Shepherding Words "From The Co-Workers In The Lord's Recovery"

[Hannah]

I dont know if this is the right place to put this. But this is a new website addressing all those "rumors" and "lies." https://shepherdingwords.com/

Can you point out the 'misinformation' in this new website?
Thank you.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Hannah

I dont know if this is the right place to put this. But this is a new website addressing all those "rumors" and "lies." https://shepherdingwords.com/

Hannah, thank you for posting this. It is fascinating to see this group spin-doctoring. I for one stand behind every word of my testimony as true. God is true and in Him is no lie. If they want to bury the truth that is up to them, but I think they are on the wrong side of the line. I hope all the saints there innocent of the leaderships' ways and practices are led out by the Lord. I hope they all turn away from the wicked lies and practices and repent. Jesus is merciful! It is not too late.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hannah

I dont know if this is the right place to put this. But this is a new website addressing all those "rumors" and "lies." https://shepherdingwords.com/

These wordsmiths at LSM/DCP are masters at spinning the facts for base gain.

Obviously the recent Facebook activity which spilled over to this forum has raised no small stir among the faithful still held captive in the Recovery.

This website, so called "Shepherding Words," in reality only steers the questioning faithful back to the bondage of Lee-ism. To these readers I can say that I concluded long ago never to trust LSM's version of events. LSM lost all respect when they decided to accuse beloved brother John Ingalls of orchestrating a global conspiracy in order to coverup the sexual transgressions of Philip Lee, who ran LSM for his Dad.

It's really just big business squashing the truth. Too bad none of us has the money to continually develop all of their expensive websites. When they quarantined the Midwest churches, their printing operations developed 28 beautiful booklets, the "attack pack," distributed freely. Same with local training sessions to coach dissidents how to sue their church -- just big business crushing LC's, the little flock of God.

[Hannah]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Can you point out the 'misinformation' in this new website?
Thank you.

Is that a genuine question? Have you allowed yourself to read about any of the items on the website not from the perspective of LSM? LCD is full of first hand accounts, I am relatively new so I wouldn't be able to point you to those.

The cognitive dissonance is so strong in the LC. Just because they say something isnt so, like people are free to meet anywhere, they arent an organization, there is no hierarchy, women are treated the same as men, there has never been a cover-up doesnt change what is actually true. A duck is a duck even if you insist on calling it a frog

[UntoHim]

Please post all responses to the various articles on ShepherdingWords.Com here on this thread

-

[Truthseeker]

What's shepherdingword.com ? Is this website LSM's affliated?

[UntoHim]

Well it says "From the Co-Workers in The Lord’s Recovery in North America", so that would be a pretty big hint that this website is Living Stream Ministry affiliated.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well it says "From the Co-Workers in The Lord’s Recovery in North America", so that would be a pretty big hint that this website is Living Stream Ministry affiliated.
-

"From the Co-Workers?"

Don't these folks have any names, or are they hiding behind monikers like the posters here, as if we have the power and financial wherewithal to sue them, as they have done to so many others.

This "shepherdingword" website definitely is in response to all the scandals exposed by the Casteel Facebook site. Obviously it scared the Blendeds far more than our comments on this forum. I did not understand the power of Facebook until now.

YouTube too! Let's all up vote Cal's "Opinions Free" channel!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This "shepherdingword" website definitely is in response to all the scandals exposed by the Casteel Facebook site.

Silly me. I was expecting them to get into the scandals. But all I saw was spin.

And why didn't they put their names to the site? But then, they don't want anyone too know who's doing the spin-wash.

If a site or article doesn't have an author(s) then I don't give it any weight.

[Weighingin]

They put something in there about the deposition of Max saying in which he said not all in the newspaper articles he was in was inaccurate. I had not read that before. All these years, he was the ambitious wolf who wanted to seize control of the recovery. There was the usual all lies and rumors and don't expose the deputy authority.
Then there's the ministry/minister of the age. Why did it only begin with Martin Luther? Who would have been the MOTA in the age of the church fathers? Was Augustine a MOTA?
I wonder if the co-workers live in the past? There does seem to be some advancement among the Christians about coming to know the Lord since WL first arrived in the USA.

[least]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"From the Co-Workers?"

Don't these folks have any names, or are they hiding behind monikers like the posters here, as if we have the power and financial wherewithal to sue them, as they have done to so many others.

You have no power and financial wherewithal to sue them. What if their own members whom they tried to pacify and win back become more unsettled and would confront them or even sue them? Surely cannot put their names down!

Another explanation is: there are too many of em 'co-workers' to name.
Or: they are not their people's shephards, but hirings. The sheep do not know them and they dare not put their names down in a 'shepherding' site as if they are shepherds. And they admit it is only 'shepherding'WORDS. Only words ....

"The co-workers in the Lord’s recovery in North America"
note: NORTH AMERICA

When they feel they still cannot win the battle, they will mobilise 'co-workers of the whole world'.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This "shepherdingword" website definitely is in response to all the scandals exposed by the Casteel Facebook site. Obviously it scared the Blendeds far more than our comments on this forum. I did not understand the power of Facebook until now.

LSM itself use Facebook as much as they use websites. LCers use fb extensively, not just those who have been through the full-time trainings. So the Casteel Facebook post IS very damaging to them. It now has over 6k views. Guess how many who were told not to view that page had actually viewed that page.

They need how many 'co-workers', 'fathers', 'delegated authorities' ... to fight ONE woman?
They need how many meetings, big and small, and how many nights and days, long and short, and how many means and how much resources, to counter ONE facebook post?

Obviously it scared the Blendeds far more than our comments on this forum.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by least

LSM itself use Facebook as much as they use websites. LCers use fb extensively, not just those who have been through the full-time trainings. So the Casteel Facebook post IS very damaging to them. It now has over 6k views. Guess how many who were told not to view that page had actually viewed that page.

They need how many 'co-workers', 'fathers', 'delegated authorities' ... to fight ONE woman?
They need how many meetings, big and small, and how many nights and days, long and short, and how many means and how much resources, to counter ONE facebook post?

Obviously it scared the Blendeds far more than our comments on this forum.

I remember being in trainings and hearing the blendeds telling everyone to not read any 'negative' websites, and back then I had no idea what they were even talking about. But social media presents information in a different way entirely and that definitely has the blendeds scrambling.

It's actually very telling that this new website of theirs mentions matters that they've been mostly ignoring. There are all kinds of writings online that attempted to address such matters or solicit a response from the blendeds, and the blendeds have pretty much ignored all of it. But all the sudden, when a facebook post circulates and is widely viewed, that same strategy doesn't work for them anymore. As might be expected, they're saying things like "these rumors were long ago disproven." But really, what I think has happened here is that they finally are starting to realize that the history they have tried to bury is not so buried after all.

[UntoHim]

Excerpt From: Some Questions and Answers Regarding Deputy Authority

What if a deputy authority is wrong? If a deputy authority is wrong, we should still submit (Dan. 3:19-21; Acts 16:20-25), though we cannot obey if the authority insists that we act contrary to God (Dan. 3:16-18; Acts 5:29). In the church a failure by the deputy authority should be handled through proper fellowship. For example, a failure in the eldership should be handled through fellowship with the apostles (1 Cor. 1:10-11; 5:1, 13; 1 Tim. 5:19-20).
(emphasis supplied)

I have a couple of burning questions to ask the author(s) of this article.

1) If a deputy authority is wrong ABOUT WHAT? What if they are wrong about a central and core item of the Christian faith? What if they teach heresy? What if they commit major financial malfeasance? What if they bring a family member into the ministry and this person is abusive to those who work and volunteer at said ministry? What happens when the deputy authority knowingly and willingly allows the abuser to attack and abuse, and then turns and attacks the wistleblowers?

2) "Through fellowship with the apostles". WHO ARE TODAY'S APOSTLES? NAME THEM. The apostle Paul named himself as an apostle: (1 Timothy 1:1) The apostle Peter named himself as an apostle: (1 Peter 1:1) The Acts of the apostles names the apostles. Presumably, some or all of the Blended Brothers consider themselves as today's apostles. Hard to say since they are constantly exercising, enforcing and reinforcing apostolic authority WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES BY PERSONAL NAMES.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

They put something in there about the deposition of Max saying in which he said not all in the newspaper articles he was in was inaccurate. I had not read that before. All these years, he was the ambitious wolf who wanted to seize control of the recovery. There was the usual all lies and rumors and don't expose the deputy authority.

Yeah sure, as a newbie in the LC's, I saw the chaos caused by Max back in the 70's. But how could that have been bad for W. Lee? Where was the rebellion against Lee? Max's goal was simple: to incite all the young people to embrace Lee's latest "flow," called the "young Galilean's."

Oh, and I should mention that Max Rapoport rose to prominence at Lee's new global headquarters on Ball Road in Anaheim by traveling around the LC's instructing the saints to consider their Daystar investment an "offering." Was that not a fleecing? And who put him up to that? And who then promoted him?

I was there in those chaotic meetings in Cleveburg during the summer of 1977. The Max-induced conflict was between the elders (think Titus Chu) and some of the young people's leaders who were exceedingly zealous to be "faithful to Brother Lee's burden."

So here are two facts that LSM won't tell you about Max:

• How was Max trying to "seize control of the recovery" when the young people were all fired up by his ministry to zealously follow, not Max, but Brother Lee's burden?
• It was Witness Lee himself who authorized and instructed Max to go out to all the LC's and "shake things up" thus "liberating" the young people from the "control" of their elders.

When Max left he had a thorough repentance. He repented of any damaged he had caused by obeying Lee's orders. Too bad others have not learned from him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Excerpt From: Some Questions and Answers Regarding Deputy Authority

What if a deputy authority is wrong? If a deputy authority is wrong, we should still submit (Dan. 3:19-21; Acts 16:20-25), though we cannot obey if the authority insists that we act contrary to God (Dan. 3:16-18; Acts 5:29). In the church a failure by the deputy authority should be handled through proper fellowship. For example, a failure in the eldership should be handled through fellowship with the apostles (1 Cor. 1:10-11; 5:1, 13; 1 Tim. 5:19-20).
(emphasis supplied)

I have a couple of burning questions to ask the author(s) of this article.

