Publication Work in The Lord's Recovery aka The One Publication

[Trapped]

Drake,

If you could still clarify the contradiction, it would help me. I genuinely do not see how post 222 addresses the contradiction in post 206.

I have read through the One Pub many times, both with a critical mind and my best attempt at an open mind. What jumps out at me in both types of approaches is the assertion that it is NOT talking about something in the Lord's recovery, and yet the document is heavily studded throughout with the phrase "in the Lord's recovery". In fact, "in the Lord's recovery" is repeated 21 times, and "Lord's recovery" and "His recovery" are there an additional 16 times in other various forms for a total of almost FORTY REFERENCES to the Lord's recovery in a proclamation that claims that its contents are not talking about something in the Lord's recovery.......

Drake, this is a critical point, which I will explain below, poorly I am sure, given that I have had a long day.

Towards the end of the One Pub itself (above the signatories, before the Ministry Portions section), there is a paragraph whose first sentence clearly links "the ministry" to "the one publication" (italics mine):

Finally, all the churches and saints everywhere must understand that the matter of one publication is not a matter of the common faith but something related to the one ministry in the Lord’s recovery.

The entire One Publication also makes it clear that the "one publication" of LSM refers to brother Nee and brother Lee's messages. This is quite literally LSM's stated purpose, so this cannot be denied.

So: "the ministry" = "one publication" = "Nee and Lee's writings".

After equating the ministry with the one publication, the very next paragraph in the document says this:

Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry...

Given that "the ministry" was just equated to "the one publication" which is Nee and Lee's writings, this paragraph is saying that if a certain church does not take Nee or Lee's ministry, that fact does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church. Great! The next sentence backs up that point by saying "see....look....we are just talking about the one trumpet in the Lord's ministry.....we're not talking about the one trumpet in the Lord's recovery!!!" In other words, since this message says "in the Lord's ministry" and not "in the Lord's recovery", the restriction being stated here (a church going along with one publication) does not determine whether a local church is genuine or not.

Except.....that's not true. It's not true 40 times over. The title of the One Publication DOES say "in the Lord's recovery". "The Lord's recovery" is the backdrop against which the One Publication is painted, it is the setting upon which is couched, it is the overarching theme from which it cannot be divorced. I am not making that claim in a vacuum.....the almost 40 references to the Lord's recovery within the document itself make that undeniable.

What this implies, using basic logic and human understanding, is that if the One Publication IS talking about something "in the Lord's recovery" then the first sentence of the paragraph would be rendered untrue.....in other words, if the One Publication IS talking about something "in the Lord's recovery", this would mean that a church's taking Nee or Lee's writings DOES determine whether that church is a genuine local church.

Since the One Pub IS forty-fold talking about something in the Lord's recovery, the unfortunate conclusion that this generates, is that if you do not take Nee or Lee........you are not a genuine local church.

It is not a stretch in any sense of the word to arrive at this conclusion based solely on what is presented. And guess what? I did it all by staying within the confines of the document itself and without bringing in any of the actual history of the local churches to support the conclusion or launch an attack. I guess you could say I was "restricted in One Publication"........

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I have read through the One Pub many times, both with a critical mind and my best attempt at an open mind. What jumps out at me in both types of approaches is the assertion that it is NOT talking about something in the Lord's recovery, and yet the document is heavily studded throughout with the phrase "in the Lord's recovery". In fact, "in the Lord's recovery" is repeated 21 times, and "Lord's recovery" and "His recovery" are there an additional 16 times in other various forms for a total of almost FORTY REFERENCES to the Lord's recovery in a proclamation that claims that its contents are not talking about something in the Lord's recovery.......

The title of the One Publication DOES say "in the Lord's recovery". "The Lord's recovery" is the backdrop against which the One Publication is painted, it is the setting upon which is couched, it is the overarching theme from which it cannot be divorced. I am not making that claim in a vacuum.....the almost 40 references to the Lord's recovery within the document itself make that undeniable.

