Challenging Ed Marks regarding apology letter to Phillip Lee

I am going to be meeting and eating with one of the signatories of the letter from the Anaheim elders apologizing to Phillip Lee. Can someone please provide me with a copy of that letter on this site so that I can ask this brother to explain his side of this.

Thanks

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am going to be meeting and eating with one of the signatories of the letter from the Anaheim elders apologizing to Phillip Lee. Can someone please provide me with a copy of that letter on this site so that I can ask this brother to explain his side of this.

Thanks

I found the letter at this link: http://www.unfaithfulwitness.org/PhilipLeeLetter.pdf

Originally Posted by Freedom

I found the letter at this link: http://www.unfaithfulwitness.org/PhilipLeeLetter.pdf

Thank you, I printed out a copy of the letter and gave it to Ed.

I ate dinner at the church in NY tonight along with Ed Marks. I knew Ed from Houston, we were both in the church in Houston in 1978-1980, then we both went to Irving together during the construction of the meeting hall there. All in all we were together for 4 1/2 years. 3 years in Houston and 1 1/2 years in Irving. While in Houston Ed gave me his car.

So when I heard he was going to be here I wanted to get his side of the story about the letter he signed apologizing to Phillip Lee. I met Phillip Lee while in Irving. He invited me and about 12 other brothers to go for "fellowship". We sat and watched him eat lobster at a very expensive Chinese restaurant. When I returned to the worksite I realized he needed the 12 of us so that he could expense the trip as "fellowship with the workers on the Irving hall". It was very clear to me that PL was a lascivious, gluttonous, deceitful man.

So I asked Ed what his side of the story was concerning this letter. He told me that there is always another side. I told him surely you can tell me now what it is, that was 30 years ago. He said that he was "a monkey" and held his hands to his eyes and then his ears. I told him I would never assume that, I reminded him that he was mentored by Dirk Engels and George Farmer. I told him those brothers were serious brothers. He told me that PL "had gone to be with the Lord". I said that I was not there to speak negatively of PL, rather I wanted to hear his side of why he signed that letter. He said he didn't know anything. I told him that one of the sisters that was abused by PL had come to Houston, he had to have known, this wasn't the first time it happened, John Ingalls and the other brothers had excommunicated him after warning him. He said that "Witness Lee was very happy with that letter."

Shortly after this Dennis Cooley, a brother who has been in the leadership of the church in NY for about 20 years and a brother I know very well (I lived with his brother in a brother's house in Odessa Texas) pulled me aside. He was angry that I talked to Ed. I told him I've known Ed since he first came into the church life and I wanted to ask him a question and this is the first time I have seen him since this event happened. He wanted to know if I had some kind of agenda to disrupt the meeting, I told him I had no idea that Ed was coming until yesterday when it was announced in the meeting (I had just happened to visit, the first time in about 10 years). Dennis said that Ed doesn't want to deal with this now. I said this has been 30 years, when are you going to deal with it? I can understand 3 months after the event you don't want to deal with it because you don't have all the facts, but at some point you have to deal with it. Dennis asked that I leave and not attend the fellowship, so I left.

I understand that you cannot judge someone for a mistake they made the moment they make the mistake, but at some point it is time to say "I made a mistake". The Lord Jesus died on the cross to deal with sin. He treats the matter of dealing with sin very seriously. For Ed, or the elders in Anaheim, or for the leaders in the Lord's Recovery to pretend that they can ignore sin, pretend they don't see it, pretend they don't hear it is an insult to the Lord Jesus. Surely God the father will not wink at this sin.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thank you, I printed out a copy of the letter and gave it to Ed...

Thank you for taking the time to share this. It really does provide some valuable insight. Like you said, after 30 years, there is no reason why leaders couldn’t answer to their past actions, whether it’s in defense or to repent. For Ed Marks to admit that he was just “a monkey”, that he “didn’t know anything”, and that “Witness Lee was very happy with the letter” is all I needed to hear. That is neither a defense of nor a repentance for his actions. It’s Ed saying that he doesn’t care, that making WL happy was more important than anything else. His response really says it all about what took place and the attitudes that leaders maintain to this day.