I have a burning question too. Who appoints the "Deputy Authority" of the Recovery? Who gave him this authority?

Doesn't that guy Francis in Rome already claim to be the Vicar of Christ, God's "Deputy Authority?" According to the Blendeds, if the Pope is wrong, we should still submit to him. Right?

Yo Blendeds, you can't have it both ways!

[Weighingin]

Correction: I meant that not all was accurate in the Max newspaper articles.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have a burning question too. Who appoints the "Deputy Authority" of the Recovery? Who gave him this authority?

Doesn't that guy Francis in Rome already claim to be the Vicar of Christ, God's "Deputy Authority?" According to the Blendeds, if the Pope is wrong, we should still submit to him. Right?

Yo Blendeds, you can't have it both ways!

Could it be Brother We who appointed the Deputy Authority? 😃 But I had read
that WL said that he was confident that there was a group of
blended bros that would carry on the ministry.
(passing the mantle to a group as there were no more
spiritual giants after him?)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have a burning question too. Who appoints the "Deputy Authority" of the Recovery? Who gave him this authority?

Doesn't that guy Francis in Rome already claim to be the Vicar of Christ, God's "Deputy Authority?" According to the Blendeds, if the Pope is wrong, we should still submit to him. Right?

Yo Blendeds, you can't have it both ways!

Well David was always respectful and subservient, to a fault, of King Saul - even though Saul kept trying to personally kill him. This was because David was mindful that the Lord had anointed Saul king, regardless of the bad things Saul was doing.

But you do have a point about the Church in Rome guy (aka Pope). There's a case to made there (and 1.2 billion Catholics would agree)!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So here are two facts that LSM won't tell you about Max:

• How was Max trying to "seize control of the recovery" when the young people were all fired up by his ministry to zealously follow, not Max, but Brother Lee's burden?
• It was Witness Lee himself who authorized and instructed Max to go out to all the LC's and "shake things up" thus "liberating" the young people from the "control" of their elders.

When Max left he had a thorough repentance. He repented of any damaged he had caused by obeying Lee's orders. Too bad others have not learned from him.

Having read through these new DCP articles, it's incredible how much of a spin they will put on things and they're really just grasping at straws. There have been a lot of things said about Max, but what the article on Max focuses on is not even what I would consider to be important about the events surrounding him.

So Max gave a newspaper interview and regretted it later. Big deal. It really has nothing to do with his stance regarding the LC or the events leading up to him leaving. And of course they would never tell anyone why Max left or how WL had his hand in it.

[UntoHim]

Terry Risenhoover posted the following on Facebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DCP posted their latest website and I want to give five specific examples of how they lie by not telling the truth by avoiding the actual issue.

1. They do not address the fact that the sale of Daystar unregistered securities were a violation of Federal and State law.
2. They do not address the transfer of funds from a non profit to a for profit foreign entity.
3. They do not address the fact that the repayment of loans and some investors came from the charging of training fees.
4. They completely distorted, twisted and factually misrepresented the actual events related to Sal Benoit and the Church in Boston.
Sal confirmed that yesterday in an hour long conversation.
5. They completely misrepresent the testimonies of Max and Sandee Rapaport and many of us on this forum have first hand knowledge of this.
Time does not permit me to address the myriad of misrepresentations made throughout their website as I am preparing to take my wife for major surgery tomorrow morning and we would appreciate your prayers.
There is an ever growing mountain of evidence from co-workers, elders and former members that fully exposes the unrighteousness of the blended brothers.

Judgment begins at the House of God and we must first examine our own hearts and then pray for our deceived brethren because we too were once deceived and the Lord had mercy on us. The battle belongs to the Lord and the enemy is a vanquished foe so let us rejoice in the Lord and give God the Glory!

May God Bless all of you and may you feast on the unsearchable riches of Christ in His Word.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ohio]

Here's another post concerning LSM/DCP from a FaceBook poster named John Thumper of Chicago. (not sure if that's his real name)

Here's some shepherding words for everyone: DCP hires private investigators, has pictures taken of people considered "opposing", and goes through their trash to look for information. They have rows and rows of file cabinets with information on people, genuine Christians mind you, who they consider "negative".

Maybe we missed that chapter in the book of Investigations in the Bible that described the underhanded tactics necessary in defending a now-admitted fallible human being's ministry that has been passed off for years as something we cannot question, disagree with, discern for ourselves, or proclaim the truth when it is flat out wrong, un-scriptural, and damaging.

Why so many meetings, Q&As, fearful warnings telling people to run away from simple printed words, letters among the leading ones, and now an entire dedicated website in response to one Facebook post that is just one drop in the gigantic ocean of Facebook posts in existence?

Is this behavior of a group that has nothing to hide? Is this behavior of a pure church that has the highest teachings and thinks they have so little need of anything else they actively and intentionally do everything they can to cut themselves off from the rest of the Body of Christ (those dear, genuine, Jesus-following fellow believers in "evil Christianity")?

We all know how we act when we don't want the truth to be discovered. We are getting a master class in it right now from LSM and DCP. Saints, start asking questions. God has a mind. We are created in His image. We are not made to "get out of our mind". Start using your God-given minds to think critically about what is going on.

[OBW]

Does anyone think that "shepherding words" and "co-workers in the Lord’s recovery" qualifies as a non sequitur? And also is a classic oxymoron.

[Sons to Glory!]

I was reading on the Shepherding Words website the page about "Concerning Having One Publication Work." In reading this page on their website, I must say it really grated on me how they were doing their best to maintain justification for centralized control. Regardless of their specious argument, I just don't see the basis for this control in scripture (unless possibly you want to go Old Testament and talk about Jerusalem and the temple as the one place . . .)!

And if I remember my Local Church history correctly (at least how I've heard it secondhand), wasn't this one of the main reasons Bill Freeman was ousted from the LC in the mid-80s? Bill and others were publishing a regular newspaper in the NW called, "The Christian," which had a pretty wide dissemination. We even used to receive it while in Ohio, and it was very good. He was also publishing books and pamphlets, as were some others who were with him. My understanding is that he was told by LC leadership to cease these independent works (i.e., independent of LSM) and publications. From there his days were numbered in the LC. Is that an accurate understanding of this occurrence?

BTW - what is DCP?

[Cal]

Deputy authority does not exist because its impossible to determine who it is in this day and age.

The LR co-workers method of identifying deputy authority--revelation, resurrection and ministry--could be applied to any Christian. It's extremely subjective. What if two Christians have all three and disagree, who has more authority? Who decides for everyone else which has more of these components? Certainly not the "co-workers of the Lord's Recovery." In fact, no one can.

Whether any Christians has spiritual authority is not up to them, it is up to each observer. In short, it is for others to recognize, not for the ostensive authority to claim. If others do not recognize it, it may in fact not be there, or they may not recognize it. But no one is obligated to recognize authority because the so-called authority claims it exists or some third party claims it exists. It is up to each individual to decide. It's between each of us and the Lord.

Defense and Confirmation Project

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And if I remember my Local Church history correctly (at least how I've heard it secondhand), wasn't this one of the main reasons Bill Freeman was ousted from the LC in the mid-80s? Bill and others were publishing a regular newspaper in the NW called, "The Christian," which had a pretty wide dissemination. We even used to receive it while in Ohio, and it was very good. He was also publishing books and pamphlets, as were some others who were with him. My understanding is that he was told by LC leadership to cease these independent works (i.e., independent of LSM) and publications. From there his days were numbered in the LC. Is that an accurate understanding of this occurrence?

BTW - what is DCP?

Defense and Confirmation Project -- duplicitous expression based on Philippians 1.7 -- which in reality only offers the defense of the Lee family business, and not the Gospel at all.

In the early days (70's?) there was a "writer's conference" and Lee encouraged many to write and publish as a way to "get the riches out." In Feb 1986, during that "Pledge Allegiance to Lee" episode in the Elders Conf, Lee shut down all other writings except his own. Cleveland (Chuck Debelak) also had a fruitful paper called "The Harvest." Chicago (Jim Reetzke) had the "First Fruits." There were also papers in Texas and elsewhere.

What is DCP?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Defense and Confirmation Project

Defense Cull Purge

[least]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here's another post concerning LSM/DCP from a FaceBook poster named John Thumper of Chicago. (not sure if that's his real name)

"Here's some shepherding words for everyone: DCP hires private investigators, has pictures taken of people considered "opposing", and goes through their trash to look for information. They have rows and rows of file cabinets with information on people, genuine Christians mind you, who they consider "negative"."

Seriously. Will John Thumper (of Facebook) come here to shed more light on this?

[UntoHim]

Concerning the Ministry’s Attitude Toward Sisters

This does not mean, however, that males should behave in a domineering manner, and to imply that the ministry in the Lord’s recovery teaches that they should is again dishonest.

Firstly, a "Ministry" doesn't have an attitude...a ministry isn't a person, a ministry is an organization composed of people with attitudes. And let's take a look at this ministry leader's attitude towards his wife:

"I am the co-worker, my wife is nothing! I will never exalt her, I will never crown her! This would be to damage her!"
Mr. Ron Kangas
Presumed Blended Brother and
Co-Worker in The Lord's Recovery

One could only assume about the horrific attitude that this man must have towards women who are not his wife. We all know where this horrific attitude towards women came from - it came from Ron's guru and acting god, Witness Lee.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"I am the co-worker, my wife is nothing! I will never exalt her, I will never crown her! This would be to damage her!"
Mr. Ron Kangas
Presumed Blended Brother and
Co-Worker in The Lord's Recovery

One could only assume about the horrific attitude that this man must have towards women who are not his wife. We all know where this horrific attitude towards women came from - it came from Ron's guru and acting god, Witness Lee.
-

I married a Chinese sister. She was by far the most submissive woman I've ever known. And she didn't do it because the Bible, or anyone in the LC, told her to. She did it because it's her culture. Until marriage Chinese females submit to their fathers. Then to their husbands. And if their husband dies, then to their son.