Hi Trapped. I commend you for restricting yourself to the One Publication.

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

I’m not done but I’ll pause as I would if we were speaking face to face. Does the paragraph above make sense? Good so far?

Thx
Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped. I commend you for restricting yourself to the One Publication.

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

I’m not done but I’ll pause as I would if we were speaking face to face. Does the paragraph above make sense? Good so far?

Thx
Drake

Drake,

I am so glad you brought up 1 Corinthians 14:8 because this has helped me so much to see even more how Biblical phrases are taken, twisted, and misapplied.

Those verses in 1 Corinthians 14 are about the measure of the profitability of speaking being contingent upon the clarity of that speaking. The example of a trumpet in battle, just like the preceding example of a flute or harp in a non-military setting, is simply to show that if what is expressed is not clear, people don't know what to do with it or how to respond.

The trumpet is the speaking (in tongues (?) or with a word "easy to understand" that accompanies the tongues) in a meeting. The emphasis in those verses also has absolutely nothing to do with a restriction on the number of musical instruments (i.e. the "one trumpet"), but rather, an exhortation concerning the clarity or the "certainness" of the sound produced. It is about the quality of the sound, not the number of the instruments.

Since the trumpet is the speaking, it is worthy to note that Paul says he desires that we ALL speak in tongues and prophesy (1 Cor. 14:5). This chapter would then seem to indicate that there can be many trumpets, as long as they are certain in sound and express themselves becomingly and in an orderly way (1 Cor. 14:40). He does NOT say that there should only be one speaking ("one trumpet"), just that there be an order to the speaking.

I disagree with your statement that the army is for the churches. The army IS the church.

I can be sufficiently on board with the rest where you differentiate between the Lord's recovery being all the churches versus the ministry being one part of it.

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I can be sufficiently on board with the rest where you differentiate between the Lord's recovery being all the churches versus the ministry being one part of it.

Trapped

Good, Trapped, because that was a main point.

Understand that in trying to help answer your inquiry about two apparently contradictory statements in a single document I am conveying the authors (plural) thoughts in context. They are not contradictory in my understanding but they are in yours so this is a conversation to give my best shot at explaining how I see it and then you can do what you like with it.

So, to that end, besides the part you understand quoted above do you also understand how Brother Lee used the analogy of an trumpet to assemble an army with no uncertain sounding as the ministry (trumpet) with One Publication (as the uncertain component) and how that “sounding” is a call to the churches to assemble (as an army) for battle?

If so, from the base note last section do you also understand how Brother Lee made the distinction of an army in a country as being distinct in purpose and function from the civilians though both are part of the same country?

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the analogy. In this conversation between us it doesn’t even matter if you accept the application of I Corinthians 14:8 in the analogy. All that matters is if you understand how the author understood and explained it.

I’ll pause here for your confirmation before proceeding. So far, we have only discussed one of the contradictory statements but once we understand this one we will juxtapose with the other.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Trapped

It's not true 40 times over. The title of the One Publication DOES say "in the Lord's recovery". "The Lord's recovery" is the backdrop against which the One Publication is painted, it is the setting upon which is couched, it is the overarching theme from which it cannot be divorced. I am not making that claim in a vacuum.....the almost 40 references to the Lord's recovery within the document itself make that undeniable.

Excellent! Getting there...getting there...and...

Originally Posted by Trapped

I disagree with your statement that the army is for the churches. The army IS the church.

Bingo!

Our friend Drake wants us to believe The One Publication was produced in a vacuum. He also wants us to believe that it was written by some people who are merely employees of a publishing company. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Let us never forget what the true mandate of Living Stream Ministry really is. It is a California corporation whose sole purpose to be "brother Lee's continuation". The leadership of this California corporation is composed of men who have sworn total allegiance to the person and work of Witness Lee. They have dubbed themselves as "The Blended Brothers". These men function very much like the college of Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church (sans the funny hats!) These are the men who produced The One Publication.