When I re-read the letter yesterday, I couldn’t help but notice the dates – 1993 being when the “unsigned” letter went out and 1996 when the final signed copy was written. If all of the “replacement elders” felt PL’s excommunication wasn’t “justified or proper”, then why did they wait so many years to overturn it? They became elders in 89/90, so it took three years and then another three years to create a final letter. Anyways, it seems unlikely that the letter was anything they initiated, otherwise there would have been no reason to wait so long. As far as I’m concerned there was likely someone pressuring them (WL???), and if nothing else, that letter was written to make WL happy.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Shortly after this Dennis Cooley, a brother who has been in the leadership of the church in NY for about 20 years and a brother I know very well (I lived with his brother in a brother's house in Odessa Texas) pulled me aside. He was angry that I talked to Ed. I told him I've known Ed since he first came into the church life and I wanted to ask him a question and this is the first time I have seen him since this event happened. He wanted to know if I had some kind of agenda to disrupt the meeting, I told him I had no idea that Ed was coming until yesterday when it was announced in the meeting (I had just happened to visit, the first time in about 10 years). Dennis said that Ed doesn't want to deal with this now. I said this has been 30 years, when are you going to deal with it? I can understand 3 months after the event you don't want to deal with it because you don't have all the facts, but at some point you have to deal with it. Dennis asked that I leave and not attend the fellowship, so I left.

This is the general attitude. There's a period of time the brothers don't want to talk about it and after that time passes it's considered ancient history. Let the past be in the past.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So I asked Ed what his side of the story was concerning this letter. He told me that there is always another side. I told him surely you can tell me now what it is, that was 30 years ago. He said that he was "a monkey" and held his hands to his eyes and then his ears. I told him I would never assume that, I reminded him that he was mentored by Dirk Engels and George Farmer. I told him those brothers were serious brothers. He told me that PL "had gone to be with the Lord". I said that I was not there to speak negatively of PL, rather I wanted to hear his side of why he signed that letter. He said he didn't know anything. I told him that one of the sisters that was abused by PL had come to Houston, he had to have known, this wasn't the first time it happened, John Ingalls and the other brothers had excommunicated him after warning him.

‘Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.

Leviticus 5:1 is not saying we should be like monkeys; "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". In the church, there's no place for politics.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Terry

‘Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.

Leviticus 5:1 is not saying we should be like monkeys; "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil". In the church, there's no place for politics.

Part of being a good leader is making responsible decisions and living up to the consequences of those decisions. Most people understand that leaders will make mistakes along the way. I believe that all leaders, especially church leaders, should be willing to stand behind their decisions and own up to their mistakes.

With that in mind, I must say that I find Ed’s response unacceptable. As an elder of the church in Anaheim, he signed a letter concerning matters that were no small issue. Thus, his signature is not something that he or anyone else should take lightly. I do not consider it unreasonable at all to ask for an explanation regarding his signature on the letter to PL.

Even 30 years later, he should still be willing to either stand behind his decision or admit to making a mistake. That’s part of being an accountable leader. If he truly believes that his signature was justified, then there is no reason why he couldn’t argue his case. Likewise, if he feels that his signature was a mistake, there is no reason why he couldn’t come forth and admit that. For him, as a prominent LC leader to admit to just being “a monkey” is unacceptable. His response should be of concern to any LC member who sees him as a leader worth following. I don’t find anything admirable in leaders who boast about being able to see no evil, hear no evil or speak no evil.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Part of being a good leader is making responsible decisions and living up to the consequences of those decisions. Most people understand that leaders will make mistakes along the way. I believe that all leaders, especially church leaders, should be willing to stand behind their decisions and own up to their mistakes.

With that in mind, I must say that I find Ed’s response unacceptable. As an elder of the church in Anaheim, he signed a letter concerning matters that were no small issue. Thus, his signature is not something that he or anyone else should take lightly. I do not consider it unreasonable at all to ask for an explanation regarding his signature on the letter to PL.

Even 30 years later, he should still be willing to either stand behind his decision or admit to making a mistake. That’s part of being an accountable leader. If he truly believes that his signature was justified, then there is no reason why he couldn’t argue his case. Likewise, if he feels that his signature was a mistake, there is no reason why he couldn’t come forth and admit that. For him, as a prominent LC leader to admit to just being “a monkey” is unacceptable. His response should be of concern to any LC member who sees him as a leader worth following. I don’t find anything admirable in leaders who boast about being able to see no evil, hear no evil or speak no evil.

Matt 18:1-4

I think it is very difficult for many of those on these forums to put themselves into Ed's shoes. How difficult it must be to replace JI. When you are a new Christian life is simple, right is right, wrong is wrong. But when you become a "leader", especially in someplace under the microscope like Anaheim you have to weigh every single word, action, deed. It is as though your Christian walk now requires a Phd in calculus. You have to weigh the impact of every word, the unintended consequences, how will this be perceived, etc. And you need a second degree in the intricacies of the the byzantine world you now find yourself in, perhaps a Francis Ball to guide you through the mine field.

But in reality we all have these experiences, to one degree or another. We are faced with deciding what to do, and it can be totally exhausting. At one point in our life we may have thought how smart we were to have arrived at this exalted position, but now later on it just seems exhausting. Because you can't please everyone is going to always be true.