Paul's record towards women, plays right into that. The question remains, why would someone that went to Princeton buy into it? Methinks education perchance isn't up to the task of wiping out misogyny. I don't know how Kangas was raised. He never brought it up. But I know he wasn't raised in a Chinese culture.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Defense and Confirmation Project -- duplicitous expression based on Philippians 1.7 -- which in reality only offers the defense of the Lee family business, and not the Gospel at all.

In the early days (70's?) there was a "writer's conference" and Lee encouraged many to write and publish as a way to "get the riches out." In Feb 1986, during that "Pledge Allegiance to Lee" episode in the Elders Conf, Lee shut down all other writings except his own. Cleveland (Chuck Debelak) also had a fruitful paper called "The Harvest." Chicago (Jim Reetzke) had the "First Fruits." There were also papers in Texas and elsewhere.

Oh yes - I vaguely remember the "First Fruits" publication, and that it was really good.

Boy, try to find support in the word for what was done! (although the DCP Shepherding Words website does try to make a weak support of that kind of action . . . to mask centralized command and control I suspect)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by least

"Here's some shepherding words for everyone: DCP hires private investigators, has pictures taken of people considered "opposing", and goes through their trash to look for information. They have rows and rows of file cabinets with information on people, genuine Christians mind you, who they consider "negative"."

Do you think they have files on all of us, and are trying to figure out who we are?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Do you think they have files on all of us, and are trying to figure out who we are?

Bro, your file was opened back when you were in Berkeley. And they only keep the dirt on you, all the good stuff is ignored.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh yes - I vaguely remember the "First Fruits" publication, and that it was really good.

Boy, try to find support in the word for what was done! (although the DCP Shepherding Words website does try to make a weak support of that kind of action . . . to mask centralized command and control I suspect)

DCP is "God's Move" on the earth today. Haven't you heard? Why in the world would they need any "support in the word" of God?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Do you think they have files on all of us, and are trying to figure out who we are?

Yes.


Trapped

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Concerning the Ministry’s Attitude Toward Sisters


Firstly, a "Ministry" doesn't have an attitude...a ministry isn't a person, a ministry is an organization composed of people with attitudes. And let's take a look at this ministry leader's attitude towards his wife:

"I am the co-worker, my wife is nothing! I will never exalt her, I will never crown her! This would be to damage her!"
Mr. Ron Kangas
Presumed Blended Brother and
Co-Worker in The Lord's Recovery

One could only assume about the horrific attitude that this man must have towards women who are not his wife. We all know where this horrific attitude towards women came from - it came from Ron's guru and acting god, Witness Lee.
-

Their deception and hypocrisy is just so striking. When people bring forth complaints regarding the LC's mistreatment of women or any other issue, it's mostly based on real-life experiences, not what WL did or didn't say.

WL did make statements, however, showing his own attitude towards women. So they publish an article trying to claim that WL didn't mean what he said. But that's not even the real issue at hand. The real issue is the statements that are still being made like what Ron said during the summer training. The real issue is also the actions of LCers that have caused people to become concerned in the first place.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes.


Trapped

Well, as "they" say - just because yer paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Do you think they have files on all of us, and are trying to figure out who we are?

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yes.

When Drake showed up recently, he made a few comments about me that could only be known by someone who had monitored the forum for a lengthy period of time. Now that could mean that he was a long time lurker who decided to register one day, but I doubt it. Either he was reading from a DCP file on me, or ole Drake was merely a reincarnation of past posters (I have a couple names in mind), or both.

[least]

Originally Posted by least

"Here's some shepherding words for everyone: DCP hires private investigators, has pictures taken of people considered "opposing", and goes through their trash to look for information. They have rows and rows of file cabinets with information on people, genuine Christians mind you, who they consider "negative"."

Seriously. Will John Thumper (of Facebook) come here to shed more light on this?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Do you think they have files on all of us, and are trying to figure out who we are?

StG, read post 22 by Ohio.

Those words in red was part of what someone posted in facebook.
I hope this person can come here to shed more light on DCP actions.

[Sons to Glory!]

Well I don't care if the DCP, or anybody else, finds out who I am. It wouldn't be that hard to figure out, since we are a small group here in Scottsdale, and there is only one here who's been in the LC in both Berkeley and Ohio!

So if another Christian went after me for my beliefs and I just show them love, does that constitute a heavenly reward for me? (i.e., does that constitute persecution?)

[least]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well I don't care if the DCP, or anybody else, finds out who I am. It wouldn't be that hard to figure out, since we are a small group here in Scottsdale, and there is only one here who's been in the LC in both Berkeley and Ohio!

So if another Christian went after me for my beliefs and I just show them love, does that constitute a heavenly reward for me?

hmmmm ....

Make sure they get a 'shining celebrity' version of your photo to sit in their cabinet (you are counted worthy).
When you see a camera aiming at you, s m i l e .... cheeeese se se ....love .... yey!

[UntoHim]

Terry Risenhoover posted the following on Facebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DCP posted their latest website and I want to give five specific examples of how they lie by not telling the truth by avoiding the actual issue.

1. They do not address the fact that the sale of Daystar unregistered securities were a violation of Federal and State law.
2. They do not address the transfer of funds from a non profit to a for profit foreign entity.
3. They do not address the fact that the repayment of loans and some investors came from the charging of training fees.
4. They completely distorted, twisted and factually misrepresented the actual events related to Sal Benoit and the Church in Boston.
Sal confirmed that yesterday in an hour long conversation.
5. They completely misrepresent the testimonies of Max and Sandee Rapaport and many of us on this forum have first hand knowledge of this.
Time does not permit me to address the myriad of misrepresentations made throughout their website as I am preparing to take my wife for major surgery tomorrow morning and we would appreciate your prayers.
There is an ever growing mountain of evidence from co-workers, elders and former members that fully exposes the unrighteousness of the blended brothers.

Judgment begins at the House of God and we must first examine our own hearts and then pray for our deceived brethren because we too were once deceived and the Lord had mercy on us. The battle belongs to the Lord and the enemy is a vanquished foe so let us rejoice in the Lord and give God the Glory!

May God Bless all of you and may you feast on the unsearchable riches of Christ in His Word.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry Risenhoover posted the following on Facebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DCP posted their latest website and I want to give five specific examples of how they lie by not telling the truth by avoiding the actual issue.

1. They do not address the fact that the sale of Daystar unregistered securities were a violation of Federal and State law.
2. They do not address the transfer of funds from a non profit to a for profit foreign entity.
3. They do not address the fact that the repayment of loans and some investors came from the charging of training fees.
4. They completely distorted, twisted and factually misrepresented the actual events related to Sal Benoit and the Church in Boston.
Sal confirmed that yesterday in an hour long conversation.
5. They completely misrepresent the testimonies of Max and Sandee Rapaport and many of us on this forum have first hand knowledge of this.
Time does not permit me to address the myriad of misrepresentations made throughout their website as I am preparing to take my wife for major surgery tomorrow morning and we would appreciate your prayers.
There is an ever growing mountain of evidence from co-workers, elders and former members that fully exposes the unrighteousness of the blended brothers.

Judgment begins at the House of God and we must first examine our own hearts and then pray for our deceived brethren because we too were once deceived and the Lord had mercy on us. The battle belongs to the Lord and the enemy is a vanquished foe so let us rejoice in the Lord and give God the Glory!

May God Bless all of you and may you feast on the unsearchable riches of Christ in His Word.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good ol' Risenhoover. Who knows Lee committed crimes cuz he was there.

[Freedom]

On the shepherdingwords.com site, there is a letter that was sent out to elders in July (not sure if they had this letter posted previously):
https://shepherdingwords.com/pdf/Nor...205%202019.pdf

Matters that do not involve crimes fall under the administration of the church and should be handled by the leading ones with much prayer and fellowship. Accusations related to criminal matters should be referred to law enforcement professionals and/or child protection agencies...

It's interesting how they try to pretend like they've always handled things this way. Anyone who knows anything about LC history knows this isn't the case. There are multiple stories of the elders specially telling people NOT to contact the authorities.

The leading ones should help the saints to realize that any accusation brought to them that falls within the church’s administration must be dealt with cautiously and judiciously based on verifiable facts. Though this may tax the saints’ patience, it is necessary to deal fairly with all parties... The saints should know that if a matter has been referred to the elders, they should not talk about it among themselves lest they sin by damaging others’ reputations,compromise the elders’ ability to effectively address the situation, and inflame fleshly reactions among the saints...

This quote from their letter is an example of how they like to pretend to be fair and balanced even though they have no intention of dealing with the actual issue at hand. When someone feels to make an accusation or wants to discuss a problem, the facts aren't always readily available. That itself shouldn't necessarily stop someone from speaking up. The LC seems to have this thing where stuff gets brought to the elders and then disappears into a black hole of of being "dealt with" by them. Of course, there is never any transparency or indication of a resolution, so that I think is what gets all the rumors started. Do they not realize this?

The whole reason people usually go public is when they feel like their concerns have not or will not be adequately addressed in-house.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC seems to have this thing where stuff gets brought to the elders and then disappears into a black hole of of being "dealt with" by them. Of course, there is never any transparency or indication of a resolution, so that I think is what gets all the rumors started. Do they not realize this?

Freedom, you have accurately summarized 100 years of Recovery history in one paragraph!

These internal "rumors" become "storms" in the Recovery because the injured parties continue to cry out for justice. But none comes! Instead we get endless articles from headquarters, just like the one you linked, explaining away all accountability. Vindication, justification, and dissembling are their M.O. That's all they know.

Witness Lee established a rotten pattern for all the Blendeds to follow when it comes to all manners of ministry abuses. Perhaps he learned himself from others in China. Today, the Blendeds have been trained this way. There's no changing them.