Drake would also have us believe that the Living Stream Ministry is a separate entity from "the local churches". This is even farther from the truth than the myth of LSM simply being a publishing company. The leaders of LSM ARE THE LEADERS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH OF WITNESS LEE. These men dictate what will and will not be disseminated and "fellowshipped" in the various local churches. No local church is considered as "a genuine local church" without following the dictates from these Blended Brothers. Again, to be clear, these are the men who produced the One Publication.

Carry on Trapped, you're doing a great job. Just be careful of letting Drake take you down one of his bottomless rabbit holes.
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Good, Trapped, because that was a main point.

Understand that in trying to help answer your inquiry about two apparently contradictory statements in a single document I am conveying the authors (plural) thoughts in context. They are not contradictory in my understanding but they are in yours so this is a conversation to give my best shot at explaining how I see it and then you can do what you like with it.

So, to that end, besides the part you understand quoted above do you also understand how Brother Lee used the analogy of an trumpet to assemble an army with no uncertain sounding as the ministry (trumpet) with One Publication (as the uncertain component) and how that “sounding” is a call to the churches to assemble (as an army) for battle?

If so, from the base note last section do you also understand how Brother Lee made the distinction of an army in a country as being distinct in purpose and function from the civilians though both are part of the same country?

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the analogy. In this conversation between us it doesn’t even matter if you accept the application of I Corinthians 14:8 in the analogy. All that matters is if you understand how the author understood and explained it.

I’ll pause here for your confirmation before proceeding. So far, we have only discussed one of the contradictory statements but once we understand this one we will juxtapose with the other.

Drake

Drake!

This is so fascinating. So, so fascinating!

Of course since my neurons and synapses fire similarly to everyone else's, I do understand mentally the analogy you describe. The problem is the analogy draws from something other than the One Publication: the Bible. And in reading the portion of the scriptures that it draws from, the analogy literally just isn't there. If the very foundation of the analogy falls apart at the outset (i.e. there is no such thing as "the one trumpet" based upon the very verses from which the trumpet motif is taken), what on earth is the point in trying to build anything upon it?!

If I took 1 Corinthians 14:7 and said "since there is a flute and a harp there must be an orchestra. We must have the one flute in the one orchestra for the one symphony in the Lord's recovery. Please note that if you do not play in this one orchestra, it does not mean you are not a musician, but who should ever listen to your music if you are not in the one orchestra? There is no benefit there and any sound you produce must be carefully discerned before listening." And the One Publication became a proclamation that the saints in the churches should only buy CDs and mp3s of the music put out by the "One Orchestra". What would you do?

I hope you would say, "Whoa, whoa......hold on. There is no "One Orchestra". The verses are not talking about having an orchestra! It's talking about speaking in an orderly way in the meetings. I'm not going to go buy a tuba and learn how to play the tuba because brother Lee misapplied or overapplied the analogy of the sound of a flute when Paul was comparing the sound it made to the sound of a believer's sharing in a meeting!"

Same concept for the army. If you wouldn't entertain the concept of a One Orchestra based on 1 Cor. 14:7, why entertain the concept of a one trumpet being the One Publication based on 1 Cor. 14:8?

Now I understand other posters' reference to the king without clothes. It's like......."psssst....but....they're not there! The clothes aren't there! The analogy, the inference, the extrapolation......it isn't there! Why is there a big gathering and parade and push to celebrate the king's clothes when there are no clothes? Why are we being "called" by brother Lee to gather around the extrapolation of an analogy that isn't there and that the Lord isn't calling us to?"

It is so fascinating. There are some people for whom all things must make logical sense in order to build upon it. There are others who can dismiss the logic and keep building. I am the former. I cannot do the latter.

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I do understand mentally the analogy you describe. The problem is the analogy draws from something other than the One Publication: the Bible.