How do you know what the right path is? In my experience whenever I think of taking the cross it always causes me to sweat blood. The Lord actually told me in July that I needed to return to the LC meeting, and I have been sweating bullets of blood ever since. It took me three months to comply. I went many other places until I finally felt cornered and had to comply. The cross is a simple choice, a terrifying choice, but simple. And why would the Lord want me to return if not that He cares about Ed's salvation? The Lord gave me a chance to repay my debt to Ed. Praise Him.

On the other hand there are fancy calculations and mind blowing logic that can justify taking any other path. And even though those calculations always result in this bizarre calculus where certain interests that you never ever considered when you were just a babe in Christ now get taken out to infinity whereas the concerns for the "lost sheep" is run to 0. How to justify that? Something about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, kind of like Noah building a boat. If we don't build this boat everyone dies, but if we do at least some survive. If we save just 1 it is infinitely better than 0. The little innocent babes in the church don't understand this, they don't understand the grief that these elders and leaders take, the inward struggle, the pain, all "for the greater good".

And you hear from so many different voices. In my experience the words from the Lord are rebuking, they wound the soul, yet somehow I love them because I know they are faithful and that He is the one I can trust. All the other voices are telling me how I don't have to go to the cross, I don't have to have this happen, think of the pain you would cause your mother, and to others you care about, etc.

But when you do choose the cross it is as though someone flipped the switch. All those who spoke so kindly are now gnashing on you, skinning you alive, screaming for blood while within you just feel wonderful. A great sense of peace. A great sense of clarity comes over you, then you realize hey, don't cry for me, this judgment you see me enduring it is coming on all of us. It is so much better to embrace it, choose it, what better place to meet the Lord than on Golgotha? And, whereas before all you felt was shame, now you sense glory. To choose to take the path to the cross is something that separates the genuine believers from all the posers.

I realize that when Ed says "there is always another side" this is what he is referring to and I also realize that when the Lord said "unless you become as children" this is what He was referring to.

The Christian life is simple, terrifying, but simple. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and in the end the only one we are accountable to is the Lord Jesus. The only one we will have to answer to is the Lord Jesus. If you want to be a servant of Christ you won't be able to be a person who pleases man. It is a simple choice. You can take the path that listens to those who will promise you the world in exchange for your soul, or you can take the path of the one who paid the ultimate price to save your soul.

[NewManLiving]

Dear Brother,

Do you really think you will be received back into the LC fold with open arms after your dinner confrontation? You were asked not to attend the meeting. Do you think this is something temporary? If I understand you correctly you have not been there in ten years. They have not repented in 30 years and by Ed's response to you the monkey is still there. In my opinion you are now a marked man no matter who your friends are and you will not be warmly welcomed.
Even if they did conditionally allow you to attend, do you honestly think you can turn a blind eye to what you yourself know to be the truth. You would be expected to do that.

Those of us on this forum realize a lot more than you give us credit for. Ed's shoes are no different from anyone else's. He has the same responsibility to be faithful to the truth as any leader in the LC, including those faithful leaders that were slandered for attempting to uphold the truth while Ed and others just covered their ears and eyes to make Witness Lee happy. Ed's statement about where PL went after death is another indication of a problem. We do not know where PL went. We do not know if PL died in the Lord Jesus, or if his death was the result of disipline. If he did not then he assuredly did not go to be "with the Lord". Not in this age or the next.

If the Lord has put this on your heart may His will be done in any case. But I would caution you not to give yourself a cross that the Lord did not give you. While all things do work together for good to those that love God, we sometimes invite our own trouble. May the Lord give us all wisdom!

May we all at every moment look away to the Lord Jesus Christ to be our center and circumference, then we will be content and in peace no matter where we are because we will be found in Him .

May the Lord give you His peace and enjoyment always
John

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think it is very difficult for many of those on these forums to put themselves into Ed's shoes. How difficult it must be to replace JI.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Those of us on this forum realize a lot more than you give us credit for. Ed's shoes are no different from anyone else's. He has the same responsibility to be faithful to the truth as any leader in the LC, including those faithful leaders that were slandered for attempting to uphold the truth while Ed and others just covered their ears and eyes to make Witness Lee happy.

Reading "unregistered's" recent post, I had the impression that he was speaking more about obeying the Lord than actually bearing the cross. Of course, they are very much related, and we can hardly have one without the other.

I too have met Ed over the years, living just a couple miles from where he grew up. He is a precious brother for sure, with so many good things I could say about him.