I have concluded that hoping for anything else is a waste of time. More articles and websites, yes. Honesty, accountability, or change, no.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These internal "rumors" become "storms" in the Recovery because the injured parties continue to cry out for justice. But none comes! Instead we get endless articles from headquarters, just like the one you linked, explaining away all accountability. Vindication, justification, and dissembling are their M.O. That's all they know.

Witness Lee established a rotten pattern for all the Blendeds to follow when it comes to all manners of ministry abuses. Perhaps he learned himself from others in China. Today, the Blendeds have been trained this way. There's no changing them.

Yes, and actually the fact that the Blendeds like to classify everything as "rumors" is something that LCers should give some thought to. Does it really seem sensible that within the LC (or any other Christian group) people would be going around and recklessly spreading rumors about others? Of course not. In fact, it would be expected that Christians would be all the more cautious about that.

The so-called "rumors" are really just the end effect of inappropriately handling a situation. Any type of dispute involves at least two parties and it just doesn't seem realistic that they would think things could be contained to the point of there being no discussion among the saints.

For instance, over the years, I saw multiple occurrences of situations where someone took issue with what someone else did, and then stopped meeting after there was no effort by anyone to mediate or help resolve the situation. Lets say the person who leaves is involved in several church services like cleaning, music, etc. All the sudden, the people who are in those services are also indirectly affected by the situation, and it just multiplies from there. At a certain point, it is no longer possible to contain it as being off limits for discussion. It's easy to see how stuff becomes a much bigger problem if it is not addressed quickly and transparently.

[Freedom]

From the main page of the Shepherdingwords.com site:

Shortcomings of individual saints or churches nullify neither the vision of the Lord’s recovery nor the standing of the local churches on the unique ground of oneness...

Nevertheless, we must realize that, consistent with the testimony of the New Testament, not every believer who meets in the local churches is walking in life and light. Sinful things, even evil things, can and do happen, but that does not prove that the ministry we receive or the churches it produces are not of God...

These statements are examples of how the LC likes to have things both ways. They like to go around thinking that they are the so-called Recovery, yet when various bad things happen that would cast a shadow on that image, they tell people to not take that to mean anything. It's ironic, because the LC wastes no time in pointing out the supposed "flaws" in other Christian groups in order to arrive at the conclusion that those groups are fallen, degraded, etc.

One of the reasons these type of statements catch my attention is because this type of reasoning is a common tactic they use to keep members with concerns from leaving. Statements like: nobody's perfect, the church-life is like a hospital, etc. The logic just doesn't add up, however. On this forum there has been a lot of discussion about the failures and shortcomings of the LC. The DCP/coworkers would like people to believe that such discussions are just people nitpicking about stuff. And it totally misconstrues the point that is being made. In almost all cases, the issue isn't so much a matter of what happened, it's a matter of how those situations were handled, and there's a big difference between the two.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

These statements are examples of how the LC likes to have things both ways. They like to go around thinking that they are the so-called Recovery, yet when various bad things happen that would cast a shadow on that image, they tell people to not take that to mean anything. It's ironic, because the LC wastes no time in pointing out the supposed "flaws" in other Christian groups in order to arrive at the conclusion that those groups are fallen, degraded, etc.

Exactly. I lived for years with this contradiction:

When something "bad" happens in Christianity, it proves they are degraded, hopeless, pathetic, etc.

When something "bad" happens in the Recovery, it doesn't mean a thing since "nobody's perfect."

Total hypocrisy! Didn't Jesus confront it and say, "With what judgment you judge, you will also be judged." -- Matt 7.2

[countmeworthy]

What's the difference between the blendeds and co workers?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

What's the difference between the blendeds and co workers?

I don't know but I think coworkers worked with Lee and Blendeds come after Lee is gone ... they're the ones that were most blended with Lee. That means the coworkers got a promotion.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Exactly. I lived for years with this contradiction:

When something "bad" happens in Christianity, it proves they are degraded, hopeless, pathetic, etc.

When something "bad" happens in the Recovery, it doesn't mean a thing since "nobody's perfect."

Total hypocrisy! Didn't Jesus confront it and say, "With what judgment you judge, you will also be judged." -- Matt 7.2

Yeah, and I think that this is part of what makes the LC so toxic. On their website, they try to define the LC by two concepts 1) The vision of the Lord’s recovery and 2) The standing of the local churches on the unique ground of oneness. While neither is a valid concept IMO, those two notions are what I would consider to be mutually exclusive.

If they want to claim that taking a certain standing legitimizes or delegitimizes Christians, then they should accept all who take their standing, regardless of how "degraded" they are perceived to be. On the other hand, if they want to talk about being recovered from a supposed "degraded" state, then having a certain standing would not automatically protect anyone from that state.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Yeah, and I think that this is part of what makes the LC so toxic. On their website, they try to define the LC by two concepts 1) The vision of the Lord’s recovery and 2) The standing of the local churches on the unique ground of oneness. While neither is a valid concept IMO, those two notions are what I would consider to be mutually exclusive.

If they want to claim that taking a certain standing legitimizes or delegitimizes Christians, then they should accept all who take their standing, regardless of how "degraded" they are perceived to be. On the other hand, if they want to talk about being recovered from a supposed "degraded" state, then having a certain standing would not automatically protect anyone from that state.

For instance, in the group I meet with the legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" (FYI - we don't use that in normal practice). But the LC does not recognize us as being legit. Why?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

For instance, in the group I meet with the legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" (FYI - we don't use that in normal practice). But the LC does not recognize us as being legit. Why?

Yeah, in the LC it's all completely subjective besides the obvious things like their insisting on the use of LSM materials. And the scary part of it is that if they are telling members which groups are and aren't legitimate groups, those members are trapped as long as they haven't started to question what they're being told.

In the LC, time and time again I saw people being taken advantage of, being bullied, all kinds of things. In most cases, the people who were victimized never left. Why? Because they were convinced that the so-called Recovery could not be wrong. They were convinced that any wrong-doing was just the shortcomings of individual members.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

For instance, in the group I meet with the legal name is "The Church in Scottsdale" (FYI - we don't use that in normal practice). But the LC does not recognize us as being legit. Why?

Because they are hypocrites.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Does anyone think that "shepherding words" and "co-workers in the Lord’s recovery" qualifies as a non sequitur? And also is a classic oxymoron.

It's biased and self-serving, but what else to expect. Were they honest, it might well be titled "A desperate attempt at damage control from the co-workers in the Lord's recovery". I suspect desperation because the 'Oracle' Witness Lee once told us that he was done talking about all this and he expected that henceforth these matters were closed for discussion. But now he's buried and the matters are once again being raised. Not good.

Three questions for those presuming to write shepherding words:

1. (a) If women can't teach, why sell Mary McDonough's book "God's Plan" right next to those by Nee and Lee? In LSM's online catalogue of titles under "G", there it is, available for the public. Why the inconsistency in application?

1. (b) How do you think Dora Yu or Ruth Lee would have fared under Witness Lee, or under today's blended co-workers? Or, how would Jessie Penn-Lewis fare today? Or Peace Wang? Or Margaret Barber? How would they all find any place today, in the recovery they supposedly helped to found?

2. Why do some psalms of imprecations have footnotes panning them for being "natural" and "fallen" in wishing others ill, while others have near-identical sentiments being hailed as Christ's victory over Satan? Why the inconsistency in application?

3. The apostle wrote to avoid every appearance of evil (1 Thess 5:22). Don't you think that a church leader pressuring church members to invest in his immediate family's money-making schemes looks bad? No matter that it collapsed and the money disappeared - the very fact that it was set up looks bad. How was this not a blight on the church? Daystar showed Witness Lee's true colors - how can anyone say that this was a "flow from God's throne", or a "manifestation of God's deputy authority"?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

It's biased and self-serving, but what else to expect. Were they honest, it might well be titled "A desperate attempt at damage control from the co-workers in the Lord's recovery". I suspect desperation because the 'Oracle' Witness Lee once told us that he was done talking about all this and he expected that henceforth these matters were closed for discussion. But now he's buried and the matters are once again being raised. Not good.

When I see their latest attempts at damage control, I think back to being in the LC. There would be entire meetings dedicated to damage control, usually one of the messages of the semi-annual training. It seemed normal to have meetings used for that purpose.

Actually, I remember going to the special gathering for everyone in SoCal where they discussed the quarantine of Titus Chu (I had no idea who he even was and I'm sure many others didn't as well ). Yet everyone sat there, took in every word, happy to be under the up-to-date speaking.

I guess in retrospect it just all seems so odd and bizarre. It's hard to imagine taking that all seriously. It's hard to imagine that we actually believed that such speaking was them "shepherding" us.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Terry Risenhoover posted the following on Facebook:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DCP posted their latest website and I want to give five specific examples of how they lie by not telling the truth by avoiding the actual issue.

1. They do not address the fact that the sale of Daystar unregistered securities were a violation of Federal and State law.
2. They do not address the transfer of funds from a non profit to a for profit foreign entity.
3. They do not address the fact that the repayment of loans and some investors came from the charging of training fees.
4. They completely distorted, twisted and factually misrepresented the actual events related to Sal Benoit and the Church in Boston.
Sal confirmed that yesterday in an hour long conversation.
5. They completely misrepresent the testimonies of Max and Sandee Rapaport and many of us on this forum have first hand knowledge of this.
Time does not permit me to address the myriad of misrepresentations made throughout their website as I am preparing to take my wife for major surgery tomorrow morning and we would appreciate your prayers.
There is an ever growing mountain of evidence from co-workers, elders and former members that fully exposes the unrighteousness of the blended brothers.

Judgment begins at the House of God and we must first examine our own hearts and then pray for our deceived brethren because we too were once deceived and the Lord had mercy on us. The battle belongs to the Lord and the enemy is a vanquished foe so let us rejoice in the Lord and give God the Glory!

May God Bless all of you and may you feast on the unsearchable riches of Christ in His Word.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One more-what happened to the money donated for Linko?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Actually, I remember going to the special gathering for everyone in SoCal where they discussed the quarantine of Titus Chu (I had no idea who he even was and I'm sure many others didn't as well ). Yet everyone sat there, took in every word, happy to be under the up-to-date speaking.