Trapped, its promising that you understand the analogy ... and we are discussing the One Publication and how the author used the analogy having drawn it from the Bible. Read the last section of that base note.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Same concept for the army. If you wouldn't entertain the concept of a One Orchestra based on 1 Cor. 14:7, why entertain the concept of a one trumpet being the One Publication based on 1 Cor. 14:8?

But here I need clarification. Do you want me to offer an explanation on what you perceive as two contradictory statements ... or do you prefer to abandon that in favor of debating the merits of the analogy.

Either way is okay by me.

thanks
Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped, its promising that you understand the analogy ... and we are discussing the One Publication and how the author used the analogy having drawn it from the Bible. Read the last section of that base note.

But here I need clarification. Do you want me to offer an explanation on what you perceive as two contradictory statements ... or do you prefer to abandon that in favor of debating the merits of the analogy.

Either way is okay by me.

thanks
Drake

Drake,

Continue in your explanation. The foundation of the analogy drawn is unsupported, but I will "suspend belief" in order to hear your explanation through to the end. We can get into the analogy, or other issues that come up, later.

Thanks,

Trapped

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Read the last section of that base note.

Drake, what is the base note?

[byHismercy]

How about the One Publication is simply not scriptural?

1Cor. 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when you come together, every one of you has a psalm, has a doctrine, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to edifying.

How can everybody bring an interpretation of scripture if it is 'preinterpreted' by Lee? I know this sounds crazy to the LCers but the interpretation the body requires for edification is of Gods' word, not the word of Witness Lee. And not holy scriptures deciphered for all by king lee.

Drake and LSM are trying to feed Gods' children a lie. The army, Gods' army, is composed of those who hear the trumpet call which lies within the domain of the one publication? What a load of horse apples. According to Drake there are they in the Lords Recovery who heed the call and enter into the Lords Army while the rest of the believers are the civilians!?! I tell you, anyone teaching this is going to fall on their face before the Lord Christ someday and repent for this.

The more I learn about the system I escaped, the more I pity those inside.

To Lee and LSM I say this,..........1Cor. 14:36 WHAT? CAME THE WORD OF GOD OUT FROM YOU? OR CAME IT TO YOU ONLY?

byHismercy

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, to that end, besides the part you understand quoted above do you also understand how Brother Lee used the analogy of an trumpet to assemble an army with no uncertain sounding as the ministry (trumpet) with One Publication (as the uncertain component) and how that “sounding” is a call to the churches to assemble (as an army) for battle?

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the analogy. In this conversation between us it doesn’t even matter if you accept the application of I Corinthians 14:8 in the analogy. All that matters is if you understand how the author understood and explained it.

Drake, we all full well understamd this misguided analogy.

If Lee wanted to effectively communicate with his "army" of certain saints inside all of the LC's, there are more effective means. Does the US military shut down all media outlets to communicate with their army? Of course not!

If Lee or the Blendeds wanted targeted communications to their "soldiers," there are all forms of communications which are far superior. Think special meetings, group emails, mass mailings, text messages, podcasts, video conferencing, etc.

Silencing other voices, on the contrary, are the tactics of totalitarian regimes. They demand control over all information. They become threatened by other voices, especially those which sound harmoniously and symphonically clear as compared to the oftentimes muddled and conflicted sounds from LSM.

Drake, you constantly claim that opposers to LSM take their words "out of context." Think about what Lee did to Apostle Paul's words here. The context was confusion in church gatherings resulting from tongues. Instead LSM has used this over the years to excommunicate their own people. How does that make sense?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, you constantly claim that opposers to LSM take their words "out of context." Think about what Lee did to Apostle Paul's words here. The context was confusion in church gatherings resulting from tongues. Instead LSM has used this over the years to excommunicate their own people. How does that make sense?