Unfortunately EM was thoroughly convinced by RG and BP that following Witness Lee was akin to following Jesus Himself. If Lee said something, then the Lord must be saying it. If Lee liked something, then the Lord must be liking it. If Lee judged something, then the Lord must be judging it. I was once there too, so I understand some of the dilemmas he has faced over the years serving at LSM.

Once we confront unrighteousness, however, everything changes for us as children of God. We then must choose between the holy, righteous God and fallen, sinful man. No amount of covering our ears or sticking our head in the sand can save us from this personal accountability. We all have a new covenant conscience (with His laws inscribed) connected to the throne of God. Once we abrogate the responsibility to obey our conscience, then Jesus is no longer our Lord. In His place a man named Lee has been elevated to usurp His throne in man's heart.

In God's infinite mercy, He is longsuffering towards all his children. He will continue to speak that we might obey Him and return to His throne of righteousness. Obedience is crucial. When Jesus walked the earth, the children of Israel faced the exact same struggle while listening to Him. Then Jesus exposed some of their hearts when He said, "I have come in the name of My Father; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that is from the only God?" (John 5.43-44)

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Dear Brother,

Do you really think you will be received back into the LC fold with open arms after your dinner confrontation?

If you are asking me what I think then I think I should be allowed to have a private conversation with a brother that I have known well going back to 1978 without it being characterized as a "dinner confrontation". I was direct. I began the conversation telling Ed I'd heard a lot about him, he said he hoped it was good, and I said "No, it isn't". I was very frank, but I was speaking in love. I was polite, respectful, and put him in remembrance of a time when we were both in one accord. That said, I have no concern over whether or not I will be "received back into the LC fold". This is not my intention. I greeted many saints this last weekend, told them where I meet, shared contact information, and was quite happy to meet many of them again.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

You were asked not to attend the meeting. Do you think this is something temporary? If I understand you correctly you have not been there in ten years. They have not repented in 30 years and by Ed's response to you the monkey is still there. In my opinion you are now a marked man no matter who your friends are and you will not be warmly welcomed.

I was a marked man when the Spirit marked me out. Nothing new.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Even if they did conditionally allow you to attend, do you honestly think you can turn a blind eye to what you yourself know to be the truth. You would be expected to do that.

No one who knows me would expect that. I did not mention this, but Sunday morning when the testimony time came I stood up and spoke. In NY they put up microphones and you have to stand in line. There was a very interesting response from the elders as I stood in that line. I decided many years ago that I was not going to "turn a blind eye to the truth" and have been faithful to that ever since. I can assure you that I have been forthright in speaking to many of these leading ones from my generation.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Those of us on this forum realize a lot more than you give us credit for. Ed's shoes are no different from anyone else's. He has the same responsibility to be faithful to the truth as any leader in the LC,

You need me to credit you? I am no expert on what you do or don't realize. Just point me to the posts that talk about "walking in Ed's shoes" and I'll be able to apprehend what you realize. I have seen 20+ posts that refer to EM (which I understand to be Ed) but in my very limited scan have not seen any that talk about his perspective.

However, in my opinion, the point the Lord is making in Matt 18:1-4 is that we are all leaders, every one of us. As believers we are being trained to rule and reign with Christ. If the Lord says that the greatest in the kingdom is one who is like a little child then how can you distinguish between the "leaders" and everyone else. I think we will have a way to walk back from the precipice if we could understand this.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

including those faithful leaders that were slandered for attempting to uphold the truth while Ed and others just covered their ears and eyes to make Witness Lee happy.

Yes, I think that was my point in my discussion with him. I do hope that he will confess and repent publicly, and I realize how terrifying that would be for him.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

Ed's statement about where PL went after death is another indication of a problem. We do not know where PL went. We do not know if PL died in the Lord Jesus, or if his death was the result of disipline. If he did not then he assuredly did not go to be "with the Lord". Not in this age or the next.

Well at the very least we all know that PL will appear before the Lord's judgement seat and at that point in time he will "be with the Lord" at least until the judgement is handed down. That is for the Lord, not for me, or even for you. That is the least of my concern. PL is no longer a threat to the saints, but elders who behave in the way that these Anaheim elders did are.

Originally Posted by NewManLiving

If the Lord has put this on your heart may His will be done in any case. But I would caution you not to give yourself a cross that the Lord did not give you. While all things do work together for good to those that love God, we sometimes invite our own trouble. May the Lord give us all wisdom!

May we all at every moment look away to the Lord Jesus Christ to be our center and circumference, then we will be content and in peace no matter where we are because we will be found in Him .

May the Lord give you His peace and enjoyment always
John

We are all accountable when we see sin to say so to the brother or sister. I knew Ed, I saw what he did, I wanted to speak to him, and now that I have my burden is released. What he does with it is completely up to him. As I said he has to stand before the Lord for his actions.