I guess in retrospect it just all seems so odd and bizarre. It's hard to imagine taking that all seriously. It's hard to imagine that we actually believed that such speaking was them "shepherding" us.

Speaking of Titus, in the localities I lived prior to his quarantine when did he visit and minister to the Church in San Bernardino or the Church in Bellevue. Never that I ever recalled. Even he who I was close to who attended Whistler didn't think much of the inquisition.
Question is how to the so-called "shepherds" shepherd those who think differently? They don't.

[theLCfurry]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remember being in trainings and hearing the blendeds telling everyone to not read any 'negative' websites, and back then I had no idea what they were even talking about. But social media presents information in a different way entirely and that definitely has the blendeds scrambling.

Hmm..... I guess this entire facebook post scandal explains why I've been taught at the recent YP conference to focus on positive things and not on the negative... in my opinion I think they're doing damage control from that scandal even in the YP conference

[Freedom]

Yeah I remember all the times they told us not to read anything online. I never took it to mean anything because I didn't know what they were even referring to in the first place. I was always under the impression that anything "negative" that was written about the LC was done by people who knew nothing about it. Imaging how surprised I was to find out that most of what they had been telling us to avoid was written by former members.

Just looking at the way the LC has responded to the whole facebook thing shows how much they were rattled by it. It all started with a simple facebook post. During the semi-annual training, RK was obsessed with the issue enough to dedicate an entire message to going off about the post and people who were involved. I don't think they would normally even acknowledge something like the facebook post unless they were already in full damage control mode.

[Sons to Glory!]

I think the thought that got me a lot was, "Anything that is a genuine move of the Lord, the enemy will attack full force with lies and deception!" While that is true, I now see it was just another of those sayings to keep people in check and not look outside the exclusive group. (or was it possibly that the ones saying it really believed it?) Besides, we were told, there was nothing of any value out there any way!

[Freedom]

Yeah I remember hearing similar things. They wanted us to think that all the controversies surrounding the LC were completely normal and to be expected. I think what eventually helped me was to start looking at the LC from the perspective of an outsider. I came to realize that there's no way a group could be as controversial as the LC and expect to have a significant impact in the ways that they would really need to.

[Ohio]

It shocked me to finally discover that all the opposition from within the Recovery was never due to ambition or persecution, rather it was a call for justice and repentance.

[Freedom]

I think that for a long time, the LC has been able to characterize all their turmoils as being due to things like ambition. Especially when people don't know the full situation, it might sound believable.

Then along comes someone who makes a simple facebook post. It gets thousands of comments from current and former members alike. All the sudden, the DCP/blended find themselves having to do damage control on something that doesn't play into the typical narrative. Not only that, the entire letter is a call for justice and repentance, so all of the current members who have read it already know what is about.

[Ohio]

Then LSM/DCP unleashes the full weight of their seasoned and fleshly tactics upon these little ones -- just two little whistle blowers calling out for justice -- calling on all their operatives to turn on them, throwing them under the bus, until one of them cracks under the pressure . . . then gloating, as if vindicated by the tragedy.

Ambition? And who has ever been as ambitious as those running LSM?

[Nuclear]

There's a new article up on shepherdingwords.com titled "Facts Concerning Lily Hsu." Thoughts?

[Freedom]

I don't think that it will ever be possible to know exactly what happened in China or which account of events is the most accurate. I've seen discussion in the past as to whether or not Lily Hsu's account was simply communist propaganda. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I wouldn't know.

That being said, it doesn't escape my notice that these articles being posted on shepherdingwords.com are all authored anonymously. This new article calls into question her credibility saying she didn't have first hand knowledge of everything. Well who is the one calling into question her credibility? Was this person also there? Does this person know for a fact that she didn't have first hand knowledge? If this person was there, why don't they attach their name to the article? Unless they have their own account of what happened in China, they are essentially doing what they accuse Lily Hsu of doing.

[Ohio]

Great points. When I first began to meet with the LC, I bought Angus Kinnear's biography of Nee, "Against the Tide." Immediately upon finding out, an elder told me not to read it, citing some 200 "major errors" in the book.

Says who? No list of errors was ever presented to me. The elder never read the book, and had no first hand knowledge of events, yet he -- with assurance -- willingly passed on what he heard about the book. And who alone could be the source of such a comment? Only W. Lee. How convenient! So only Lee could ever be the source of historical events in China.

Whether or not Dr. Lily Hsu is perfectly accurate on every detail is secondary to me. More important was the decision by the elders in Shanghai to discipline Nee in 1942, long before the Communist takeover. Since Nee had appointed these elders, and Shanghai was Nee's home church, does anybody in their right mind really believe Lee's account that Nee was wrongly disciplined for "living with his mother???"

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ambition? And who has ever been as ambitious as those running LSM?

2004 when I met Bill and Barbara Mallon, I asked him if he was ambitious. After all that's what we were told why he left the local churches. Bill told me, if he was ambitious he would have stayed.
In recent years at one of the Puget Sound blending conferences Ron Kangas said he's "not going to step aside for anyone".
Who is the ambitious one?

[aron]

From the 'shepherding words' website: "one of [CCP] strategies to consolidate power was to launch “struggle campaigns” against real and perceived enemies and rivals. Mass rallies, mass media, and trained propagandists were used to stir up hatred toward “class enemies” that were to be eliminated. When sufficient fervency was produced, carefully scripted public accusation meetings and show trials were conducted to precipitate action against the state’s “enemies.” The strategy was successful in breaking down old loyalties, as neighbors, co-workers, and even family members accused one another of disloyalty to and crimes against the state."

A lot of people who made it out of the LR would recognise these tactics & methods. Ask Jane Anderson what it was like to participate in a show trial.

The 'SW' website sees the bias in the Communist Party, but they don't see their own partiality. Witness Lee's histories were just as suspect as Hsu's. Maybe moreso.

Jesus taught all this stuff, repeatedly. It's Christianity 101. You can see the splinter elsewhere but miss the beam lodged in you. Somehow, we thought Lee's "high peaks" obviated all that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

2004 when I met Bill and Barbara Mallon, I asked him if he was ambitious. After all that's what we were told why he left the local churches. Bill told me, if he was ambitious he would have stayed.
In recent years at one of the Puget Sound blending conferences Ron Kangas said he's "not going to step aside for anyone".
Who is the ambitious one?

Like Romans 2.1 describes -- always accuse your enemies of what you are guilty of.

During the chaos of the "New Way," Bill Mallon exhorted the saints to return to the pure word of God. That supposedly was how the Recovery started, and supposedly a guiding principle for the ministry.

For that, he was accused of promoting the "tactics of the enemy." The Recovery faithful still believe this, especially in the SouthEast.

[Ohio]

Lee's "High Peaks" were diversionary. Merely theological propaganda to "launch 'struggle campaigns' against real perceived enemies and rivals," such as John Ingalls.

What would you choose? The messy and ugly facts of history, or the chance to become God?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Whether or not Dr. Lily Hsu is perfectly accurate on every detail is secondary to me. More important was the decision by the elders in Shanghai to discipline Nee in 1942, long before the Communist takeover. Since Nee had appointed these elders, and Shanghai was Nee's home church, does anybody in their right mind really believe Lee's account that Nee was wrongly disciplined for "living with his mother???"

Yeah, I think understanding Nee and all the things that happened is mostly a matter of just connecting the dots. Even WL's own account of the happenings in China mentions things that would certainly raise eyebrows, and of course, he just glosses over that part of it.

Lily Hsu's account is inconvenient for the LC simply because it doesn't ignore the parts of history that WL told everyone to. Regarding Nee, WL stated "whether he is wrong or right is not my business." That's quite an alarming statement considering that he felt himself qualified to write a biography of Nee. It definitely calls his own credibility into question.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

A lot of people who made it out of the LR would recognise these tactics & methods. Ask Jane Anderson what it was like to participate in a show trial.

The 'SW' website sees the bias in the Communist Party, but they don't see their own partiality. Witness Lee's histories were just as suspect as Hsu's. Maybe moreso.

Yeah, it probably would be fair to say that any account coming from that time period in China should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of it could very well have been propaganda. We know that WL's account was, because of his statement regarding Nee, which I noted in my last post: "whether he is wrong or right is not my business."

Everything that happened with Nee just raises too many unanswered questions (and we will never have the answers). So really, a defense of Nee when there are so many unknowns is inherently biased. It also should be noted that Lily Hsu's book is even titled to indicate that it is her own 'memories'. To me that has the implication that the book isn't intended to be an authoritative account of what happened. So when they (LSM/DCP) go and attack such a book as being not credible, what they are up to seems all the more suspect.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Yeah, I think understanding Nee and all the things that happened is mostly a matter of just connecting the dots. Even WL's own account of the happenings in China mentions things that would certainly raise eyebrows, and of course, he just glosses over that part of it.

Lily Hsu's account is inconvenient for the LC simply because it doesn't ignore the parts of history that WL told everyone to. Regarding Nee, WL stated "whether he is wrong or right is not my business." That's quite an alarming statement considering that he felt himself qualified to write a biography of Nee. It definitely calls his own credibility into question.

In the Midwest, we regularly heard similar comments from Titus Chu, e.g. "Brother Lee is my spiritual father, and his mistakes are none of my business." When it comes to the petty things of life, I totally agree, but what do we do when people get hurt? What do we do when crimes are committed?

One of the sisters who got hurt by Philip Lee was from the Cleveland area. In his account, John Ingalls recorded how TC flip-flopped on him overnight after being confronted by Team Lee. Read Ingalls account, "Visits From Titus Chu," dated late September 1988 in the book Speaking The Truth in Love.

For me, this calls TC's own credibility into question. We are not talking about petty things any more. Philip Lee hurt many people. John Ingalls and others came to their defense. Titus Chu tried sitting on the fence until he was forced to pick sides. Witness Lee attacked those ones who exposed the wrong doing at LSM. For whatever reason, TC suppressed his sense of indignation within, and sided with Lee. He then began to attack Ingall's credibility. I have a copy of that letter he wrote with Reetzke of Chicago.

