficient supporting evidence to be deemed credible this also means that the apology letter from the puppet elders that replaced JI, etal, was also heinous. I don't feel that the behavior of those elders can be used to condemn "Local Church leadership" as a whole, but if you want to throw shade on those particular elders go ahead. What I find far more relevant is that this is the undeniable evidence that ties WL into PL's sins.

[UntoHim]

To ZNP and Drake and all forum members.

Tone down the rhetoric. Any further posts accusing another forum member of "bearing false witness" will be deleted. Both of you are showing the coldness, insensitivity and disrespect for women/sisters that the Local Church of Witness Lee is infamous for. Shame on you both. Both of you are being argumentative, insensitive and petty towards Nell. There is a context in which she is claiming that Local Church leadership is responsible for the sexual abuse experienced by quite a number of sisters/women. Some have posted on this forum. One in particular was by a sister who went by the moniker "happiernow":

Originally Posted by happiernow

The church allows sexual predators to flourish. I have experienced this first hand. Does anyone else have experience with this?

She had originally posted a lengthy description of the abuse. She then realized it had too much personal information and deleted it, or had me delete it for her, I can't recall which. In any event it was horrific to say the least. THIS WAS DIRECT FIRST HAND TESTIMONY.

To say that what is being discussed here on this thread is "hearsay" is absolutely absurd. It's an old Witness Lee/Local Church trick, thrown out as a shameless red herring to avoid addressing real, genuine experiences and concerns by current and former members, especially women/sisters. It may have worked for the Acting God /Oracle et al, but that duck won't fly around these parts.

Again. Let's tone down the rhetoric. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Maybe a nice cup of herbal tea. TONE IT DOWN OR I WILL TONE IT DOWN FOR YOU.
**As always, I am not including myself as "any other forum member". Me and my posts are fair game. Call me a liar. Challenge me on the open forum that I am bearing witness. Go for it. Call me an unfair moderator. Have at it.
But stop attacking and accusing any other forum member of lying or bearing false witness.
-