[NewManLiving]

Dear brother,

I'm not looking for a fight. Just the truth. You came here searching for an incriminating letter to bring with you to dinner. That is a confrontation, no matter how you dress it up. It ended up causing a problem both for you and Ed. Having a private conversation after so many years is not what happened. Perhaps you did well in "shocking" your brother into some sense. Like I said in my original post, it is "my opinion", and then later, "If it is the Lord's will"; correct? I don't know, and don't presume to know. But I am entitled to look at what just occurred and determine for myself if indeed you were looking to help or hurt your brother. Even If I am wrong. And it stills looks to me like you did not offer much help.

We are all responsible before the Lord. Ed knows this as well as the other brothers. There is not much more anyone needs to know about Ed. His response to you was typical, probably out of embarrassment. Many of us, caught off guard would probably have been digging for something to say as well. That's human nature. That's what makes Ed no different from the rest of us.

Only one other point concerns me. As far as going to be "With the Lord", the bible is very clear about who gets to see the Lord. Without sanctification no one will see Him - that includes you and I. The Lord is also very clear about who gets into the Kingdom - certainly no unrighteousness. And lastly, He is very specific about who gets to reign with Him - If indeed we suffer with Him. Many are called few are chosen. These words were spoken by both Paul and the Lord Jesus to believers, not unbelievers. Even Peter is clear about the difference between stumbling or a glorious entrance into the Kingdom of our Christ.

We would all do well to look away to our forerunner and run the race with all diligence and endurance, forgetting the things which are behind. If the Lord learned obedience through the things which He suffered, we certainly will do the same. There is a very real danger of forfeiting the prize, even the promised rest. I certainly hope PL had a true repentance and change of heart. By the Lord's mercy I was able to do the same


Unfortunately, the LC has left an indelible mark on all of us and we express it many ways. May the Lord have mercy on us all and turn our hearts to see Him as the only means of recovery, including the LC

Thankfully we have a Great High Priest who has passed through the heavens and intercedes for us, one who has been tempted in all things like ourselves and can sympathize with us in our weakness. One who has paved the way for us into the Holy of Holies so that we can come boldly before Him to receive grace and mercy for timely help.

We would all do well to focus on these things - where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. For we have died and our life is hidden in Christ with God - That is truth brother!

Always, Your brother John

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think it is very difficult for many of those on these forums to put themselves into Ed's shoes. How difficult it must be to replace JI. When you are a new Christian life is simple, right is right, wrong is wrong. But when you become a "leader", especially in someplace under the microscope like Anaheim you have to weigh every single word, action, deed. It is as though your Christian walk now requires a Phd in calculus. You have to weigh the impact of every word, the unintended consequences, how will this be perceived, etc. And you need a second degree in the intricacies of the the byzantine world you now find yourself in, perhaps a Francis Ball to guide you through the mine field.

You do have a good point, that is difficult for most of us to place ourselves in Ed's shoes. To that extent, I hope what is posted doesn't come across as being overly judgmental. At the same time, current LC leaders need to be held accountable for their actions as leaders. They don't seem to feel that accountability is of any importance.

Before putting ourselves in Ed's shoes, we should put ourselves in the shoes of JI and the other elders in Anaheim. What seems pretty clear to me is that the situation in the late 80's was going to erupt from the very get-go. When the reports first came in regarding PL's behavior, there wasn't going to be an easy solution. It was either deal with PL and get on the wrong side of WL, or not deal with PL and face a divided church with a large number of members upset. Basically, JI and the other elders were confronted with a situation where it was guaranteed that there would be collateral damage. It seems that before they even had much opportunity to react to the reports of PL, saints had already started raising a ruckus. It was really a lose-lose situation for them, and it is probably fair to say, had other brothers been elders in Anaheim at the time, there would have been a different set of scapegoats. In retrospect, what is significant about everything that happened is that the elders made a decision, and stood behind it, offering plenty of explanation. Everyone knew where they stood and could act accordingly.

When the replacement elders were brought it, I'm afraid they stepped into the shoes of their predecessors without understanding what happened in the first place. Most probably had heard Lee's narrative about a global takeover plot headed by JI et al. If they were simply naive in this way, I cannot blame them for that. It seems, however, at least with Ed, his being an elder was simply a step on the ladder. What is Ed now? He's not an elder anymore. He's a top LC speaker, and a blended coworker. I wouldn't go so far as to outright accuse Ed of using Anaheim as a stepping stone, but I do think that things look that way. Anyways, my point here is that it's hard for me to believe that he was ever just an innocent brother, trying to lead the saints in Anaheim as he best knew how. With the set of replacement elders, it is unclear to what extent they had the best interest of the church in mind. I don't find enough evidence to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Moving on to the PL apology letter, things become even more interesting. Like I mentioned, the replacement elders may have been naive regarding the things that took place before their tenure. Regardless, I'm sure they at least realized that PL was a sensitive issue. After all, the context of the excommunication of PL and subsequent departure of the elders is what opened the positions that they filled. Had the replacement elders been truly opposed to the excommunication, I believe they would have reversed it right away. Many of those disgusted by PL had already left.