Did TC really maintain his stand that "Brother Lee's mistakes are none of my business." I don't think so. TC made Lee's wrongs his own. TC's standing as a minister was thus compromised. It's no wonder that so many left him after the quarantines brought this past history to light.

Not only did Lee cover for Nee, but TC learned these same bad habits, and covered for Lee's serious failures. It did him no good in the end, however, since BP, RK, and company expelled him from their Recovery Men's Club.

[Nell]

Before I read Hsu's book I was a total skeptic. I couldn't believe that Nee would do such things. Lee & sons yes. Nee, NO!

The more I read, the more I began to think there might be something to it. Her writing style was matter-of-fact. No emotion. No bitterness. She just seemed to be writing what she knew and experienced. It was written in such a way that what she was saying was totally believable. No ranting and raving.

I don't know what she had to gain from telling her story, other than to clear her conscience which was stated in her book, as I recall. By the time I finished reading, I was sickened. Watchman Nee. Of all people. I guess its another lesson on putting people on a pedestal.

I've always believed that truth has a "ring" to it and you know it when you hear it. That bell rang for me when I read Hsu and I believe her story is true. I have long since looked for light and truth from Lee, et al. It's just not there. As for RK, if the light that is in his words be darkness...how great is that darkness.

Nell

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Nell

Before I read Hsu's book I was a total skeptic. I couldn't believe that Nee would do such things. Lee & sons yes. Nee, NO!

The more I read, the more I began to think there might be something to it. Her writing style was matter-of-fact. No emotion. No bitterness. She just seemed to be writing what she knew and experienced. It was written in such a way that what she was saying was totally believable. No ranting and raving.

I don't know what she had to gain from telling her story, other than to clear her conscience which was stated in her book, as I recall. By the time I finished reading, I was sickened. Watchman Nee. Of all people. I guess its another lesson on putting people on a pedestal.


I've always believed that truth has a "ring" to it and you know it when you hear it. That bell rang for me when I read Hsu and I believe her story is true. I have long since looked for light and truth from Lee, et al. It's just not there. As for RK, if the light that is in his words be darkness...how great is that darkness.

I think part of Lee's goal with how he portrayed Nee was for the purpose of establishing that he had been passed the torch from Nee himself. Thus, the view of Nee that people in the LC ended up with was completely skewed from any historical basis. It's no wonder that an account regarding Nee which contradicted the LC narrative would come as such a surprise.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In the Midwest, we regularly heard similar comments from Titus Chu, e.g. "Brother Lee is my spiritual father, and his mistakes are none of my business." When it comes to the petty things of life, I totally agree, but what do we do when people get hurt? What do we do when crimes are committed?

One of the sisters who got hurt by Philip Lee was from the Cleveland area. In his account, John Ingalls recorded how TC flip-flopped on him overnight after being confronted by Team Lee. Read Ingalls account, "Visits From Titus Chu," dated late September 1988 in the book Speaking The Truth in Love.

For me, this calls TC's own credibility into question. We are not talking about petty things any more. Philip Lee hurt many people. John Ingalls and others came to their defense. Titus Chu tried sitting on the fence until he was forced to pick sides. Witness Lee attacked those ones who exposed the wrong doing at LSM. For whatever reason, TC suppressed his sense of indignation within, and sided with Lee. He then began to attack Ingall's credibility. I have a copy of that letter he wrote with Reetzke of Chicago.

Did TC really maintain his stand that "Brother Lee's mistakes are none of my business." I don't think so. TC made Lee's wrongs his own. TC's standing as a minister was thus compromised. It's no wonder that so many left him after the quarantines brought this past history to light.

Not only did Lee cover for Nee, but TC learned these same bad habits, and covered for Lee's serious failures. It did him no good in the end, however, since BP, RK, and company expelled him from their Recovery Men's Club.

When looking at the situation that the LC is presently confronted with, and how they are responding to it, credibility is really a key issue. Of course, the LC standard tactic is to attack other people's credibility. Anyone who speaks out against the LC has their credibility attacked. They have done it to Lily Hsu now. Their articles on Daystar and Max do the exact same thing.

Amid all the smoke and mirrors, the real question is the credibility of the LSM/DCP/blendeds. In my mind they have not established themselves as people who should be taken seriously. Those who read the articles on shearingwords.com will find all the same old nonsense that have been putting out for years.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When looking at the situation that the LC is presently confronted with, and how they are responding to it, credibility is really a key issue. Of course, the LC standard tactic is to attack other people's credibility. Anyone who speaks out against the LC has their credibility attacked. They have done it to Lily Hsu now. Their articles on Daystar and Max do the exact same thing.

Amid all the smoke and mirrors, the real question is the credibility of the LSM/DCP/blendeds. In my mind they have not established themselves as people who should be taken seriously. Those who read the articles on shearingwords.com will find all the same old nonsense that have been putting out for years.

What I wonder is do they really believe the stuff they keep repeating in defense of all things WL/LC, or is there a nefarious motivation - keeping the LSM kingdom together at all costs?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

When looking at the situation that the LC is presently confronted with, and how they are responding to it, credibility is really a key issue. Of course, the LC standard tactic is to attack other people's credibility. Anyone who speaks out against the LC has their credibility attacked. They have done it to Lily Hsu now. Their articles on Daystar and Max do the exact same thing.

Amid all the smoke and mirrors, the real question is the credibility of the LSM/DCP/blendeds. In my mind they have not established themselves as people who should be taken seriously. Those who read the articles on shearingwords.com will find all the same old nonsense that have been putting out for years.

The website puts out "facts" about Daystar Motor Homes. Okay, what about these "facts" from someone there, who was personally recruited by Lee to work on the project? Shouldn't these be included as well?

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge

Starting around 1972, Witness Lee expressed a concern for the financial suffering of the migrating saints and their need to be able to purchase proper meeting places. I was in a meeting of visiting elders and co-workers in which he introduced the Daystar business. He shared that his son Timothy had approached him about a business and that the business seemed to Witness Lee to be ideal for us (the local churches). The brothers and sisters could invest money, earn a nice profit of around 35%, and generate significant profit for the support of the new churches. He then spoke of manufacturing only the finest product. We could produce the product in Taiwan, which would help the believers there with employment and sell the product in the USA. He spoke at length concerning how the members of the churches should only invest their surplus and that he felt very positive that this was of the Lord. The business consisted of manufacturing and selling an expensive motor home. This was certainly a very different meeting than anything I had ever attended. I and others left with our heads spinning. I was bothered and asked James Barber what was going on. He replied that Witness Lee was God’s anointed and I should be very careful about criticizing. He declared that even if Witness Lee was wrong, God would bless the endeavor.

Isn't it also a fact that son Timothy was President? Isn't there conflict of interests here?

More facts on Daystar, including Lee's personal assessment:

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge

Anaheim never prospered and was a continual hole into which people and money were poured with no increase and no blessing. The Daystar experience was a great frustration to the move of the Spirit. In 1975, we were having a conference in Dallas. Before the meetings, we would pray in the large home on our property and then would walk across the parking lot to the large new hall we had just built. One evening I was walking with Brother Lee. He stopped, turned to me and then put his arm around my shoulder. (Never before and never since have I seen him embrace a brother. Thus, I realized he was about to tell me something very serious. He told me that he had made a terrible mistake with Daystar. He said that if he saw Brother Nee he would not know what to say since Brother Nee had warned him not to mix the church with financial matters or business. He then told me that he had once told Watchman Nee that he was not following him (Watchman Nee), but rather was following the truth and vision that Brother Nee taught. Furthermore, that he (Witness Lee) would not follow Watchman Nee if Brother Nee left the vision, but he (Brother Lee) would continue to follow the vision. He then looked me straight in the eye and charged me, “Brother Don, if I leave the vision do not follow me, but follow the vision.” I was a little speechless but I did manage to return the embrace and assure Brother Lee that I would remain true to the vision and the truth.

[aron]

More on Daystar and its aftermath, from one who was there.

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge aka Hope

In Dallas, we never presented Daystar to my knowledge even though there was a lot of talk as a brother attempted to sell them to the public and sometimes one was parked in our parking lot.

After a meeting, we permitted brother Chang to present his vitamin business. I bought some. Also we were contacted about a savings program that the LSM was sponsoring to encourage the young people to save their surplus. It was called “the little bankers.” An elder in a church would collect and record additions and interest to someone's account. I was asked to take care of the Dallas saints. I had a meeting with some of the young people and a few put in a few dollars. Unfortunately, I put $500 into an account for myself. We all thought we could just withdraw at any time. Then I learned the money went for a last ditch effort to keep Daystar afloat. Say goodbye to it. Later, WL asked me to sign a waver of forgiveness from the LSM. Silly me. I signed the release and kissed the money good-bye. Compared to what many lost in Daystar etc my little bit was something to just forget about.

I never mentioned Linko in Dallas but it was a big deal in Irving complete with models of the buildings to be built etc. Because the church in Dallas would not join in the cheerleading and fund raising from Irving there was more and more a strained relationship. Dallas did give money for Irving and the goal and purpose for the facility was shared. Benson came over a time or two and did some fund raising for that hall after a Lord’s table.

Usually Dallas had a sizable surplus in our bank accounts. On three occasions in Texas area elders meetings Benson and Ray put a press on Dallas to release our extra funds for Irving and LSM. We said no each time as our conscience did not agree that the money had been given by the saints for the questionable projects. This put quite a strain on our relationship.

The Daystar fiasco was one in a string of fiascos. Apparently Witness Lee kept at it until he found the formula: publishing, printing, and selling his own books. Daystar was not an aberration, or anomaly, but one of a series.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What I wonder is do they really believe the stuff they keep repeating in defense of all things WL/LC, or is there a nefarious motivation - keeping the LSM kingdom together at all costs?

I suppose some do. Maybe others who have been in longer just don't take it all that seriously anymore.