Yes, I always associated 1Cor14 with "whenever you come together each one has" but this interpretation turns it on its head. Now it seems only "the apostle" has and everyone else needs to make sure they are being directed by him. I could understand if they were emphasizing to be directed by the Lord or the Holy Spirit, but why make some man the director?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

Let me remind the readers, that when it comes to "uncertain sounds" from the "trumpet of the ministry," if is LSM which reeks of conflicts and uncertainty.

Let me provide some LC history: After Lee passed away in 1997, Titus Chu in Cleveland tried to work together with LSM according to W. Lee's own vision and direction. Titus Chu had every Midwest worker and elder read all of Lee's pertinent books related to crucial items concerning "the work, the workers, the ministry, etc." Reams of documents were produced and studied by Midwest leaders. Titus Chu looked up to W. Lee as his "spiritual father," and earnestly desired to continue in his footsteps. TC hand delivered these documents to leading Blendeds for further fellowship. To the best of their knowledge, everything was thrown into the garbage. The Blendeds had no desire to fellowship.

These documents of quotes taken from LSM's own books showed that Lee himself was all over the map concerning these topics. His own quotes one day could be extremely generous, and on another day extremely controlling. Take "Publications" for example. Sometimes Lee encouraged other brothers to write, other times he shut them all down. He fluctuated like the weather in Ohio -- "if you don't like it, just wait a minute, and it will change."

Talk about uncertain sounds of a trumpet! There was nothing certain when it came to the ministry and direction of Lee! He often ministered on whims, like riding the winds and waves of a tempest in the LC teacup. It's like he was speaking in tongues and only the Blendeds could "properly" interpret! Lee manufactured crises, and then manufactured teachings to explain his crises. The history of Lee is filled with these stories. The call for battle from Lee and LSM was never positive. Rather every call to battle signaled another round of excommunications!

That's why Drake has little credibility here. Posters like Trapped, leastofthese, ZNP, and UntoHim regularly dismantle his faulty logic built on sinking sand. Read his posts carefully and you will identify the deceptive mindsets that caused us all to flee that system of error.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Trapped. I commend you for restricting yourself to the One Publication.

This whole topic is centered on I Corinthians 14:8.... an example there of a battle conducted on a military field. No uncertain sounding of the trumpet. What Brother Lee explained in the last section of the base note is that the ministry is for calling an army to battle. Not everyone is, will be, or wants to respond to that trumpet. Not every American will serve in the military. The army is for the churches but the churches are not required to respond the battle trumpet. They are still genuine churches regardless of their response. So he says we are not talking about something in the Lords recovery (which includes ALL the churches), rather we are talking about the ministry aspect of the Lords recovery. Since the ministry is clearly one part of the Lords recovery and by saying we are talking about something in the ministry and not in the Lords recovery, he is saying the sounding is not for every part of the Lords recovery (ALL the churches).

I’m not done but I’ll pause as I would if we were speaking face to face. Does the paragraph above make sense? Good so far?

Thx
Drake

I can see that Trapped is just "itchin" so in the modus and spirit of dialogue vs speeches.... and of the spirit of Bereans vs. Diotrephes let's continue here. Thanks for your patience.

To recap... my summary explanation above is based on the contents of the opening post, where in the last section, Brother Lee borrows the analogy of an army .. and a military trumpet wherein the sound or notes/tune conveys the specific call to action, in this case to battle. In this analogy the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, gospel outreach materials, ministry magazine etc. However, regardless of the two most prominent authors, or the other authors, or the variety of "target markets" they each address yet they all have the same "sound" that is, they all convey the same mission, beliefs, truths, and practices to which they have been entrusted by the Lord though their specific focus though emphasis will vary.

I believe Trapped that you will not dispute the point that they are of the same "sound" though in so saying, I'm also certain you don't agree with the analogy, the "sound", or its meaning. Yet again, for our discussion, you nor anyone else are requested to believe it.... rather, it is only relevant that you understand that is what the author (Brother Lee) meant to convey. If you don't think that is what the author meant to convey then explain and we can camp out here for a spell. Else we can probably move on to what you deem a "contradictory statement".