Because they waited at least three years to make the announcement and then another three to sign their unsigned letter, I see no indication that it was a decision they were enthusiastic about, rather it seems like they were dragging their feet. The most likely possibility in my mind is that there was external pressure, with the goal to make WL happy. If that were so, it would indicate all the elders were playing politics. Because of the implications of that, I feel they owe everyone either an affirmation or denial of that. It's hard to know exactly what Ed meant when he said he was just a monkey and that all stories have two sides. That too requires explanation on his part. I get that he and the other elders had to fix a church in disarray, and that might be the "other side" to the story. What I don't understand is why they don't come forward with their side of the story.

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I don't understand is why they don't come forward with their side of the story.

I have been reflecting on what took place this week. On one hand I am very thankful to the Lord for this opportunity, ever since I learned of this event I have wanted to talk to Ed about it. I feel I was able to release my burden and that is something that makes me feel much better.

Thinking about Ed I feel he was ashamed about this incident. I don't want to speak for him but that was the sense that I came away with, he did express shame over this. That to me is encouraging because it tells me that his conscience is actively convicting him. I don't know what to think about the "he doesn't want to deal with this now" and questions about whether I was going to bring this up during the meeting. It seems like fear, but again, I don't want to assume too much.

I was very disappointed with Dennis. One key point he brought up was that Brother James had invited Ed here and this meeting was a big deal to Brother James, and they didn't want me to damage that now. Based on my past experience with Brother James (I used to live with him on the weekends when we both stayed at Dunton house for a few years) he was outraged by the entire event with PL. However, this statement from Dennis implies that he is still outraged but wants to wink at that sin for now because he feels it is in the best interest of the church to make some kind of deal with Ed. Since Brother James invited Ed and then I talked to Ed it might appear that Brother James set the entire thing up. I can tell you right now he didn't, the Lord Jesus did. This is a very big disappointment, it appears that the church in NY has lost sight of the Lord and of righteousness. But again, this inference is being pieced together without having council with all of the elders.

What was most disturbing to me was the entire attitude of "how dare you talk to Ed". Ed is not someone of diminished capacity or mentally unstable or going through a great deal of grief at this moment. I could understand if Ed was mourning the loss of a very close relative and the meeting was a memorial service. I could also understand if Ed had been committed to a mental health facility for years and had just been released. In those cases I could understand the outrage as a lack of empathy and the appearance of trying to take advantage of someone at a moment of extreme weakness. But Ed is an Elder of a respected church and has been in that position for 30 years. I am pretty sure he can handle a one on one conversation with me. The actions of Dennis were very clearly in accordance with the wishes of the elders of the church in NY. This was the most cultic action I have ever seen done by this particular church. If I, a person who knew Ed back in 1978-1981, a person who like Ed also was a trainer in the Full Time Training (I in Taipei, Ed in Anaheim), a person who has a close personal relationship with him (so much so that he gave me his car), if I cannot "talk to Ed", then any pretense to fellowship in that church is just that, a pretense.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

You do have a good point, that is difficult for most of us to place ourselves in Ed's shoes. To that extent, I hope what is posted doesn't come across as being overly judgmental. At the same time, current LC leaders need to be held accountable for their actions as leaders. They don't seem to feel that accountability is of any importance.

Before putting ourselves in Ed's shoes, we should put ourselves in the shoes of JI and the other elders in Anaheim.

Great point. And let's not forget all the other victims in the LC's. Especially those volunteer sisters at LSM victimized by Philip Lee.

But let's be honest and fair. Those who actually participated in the coverup, smearing the reputations of those original elders, and bringing gross charges against them in Anaheim -- these ones have the greater sin.

[UntoHim]

To Unregistered. You are a registered member of LCD. If you wish to continue this thread you need to post under your registered UserName. Otherwise let's simply refer the folks here to your postings on the BARM forum.

http://forum.thebereans.net/showthre...m-Elders-to-PL

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To Unregistered. You are a registered member of LCD. If you wish to continue this thread you need to post under your registered UserName. Otherwise let's simply refer the folks here to your postings on the BARM forum.

http://forum.thebereans.net/showthre...m-Elders-to-PL

-

Since the moderator has made it clear that the unregistered poster formerly posted on this forum as ZNPaaneah, I think he should. Why not? His posts were extremely informative.