I listened to the recording of the meeting they had during the summer training for past FTTA graduates. In the meeting, they talked about the facebook post and letter, then they claim the "target" is the younger generation. They then got all emotional, telling the attendees that they were their "spiritual fathers."

What was striking to me is that they were taking all the same old defense and introducing it to an audience who was probably not all that familiar with most of the past "turmoils." They first convince the audience that they are under attack, then tell them they are their fathers out to protect them from the attack, then they lay out their defense. I guess it works on people who don't really know what's going on.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

They first convince the audience that they are under attack, then tell them they are their fathers out to protect them from the attack, then they lay out their defense. I guess it works on people who don't really know what's going on.

I am your father!

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I am your father!

It seems to be the latest thing in the LC - all the talk about "spiritual fathers."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

They first convince the audience that they are under attack, then tell them they are their fathers out to protect them from the attack, then they lay out their defense. I guess it works on people who don't really know what's going on.

In light of testimony from someone who was actually there (Don Rutledge), posted below in #81 and #82, and given that he and Witness Lee spoke personally on the subject, how do we know that the writers of this website aren't minions rehashing rumors promoted by their bosses? Do they really know what happened, or are they just repeating what they're being told? Were they there, like Don Rutledge? Did they talk to Lee personally?

I think ALL the facts are needed to make determinations, not just those few convenient to a story line benefiting a few.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Then along comes someone who makes a simple facebook post. It gets thousands of comments from current and former members alike. All the sudden, the DCP/blended find themselves having to do damage control on something that doesn't play into the typical narrative. Not only that, the entire letter is a call for justice and repentance, so all of the current members who have read it already know what is about.

There is another narrative they would resort to:

Unforgiven offenses and perceived wrongdoings

No matter how much attrition the local churches have suffered, they're no going to change for anybody.
Same ones meeting, but only older. More churchkids leaving than those who remain.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Don Rutledge
Starting around 1972, Witness Lee expressed a concern for the financial suffering of the migrating saints and their need to be able to purchase proper meeting places. I was in a meeting of visiting elders and co-workers in which he introduced the Daystar business. He shared that his son Timothy had approached him about a business and that the business seemed to Witness Lee to be ideal for us (the local churches). The brothers and sisters could invest money, earn a nice profit of around 35%, and generate significant profit for the support of the new churches. He then spoke of manufacturing only the finest product. We could produce the product in Taiwan, which would help the believers there with employment and sell the product in the USA. He spoke at length concerning how the members of the churches should only invest their surplus and that he felt very positive that this was of the Lord. The business consisted of manufacturing and selling an expensive motor home. This was certainly a very different meeting than anything I had ever attended. I and others left with our heads spinning. I was bothered and asked James Barber what was going on. He replied that Witness Lee was God’s anointed and I should be very careful about criticizing. He declared that even if Witness Lee was wrong, God would bless the endeavor.

Don Rutledge's account provides perhaps the only real insight into how the Daystar debacle was thrust upon the LC's. It was promoted by Lee himself, firstly to all the elders. Supposedly it was too help the gospel, the suffering workers, and the faithful saints. Then why is it, when the business collapsed, only the Lee family benefited?

What a sham! They used the podium to promote a scheme promising 35% returns. They used all the leading brothers trusted by the saints to heist this scam. Put the scripture in their hearts and then your hands in their pockets. No doubt they also had a pyramid scheme in mind -- new members investing to provide dividends for original investors -- until their house of cards came quickly crashing down.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

In light of testimony from someone who was actually there (Don Rutledge), posted below in #81 and #82, and given that he and Witness Lee spoke personally on the subject, how do we know that the writers of this website aren't minions rehashing rumors promoted by their bosses? Do they really know what happened, or are they just repeating what they're being told? Were they there, like Don Rutledge? Did they talk to Lee personally?

I think ALL the facts are needed to make determinations, not just those few convenient to a story line benefiting a few.

People like Don Rutledge who were actually there are the most credible sources. People who were never there are not in much of a position to question the firsthand accounts of what happened. It still remains unclear who is even behind the shearingwords.com site.

Who exactly are "the coworkers"? Are they working with DCP? Do they represent LSM? If they really want to be taken seriously, they should attach their names to their writings. They should also cite their sources instead of making unsupported claims.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

People like Don Rutledge who were actually there are the most credible sources. People who were never there are not in much of a position to question the firsthand accounts of what happened. It still remains unclear who is even behind the shearingwords.com site.

Who exactly are "the coworkers"? Are they working with DCP? Do they represent LSM? If they really want to be taken seriously, they should attach their names to their writings. They should also cite their sources instead of making unsupported claims.

I suspect a certain level of anonymity is built in to keep people at arms length. It can be promoted to LC members for "their benefit," but then no one has to be accountable or bothered with further inquiries. It's just sort of a nebulous "cloud of truth" they can point people to, to keep the masses appeased.

[OBW]

I couldn't believe that Nee would do such things. Lee & sons yes. Nee, NO!

And it should be evident that he was taking care to stop anyone from pointing at his egregious behavior again by returning from his relatively brief exile in the 1940s (at the invitation of Lee) to give those messages that became Authority and Submission and denied anyone the right to make any charge against him again.

In effect, he responded to charges of sexual impropriety against him not with evidence that he was innocent, or with apologies for his failures, but with faux spiritual authority to avoid ever again answering to any man's charges. He thumbed his nose at everyone and demanded that they revere him as the most spiritual person in any room no matter his failures.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suspect a certain level of anonymity is built in to keep people at arms length. It can be promoted to LC members for "their benefit," but then no one has to be accountable or bothered with further inquiries. It's just sort of a nebulous "cloud of truth" they can point people to, to keep the masses appeased.

That makes a lot of sense. The latest "turmoil" started out with a facebook post. And I think in the eyes of LC leadership, the greatest threat to them isn't the contents of the letter but the fact that their members were not only reading, but also interacting with the comments of that post.

So it really is convenient for them to be able to redirect people to a website where any possibility of a discussion is already out of the question.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

That makes a lot of sense. The latest "turmoil" started out with a facebook post. And I think in the eyes of LC leadership, the greatest threat to them isn't the contents of the letter but the fact that their members were not only reading, but also interacting with the comments of that post.

So it really is convenient for them to be able to redirect people to a website where any possibility of a discussion is already out of the question.

Exactly! Shrewd thinking . . .

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nuclear

There's a new article up on shepherdingwords.com titled "Facts Concerning Lily Hsu." Thoughts?

My main thought reading the article was "What an incomprehensible mess".

Also, "no one would ever describe this as 'shepherding' anyone".

Trapped

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

My main thought reading the article was "What an incomprehensible mess".

Also, "no one would ever describe this as 'shepherding' anyone".

Trapped

Interesting comments.

Reminded me of the website LSM/DCP developed during the Midwest quarantines called "afaithfulword." It actually had nothing to do with God's faithful word. It was all about Lee's teachings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

And it should be evident that [Nee] was taking care to stop anyone from pointing at his egregious behavior again by returning from his relatively brief exile in the 1940s (at the invitation of Lee) to give those messages that became Authority and Submission and denied anyone the right to make any charge against him again.

In effect, he responded to charges of sexual impropriety against him not with evidence that he was innocent, or with apologies for his failures, but with faux spiritual authority to avoid ever again answering to any man's charges. He thumbed his nose at everyone and demanded that they revere him as the most spiritual person in any room no matter his failures.

Regardless of what actually lay behind the 'storm' or 'turmoil', it didn't produce transparency or humility; rather a doubling down on command-and-control. Just like with Lee.

Originally Posted by Trapped

My main thought reading the article was "What an incomprehensible mess".

How is it an incomprehensible mess? In what way does it fail as argument, instead offering a sop for the True Believers? The record shows Lily Hsu was a new believer, young, impressionable, weak in faith, who subsequently renounced both God and Watchman Nee. Her decades-later memories of a show trial in 1950s China don't constitute proof, or even meaningful evidence, of Watchman Nee's culpability. Okay, fine -- that was my stated objection as well (and I'm no fan of Nee).

But what about the facts of Daystar Motor Homes? What about Don Rutledge's testimony? What about Terry Risenhoover? Bill Mallon? Don Hardy? These were principals, not bystanders. These were former insiders, who independently agree. Why does Rutledge mention Timothy Lee's impetus in starting the project, and the Shepherding Words essay doesn't? Others mentioned Timothy's role indicating the appearance of self-interest. Why do Shepherding Words author(s) only write a few facts, while studiously ignoring others? Are they interested in truth? It doesn't look like it.

Psalm 119:36 "Turn my heart toward your statutes and not toward selfish gain." If one looks at all the facts of Daystar Motor Homes, one sees indications of selfish gain, and Shepherding Words looks like diversion, or cover-up, a sop for the truly (and willfully) naive, for those who desperately wish it were so, who gave their lives for The Cause and don't want it to vanish in a puff of smoke.

Not only was Daystar a shameless money-grab by the Lee family, it was one in a series. It wasn't an anomaly but rather fit a pattern.

[Ohio]

Another translation of Psalms 119.36 makes it all so clear:

"Direct my heart toward your written instructions rather than getting rich in underhanded ways."

Why was it that everyone one of Lee's business schemes started out to "benefit the impoverished gospel workers" and ended up only benefitting the Lee family?

Then when the saints felt taken advantage of, they became leprous rebels in a vast global conspiracy to undermine the ministry. I guess that's what happens when leaders become "deputy authorities" without transparency or accountability.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

The record shows Lily Hsu was a new believer, young, impressionable, weak in faith, who subsequently renounced both God and Watchman Nee. Her decades-later memories of a show trial in 1950s China don't constitute proof, or even meaningful evidence, of Watchman Nee's culpability.

aron I think you're selling Dr. Hsu a little short here. While her backsliding after the fact is heart wrenching and disappointing, it does not make her a liar. In fact, her public admission and confession of her failures only bolsters her credibility in my view. (note: MY view) The meaningful evidence comes from the testimony of two of the girls/women that were abused at the hand of Watchman Nee. I believe Lily Hsu's testimony of their testimony. As I have previously stated on this forum, I hope and pray that God will see fit to have others who were alive at the time (and the number is getting fewer and fewer) come forward to confirm Hsu's testimony. Unfortunately, I suspect that many are still entrapped within the bowels of Communist China, or are entrapped within a Local Church system which does not allow for even the slightest notion of fault or sin to be attributed to Watchman Nee or Witness Lee. May God have mercy.