One more thing bears repeating because it is often misunderstood and misstated in this forum. Whether a local church accepts or rejects the ministry and its sounding and its mission does not determine whether it is a local church or not. Brother Lee made that perfectly clear as follows in the opening post:

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church............ The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry."

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

To recap... my summary explanation above is based on the contents of the opening post, where in the last section, Brother Lee borrows the analogy of an army .. and a military trumpet wherein the sound or notes/tune conveys the specific call to action, in this case to battle. In this analogy the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, gospel outreach materials, ministry magazine etc.

However, regardless of the two most prominent authors, or the other authors, or the variety of "target markets" they each address yet they all have the same "sound" that is, they all convey the same mission, beliefs, truths, and practices to which they have been entrusted by the Lord though their specific focus though emphasis will vary.

I have continually protested with evidence Drake's and LSM's claim that there is the "same trumpet "sound" in their publications." Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does the early ministry of W. Nee contradict the later ministry of Nee, but the early ministry of W. Lee in the US contradicts the later ministry of Lee. The contradictions of those writings with today's Blendeds at LSM is also readily apparent.

Case in point: just read the Recovery's classic text on The Normal Christian Church Life. Before I left the LC in 2005, I carefully studied TNCCL and compared it detail for detail with Lee's leadership after the "New Way," and the Blended's leadership after Lee's death. Nothing matched. Let me repeat. LSM's leadership of the last 30-40 years is totally unrecognizable when compared to Nee's so-called "definitive" book TNCCL.

Perhaps that explains why seeking Christians avoid LSM, where one time they sought out Lee because he was with Nee.

Whatever LSM "has been entrusted by the Lord" can only be described as incoherent "noise" worse than the babble of strange tongues. Obviously the most senior commanders in Nee's army (Chen, Kaung, et. al.) could not understand these signals, since they all went in a direction different than Lee. And, during the so-called "new way," the most senior commanders in Lee's army (Ingalls, Mallon, Fung, So, et. al.) could not understand these signals either. In more recent times, the most senior commanders in the Blended army, (Chu, Dong, Tomes, et. al.) could not understand these signals either.

In conclusion, perhaps no human should ever be considered the commander-in-chief of the Lord's army. Only He has the real "trumpet." Usurp the Lord's rightful place, and He will scatter the troops.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have continually protested with evidence Drake's and LSM's claim that there is the "same trumpet "sound" in their publications." Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does the early ministry of W. Nee contradict the later ministry of Nee, but the early ministry of W. Lee in the US contradicts the later ministry of Lee. The contradictions of those writings with today's Blendeds at LSM is also readily apparent.

That's amazing - even if you suspend belief and close your eyes to the analogy that doesn't hold up, and pretend "it doesn't matter" if you agree with the analogy, even if you go with the program, it STILL doesn't pan out even based on the structure of it's own analogy!! Fantastic.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

I can see that Trapped is just "itchin" so in the modus and spirit of dialogue vs speeches.... and of the spirit of Bereans vs. Diotrephes let's continue here. Thanks for your patience.

To recap... my summary explanation above is based on the contents of the opening post, where in the last section, Brother Lee borrows the analogy of an army .. and a military trumpet wherein the sound or notes/tune conveys the specific call to action, in this case to battle. In this analogy the trumpet as the instrument blown to sound out the uncertain call to battle, are the publications that are of the same genre, mostly but not exclusively of two authors (Bros Nee and Lee), a few other historical authors (Mary McDonough, Jessie Penn-Lewis; etc.), and the many contributors to Affirmation & Critique, gospel outreach materials, ministry magazine etc. However, regardless of the two most prominent authors, or the other authors, or the variety of "target markets" they each address yet they all have the same "sound" that is, they all convey the same mission, beliefs, truths, and practices to which they have been entrusted by the Lord though their specific focus though emphasis will vary.