ZNP has publicly challenged EM to follow the instructions in Matthew 18 and properly take care of past issues related to other brothers. We all should. I think ZNP should follow the same course of action to settle differences with the moderators of this forum.

I for one would welcome his return.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I have been reflecting on what took place this week. On one hand I am very thankful to the Lord for this opportunity, ever since I learned of this event I have wanted to talk to Ed about it. I feel I was able to release my burden and that is something that makes me feel much better.

Thinking about Ed I feel he was ashamed about this incident. I don't want to speak for him but that was the sense that I came away with, he did express shame over this. That to me is encouraging because it tells me that his conscience is actively convicting him. I don't know what to think about the "he doesn't want to deal with this now" and questions about whether I was going to bring this up during the meeting. It seems like fear, but again, I don't want to assume too much.

If anything, I think it's easier to put ourselves in Ed's shoes from the perspective of the present. IF I were Ed, I would be ashamed of my past actions. If that is the case with him, then he has a difficult decision to make. No matter how sheepish or ashamed he feels about what he did, I'm sure he must realize that admitting his mistake in a forthright matter would make him a target. It could destroy his credibility with LC members and put him at odds with his blended peers. So that part I completely understand. It's not by any means an easy position to be in.

Perhaps the biggest mistake Ed made in signing the apology letter, is not his reasons for doing so, but his not considering that they would need to answer to their decision at a later point in time. Now, 30 years later, when Ed is confronted, he doesn't know what to say.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What was most disturbing to me was the entire attitude of "how dare you talk to Ed". Ed is not someone of diminished capacity or mentally unstable or going through a great deal of grief at this moment. I could understand if Ed was mourning the loss of a very close relative and the meeting was a memorial service. I could also understand if Ed had been committed to a mental health facility for years and had just been released. In those cases I could understand the outrage as a lack of empathy and the appearance of trying to take advantage of someone at a moment of extreme weakness. But Ed is an Elder of a respected church and has been in that position for 30 years. I am pretty sure he can handle a one on one conversation with me. The actions of Dennis were very clearly in accordance with the wishes of the elders of the church in NY. This was the most cultic action I have ever seen done by this particular church. If I, a person who knew Ed back in 1978-1981, a person who like Ed also was a trainer in the Full Time Training (I in Taipei, Ed in Anaheim), a person who has a close personal relationship with him (so much so that he gave me his car), if I cannot "talk to Ed", then any pretense to fellowship in that church is just that, a pretense.

2 Cor 4:5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

What I find striking are the implications of how this brother Dennis acted. The church in NYC hosted a visit from Ed. As a brother who travels around and ministers in different LC's, those who host Ed should take Paul's word in 2 Cor 4:5, and view Ed as "your servant" instead of someone who needs bodyguard protection. He's not the president for crying out loud. There is no reason that anyone there couldn't talk to him.

The whole situation with being told that you shouldn't talk to Ed is bizarre and really shows just how twisted the LC has become. Why does an elder need to sit around and supervise who talks to who? I can say that I've seen the same type of thing happen before. I remember this one time I was having a conversation with someone about drums and an elder came and changed the subject (because drums are "worldly". Apparently, freedom of speech doesn't apply in LC meetings, even though LC meetings are often called "open meetings". If nothing else, Ed is completely capable of deciding who he wants to talk to.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What was most disturbing to me was the entire attitude of "how dare you talk to Ed". Ed is not someone of diminished capacity or mentally unstable or going through a great deal of grief at this moment. I could understand if Ed was mourning the loss of a very close relative and the meeting was a memorial service. I could also understand if Ed had been committed to a mental health facility for years and had just been released. In those cases I could understand the outrage as a lack of empathy and the appearance of trying to take advantage of someone at a moment of extreme weakness. But Ed is an Elder of a respected church and has been in that position for 30 years. I am pretty sure he can handle a one on one conversation with me. The actions of Dennis were very clearly in accordance with the wishes of the elders of the church in NY. This was the most cultic action I have ever seen done by this particular church. If I, a person who knew Ed back in 1978-1981, a person who like Ed also was a trainer in the Full Time Training (I in Taipei, Ed in Anaheim), a person who has a close personal relationship with him (so much so that he gave me his car), if I cannot "talk to Ed", then any pretense to fellowship in that church is just that, a pretense.

Having had the preexisting relationship, why couldn't you talk to Ed, but that's besides the point. A brother of his responsibility in LSM and among the local churches considering the number of conferences Ed speaks at, he should be accessible to questions, criticism, or commendation.
Instead Dennis' reaction to our unregistered poster is that one of Ed should have a phalanx of responsible brothers to shield Ed.
It's as if blended brothers are above subjection to direct critical questions. There's willingness to be a "responsible brother", but not wanting all that goes with it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

What I find striking are the implications of how this brother Dennis acted. The church in NYC hosted a visit from Ed. As a brother who travels around and ministers in different LC's, those who host Ed should take Paul's word in 2 Cor 4:5, and view Ed as "your servant" instead of someone who needs bodyguard protection. He's not the president for crying out loud. There is no reason that anyone there couldn't talk to him.

The whole situation with being told that you shouldn't talk to Ed is bizarre and really shows just how twisted the LC has become. Why does an elder need to sit around and supervise who talks to who?

Not so sure I would entirely agree. Every meeting has a certain planned agenda, and for some guest to drop by unexpectedly to query EM about events which happened a quarter century ago is asking quite a bit. Shouldn't a private gathering be a better setting?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not so sure I would entirely agree. Every meeting has a certain planned agenda, and for some guest to drop by unexpectedly to query EM about events which happened a quarter century ago is asking quite a bit. Shouldn't a private gathering be a better setting?

The context of the visit isn't quite clear from what I've read. It sounds like he was visiting, but not for a conference? If it was a private meeting, that's one thing. If it was part of a conference or something, that's different.

I remember a time when RK came to visit the churches in the area to give a conference. He arrived at the meeting a little late, with five or so brothers escorting him. They walked straight up to the front row to their reserved seats. It sent a clear message to me. Ron was off limits. I don't if everyone else felt that way too, but it seemed like his visit was treated in the same way as a celebrity, his only interaction being with the "responsible brothers".

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The context of the visit isn't quite clear from what I've read. It sounds like he was visiting, but not for a conference? If it was a private meeting, that's one thing. If it was part of a conference or something, that's different.

I remember a time when RK came to visit the churches in the area to give a conference. He arrived at the meeting a little late, with five or so brothers escorting him. They walked straight up to the front row to their reserved seats. It sent a clear message to me. Ron was off limits. I don't if everyone else felt that way too, but it seemed like his visit was treated in the same way as a celebrity, his only interaction being with the "responsible brothers".

Interesting. In my region when Ron came to speak he would hang around after the meeting to talk to the small potatoes.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not so sure I would entirely agree. Every meeting has a certain planned agenda, and for some guest to drop by unexpectedly to query EM about events which happened a quarter century ago is asking quite a bit. Shouldn't a private gathering be a better setting?

Yes, you are so right...agree with you entirely. There was this one time, some years back, when a bunch of kids crashed the meeting because they wanted the main speaker to say something nice to them and touch their heads or something. I didn't like it because it just didn't feel right, and we were already falling behind schedule anyway, and so me and the other guys began to beat them back, but the main speaker rebuked us and told us to let them through. I was so mad. Never forgot that, though.

Then, this other time, we were in another meeting, and this woman just butts into the room and falls at the main speakers feet and breaks this really expensive jar of perfumed ointment over him, and starts smearing it all over his feet, and his hands, and...well...you can imagine my indignation. First of all I couldn't believe the sheer waste, and then, of course, this wasn't on the agenda of the meeting at all...I mean...why couldn't she have arranged a private meeting or something...It was all so annoying. I wanted to ask her to leave immediately, but, you know, the main speaker would have none of dat....

Some people just have no sense of decorum!!!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Breezin' Thru

Yes, you are so right...agree with you entirely. There was this one time, some years back, when a bunch of kids crashed the meeting because they wanted the main speaker to say something nice to them and touch their heads or something. I didn't like it because it just didn't feel right, and we were already falling behind schedule anyway, and so me and the other guys began to beat them back, but the main speaker rebuked us and told us to let them through. I was so mad. Never forgot that, though.

Then, this other time, we were in another meeting, and this woman just butts into the room and falls at the main speakers feet and breaks this really expensive jar of perfumed ointment over him, and starts smearing it all over his feet, and his hands, and...well...you can imagine my indignation. First of all I couldn't believe the sheer waste, and then, of course, this wasn't on the agenda of the meeting at all...I mean...why couldn't she have arranged a private meeting or something...It was all so annoying. I wanted to ask her to leave immediately, but, you know, the main speaker would have none of dat....

Some people just have no sense of decorum!!!

All interruptions are not created equally!

Guy busts into a meeting accusing the preacher of stealing his Twinkies when they were back in high school is a little different from a guy busting into a meeting shouting that the place is on fire.

Back to your examples. The first one is self-centered. The second one is Jesus-centered.

Like I said, all interruptions are not created equally.