I believe Trapped that you will not dispute the point that they are of the same "sound" though in so saying, I'm also certain you don't agree with the analogy, the "sound", or its meaning. Yet again, for our discussion, you nor anyone else are requested to believe it.... rather, it is only relevant that you understand that is what the author (Brother Lee) meant to convey. If you don't think that is what the author meant to convey then explain and we can camp out here for a spell. Else we can probably move on to what you deem a "contradictory statement".

One more thing bears repeating because it is often misunderstood and misstated in this forum. Whether a local church accepts or rejects the ministry and its sounding and its mission does not determine whether it is a local church or not. Brother Lee made that perfectly clear as follows in the opening post:

"Whether or not a certain church takes the ministry does not decide whether that church is a genuine local church............ The ministry is altogether filled up with a fighting spirit. I do not control any church. All the saints who have left the denominations, the divisive sects, and stand on the proper ground are a local church in their locality. They can express their opinions, but they may have nothing to do with this ministry."

Drake

The trumpet is not about having the SAME sound. It is about having a CERTAIN (as opposed to uncertain) sound. Whatever sound you put out, whether flute, or harp, or trumpet, it needs to be certain.

That's a cute quote but the ellipses is telling. It also doesn't mean much to have a few sentences with an accepting tone of generality that are surrounded by paragraphs upon paragraphs of the dead opposite.

This is what is missing:

The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that.

We have already gone over the claim that the message does not refer to the Lord's recovery, which is a blatant lie 40 times over.

But what on earth does "..when you get into the army....you lose your right to say anything" mean? I can see why you skipped over that. Where in the flip is the Biblical basis for that? All this does is to make sure to shut up the saints who disagree with this ridiculous proclamation but are fearful to leave over it.

ANY ministry that is worth ANYTHING should be able to stand up to opinion and question. The Lord did not run from opinion or question. LSM/Lee/BB's are actually stating the truth when they say "the ministry has no capacity for that [opinion]". Yes, the ministry genuinely and truly has no capacity for anything but blind, unquestioning, unthinking obeisance. It truly has no capacity to handle anything but it's own echo chamber.

Continue on with your explanation. Thanks.

Trapped

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The trumpet is not about having the SAME sound. It is about having a CERTAIN (as opposed to uncertain) sound. Whatever sound you put out, whether flute, or harp, or trumpet, it needs to be certain.

That's a cute quote but the ellipses is telling. It also doesn't mean much to have a few sentences with an accepting tone of generality that are surrounded by paragraphs upon paragraphs of the dead opposite.

This is what is missing:

The title of this message does not say “no uncertain sounding of the trumpet in the Lord’s recovery” but “in the Lord’s ministry.” I am not talking about something in the Lord’s recovery, but I am talking about the ministry. The citizens of the United States may say many things to criticize the government and the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. But when you get into the army and become a soldier, you lose your right to say anything. It is possible to argue, debate, and even fight in the Senate, but even when the senators get in the army and become soldiers, they have to be quiet. There is no uncertain sounding in the army. The ministry is not like the Senate. The ministry is not a Congress for anyone to come here to express his opinion. The ministry has no capacity for that.

We have already gone over the claim that the message does not refer to the Lord's recovery, which is a blatant lie 40 times over.

But what on earth does "..when you get into the army....you lose your right to say anything" mean? I can see why you skipped over that. Where in the flip is the Biblical basis for that? All this does is to make sure to shut up the saints who disagree with this ridiculous proclamation but are fearful to leave over it.

ANY ministry that is worth ANYTHING should be able to stand up to opinion and question. The Lord did not run from opinion or question. LSM/Lee/BB's are actually stating the truth when they say "the ministry has no capacity for that [opinion]". Yes, the ministry genuinely and truly has no capacity for anything but blind, unquestioning, unthinking obeisance. It truly has no capacity to handle anything but it's own echo chamber.

Continue on with your explanation. Thanks.

Trapped

Trapped,

Before moving on we need to clarify what is meant by these comments.

I am not really sure we are disagreeing on the uncertain sound vs sound. It seems the same to me.... whether you are thinking about the trumpet of the tribes of Israel at say Jericho... a horn with a certain sound (a ram's horn)... or you are referring to modern military trumpet with a certain tune fit for purpose (e.g. charge, taps, wake up). What is the distinction you are making here? In either case, the sound or sounding of the trumpet in the example is the same.

On the second point, I don't see any "blatant lie 40 times over". Where in the authors explanation (Brother Lee's) of the trumpet, the sound, the ministry, the analogy of an army, is a blatant lie 40 times over? Point it out using the text of Brother Lee's words. That is what we are discussing at this time. Don't just make an accusation like that without substantiating it....we are having a conversation aren't we?.... we have his words in front of us so do the due diligence and show us exactly where. Just clip it and insert it and bold it. No need to accuse me of leaving out something like I’m trying to hide something. The full text or the relevant parts say exactly the same thing. If not, show me where it differs.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped,

Before moving on we need to clarify what is meant by these comments.

I am not really sure we are disagreeing on the uncertain sound vs sound. It seems the same to me.... whether you are thinking about the trumpet of the tribes of Israel at say Jericho... a horn with a certain sound (a ram's horn)... or you are referring to modern military trumpet with a certain tune fit for purpose (e.g. charge, taps, wake up). What is the distinction you are making here? In either case, the sound or sounding of the trumpet in the example is the same.

The distinction I am making is on the emphasis. You (LSM/Lee/whoever) see's "trumpet" and hyperfocus on the fact that there is one and only one trumpet. Where from the verses does the focus on the attribute of singularity come from? Why not focus on what type of metal the trumpet may be made of? Why not focus on what note the trumpet probably played? The focus needs to be what is presented in the verses themselves.......the quality (certainness) of the sound. You can have a bunch of trumpets making the same uncertain sound.....it is all the same but it's all uncertain in the same way. The point is not the sameness as you described, it's the certainness. See my post #277.

I told you I would suspend belief on the analogy but on this point I stopped suspending belief about the analogy, so that's "my bad". You can respond to this point or not.

Originally Posted by Drake

On the second point, I don't see any "blatant lie 40 times over". Where in the authors explanation (Brother Lee's) of the trumpet, the sound, the ministry, the analogy of an army, is a blatant lie 40 times over? Point it out using the text of Brother Lee's words. That is what we are discussing at this time. Don't just make an accusation like that without substantiating it....we are having a conversation aren't we?.... we have his words in front of us so do the due diligence and show us exactly where. Just clip it and insert it and bold it.

Drake

I did not say the trumpet, sound, ministry, army is a blatant lie 40 times over. I said the claim that what is being talked about does not involve the Lord's recovery is a lie 40 times over. I detailed this in post #273.

Trapped

[Drake]

Trapped,

Three things to discuss based on your last few points. First, this one.

Originally Posted by Trapped

The distinction I am making is on the emphasis. You (LSM/Lee/whoever) see's "trumpet" and hyperfocus on the fact that there is one and only one trumpet. Where from the verses does the focus on the attribute of singularity come from? Why not focus on what type of metal the trumpet may be made of? Why not focus on what note the trumpet probably played

No, Brother Lee’s emphasis was very much on the “sounding”. My explanation of a rams horn or a modern military trumpet also focused on the sound, tone, or series of notes. I said more about the trumpet than Brother Lee did in the opening post but the analogy was never about type of metal or things you mentioned. By singularity you mean why can’t there be many trumpets... why just one.... using the analogy of an army on the field of battle having many trumpets blasting out different tunes and sounds would cause confusion and disarray.

Again, you may not agree with the analogy but that is plainly what Brother Lee said.

Drake