But what about the facts of Daystar Motor Homes? . It wasn't an anomaly but rather fit a pattern.

And Watchman's indiscretions fit the pattern of sexual, psychological and spiritual abuse in the Local Church.

Let me give a quick personal testimony. I once was extremely resistant to hearing anything about, much less believing, that Watchman Nee or Witness Lee could condone or allow, much, much less participate in anything immoral or sinful. Of course the first demigod to fall was Witness. I even strongly resisted believing anything about "the fermentation of the present rebellion" until I heard the personal testimony of many trusted and esteemed brothers, including John Ingalls, who related many of the things to me personally in his living room. At that point it was not just "smoke" to be concerned with, the flames of the fire were blazing bright right before my eyes. Denial was futile.

So, to carry forth the "where there's smoke there's fire" analogy, that while I would fully admit that Dr. Hsu's book seems to be pointing to us to a lot of thick, dark smoke....I have to believe that this smoke is obscuring the raging flames of a massive inferno. We've seen too much. We've heard too much. We now know too much to think otherwise. Denial is futile. May God have mercy.

[Sons to Glory!]

So with WL there were eyewitnesses to these things, which many of us respect. However, there is not the same "quality" of eyewitness accounts with Nee, right? That is of the quality of "related many things to me personally in his living room." Is that correct?

[UntoHim]

Technicly Dr. Hsu is a third party witness to Nee's sexual misconduct, however she saw and heard many things, and knew these women's character and credibility to such a degree, she felt compelled to relate the incidents publicly. For the reasons I clearly stated in my post, I believe Hsu's claims are true and accurate.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I even strongly resisted believing anything about "the fermentation of the present rebellion" until I heard the personal testimony of many trusted and esteemed brothers, including John Ingalls, who related many of the things to me personally in his living room. At that point it was not just "smoke" to be concerned with, the flames of the fire were blazing bright right before my eyes. Denial was futile.

For many years I was a loyal and trusting footsoldier in the Recovery. I trusted LC leaders unreservedly, more than my own parents in fact, and had no reason to question any of the historical accounts I was told. I heard WL's story of Nee's excommunication by the Church in Shanghai in 1942 many times. Lee informed us that Nee was as pure as the driven snow, and was constantly being persecuted from within and without the church.

As the story goes, someone started a rumor about Nee. The elders heard about it and then confronted Nee, asking if he was "living with another woman." Being so "pure" in heart, he said "yes," knowing that the woman living with him was his own mother. Without even investigating the actual facts, the elders then proceeded to excommunicate him, and terminate his ministry. That was the story I heard about Nee's excommunication.

Honestly folks I believed the story. I used to believe a lot of things I was taught in the Recovery. Yes, I was naive. We all were. But I suppose every one who ever lived believes a bit of hagiography about their favorite sports star, movie celebrity, religious leader, or historical figure. Some folks still believe in super heroes.

But let's think about Lee's story here. Was this all smoke as in "smokescreen" to keep the faithful from knowing the truth? Notice that Lee never put this tall tale in his biography of Nee, Seer ... Does anyone really think that those Shanghai elders could be so stupid and impulsive? They were appointed by Nee and shepherded the largest church in the movement. I'm sure they had confronted all sorts of moral "irregularities" dealing with diverse saints for years. Nee was their chief minister. Would they not prayerfully, carefully, and painstakingly examine any accusation against Nee?

Of course they would! Lee's fabrication of events on its face bears no credibility to honest scrutiny. Is not it plainly obvious that his brief fictional account was a diversion from the truth, carefully designed to quell suspicions? So, when confronted with lies, we are forced to consider what was he hiding? What should we not know? Why lie unless the truth is too nasty to confront. So, for me, whether or not Dr. Lily Hsu is completely accurate in her Memories of Nee is besides the point.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

aron I think you're selling Dr. Hsu a little short here. While her backsliding after the fact is heart wrenching and disappointing, it does not make her a liar. In fact, her public admission and confession of her failures only bolsters her credibility in my view. (note: MY view) The meaningful evidence comes from the testimony of two of the girls/women that were abused at the hand of Watchman Nee..

Actually we're looking at complementary aspects of the same whole. The LSM scribes want to discredit Hsu by pointing out her youth, naivete, and outsider status. I'm saying that they must lie in the bed they've made: enter Don Rutledge, enter Bill Mallon, enter Jane Anderson, enter Don Hardy, enter...

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Technicly Dr. Hsu is a third party witness to Nee's sexual misconduct, however she saw and heard many things, and knew these women's character and credibility to such a degree, she felt compelled to relate the incidents publicly. For the reasons I clearly stated in my post, I believe Hsu's claims are true and accurate.

I agree. Admittedly, no one can prove those incidents back then in Shanghai, but I felt she was telling the truth in her book. Another Korean brother who read the book told me the same.

[Sons to Glory!]

I have not read Dr. Hsu's account of brother Nee's activities, and I don't have any leading (or even curiosity) to do so. I do know and have spoken with some of the people who were witness to things in the USA from the 1960s forward, so I believe those accounts 100%. I know the purpose of this forum is to bring all these things into the light, so that others currently in the LC system can get a fuller picture - and maybe some kind of understanding/healing for the rest of us. But personally, I have no need to delve further (other than some sort of morbid desire to know the details of the faults of other brothers).

I choose to believe that WL repented of things in the early 1960s, as some who were with him have related. And I think this is one of the reasons the ministry was good during that time. Also, the saints were coming together in oneness for the simple enjoyment of Christ, and the Lord was moving mightily with the young people in the 60s. After the early 70s (or thereabout) things started to seriously go off the rails with the LC and LSM.

Brother Lee repented again toward the end of his life in 1997, and stated that love and acceptance of other believers was missing. I choose to belief his heart and declarations were genuine, however, those taking up the leadership of the LC after that, ignored this and continued to follow the old, dead ways of centralized command and control.

So for some, it may seem good to keep going back to dredging up the past, but for me it's a pretty dry well. If one doesn't get any watering out of Nee's or Lee's teachings (of which some are good, some not so good), then they shouldn't read those materials anymore. (personally, I almost never read any WL now and only occasionally WN) And as the writer of Hebrews exhorts us, we will be healed by coming forward, not by looking back.

[awareness]

For those that may not have purchased the book or read it, I can cut and paste the confession section, on open forum or in PM.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I have not read Dr. Hsu's account of brother Nee's activities, and I don't have any leading (or even curiosity) to do so.
(But personally, I have no need to delve further (other than some sort of morbid desire to know the details of the faults of other brothers).

If you cannot study history without a morbid motive, then you are not mature enough to learn from history nor to advise others based on it.

Imagine if the police couldn't investigate crimes because they were squeamish about the nature of those crimes. Maybe they should get work in flower shops so they don't get their sensibilities ruffled. In the meantime, SOMEBODY needs to know the facts, or else people will make their decisions based on ignorance.

No thanks. Embracing ignorance is one reason WL was able to deceive so many. Embracing ignorance is what the LR COUNTS ON.

Never again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

For those that may not have purchased the book or read it, I can cut and paste the confession section, on open forum or in PM.

It's in PDF form here.

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/LilyHsuBook.pdf

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gubei

I felt she was telling the truth in her book. Another Korean brother who read the book told me the same.

I also felt she was telling the truth: she was a naive, hero-worshipping teenager whose faith was crushed by hearing evidence in a 1950s Communist Kangaroo Court.

But my question has been, where in 1950s China did one see a person plead not guilty in court, mount a defense, produce evidence to the contrary and cross-examine witnesses, and be exonerated and freed? Chinese justice didn't work that way. So, please don't transpose their experiences on ours. Her memories may be true, but they have limited relevance at best.

But what of the memories of Don Rutledge? Was he a naive outsider? If not, why doesn't Shepherding Words listen to his testimony? Why the flip-flop?

Likewise, why are some Psalms of imprecation called "fallen human concepts" because the NT calls us to bless our enemies, whilst other similar Psalms are called "Christ defeating Satan"? Why the interpretive inconsistency? Why is Mary McDonough's book sold on LSM web site when women aren't allowed to teach? Why the double standards?

The LSM appears to be a ministry of expediency. They take a line, and then abandon it when it's no longer useful. And everyone pretends not to notice. Witness Lee said that he left his native culture on the Pacific sea-floor when he migrated to the U.S. That is patently untrue. When Minoru Chen told the elders that they should go to Linko and shovel dirt, he was channeling Lee. Why do you think he's in charge, today? When Benson Philip's and Ray Graver ran their own Kangaroo Court with Jane Anderson, who do think they represented? Again, look at their positions in the LSM hierarchy today. They knew exactly where the bread got buttered.

When I was in school, living in LC brother's house in the late '80s and early '90s, going to meetings and conferences and trainings, we were repeatedly told to go after 'typical Americans'. Why? Because the typical Americans who flooded the LC during the late '60s realized the scam they were in after Daystar, Philip Lee, Linko, Little Bankers, Young Galileans, the New Move, and so forth. They could see the fallen human culture coming through the hyper-spirituality and zeal. So they left.

Similarly, I was told to ignore the poor, the sick and weak, who could not repay in this age, and go after "good building material", aka Caucasian college students. "Don't waste your time" with the old and the weak, our FTTA trainer told us. So I left. It wasn't God. I knew nothing of Daystar and Philip Lee, but I could tell this wasn't the Bible, but a sham imposed on it.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Cal

If you cannot study history without a morbid motive, then you are not mature enough to learn from history nor to advise others based on it.

Imagine if the police couldn't investigate crimes because they were squeamish about the nature of those crimes. Maybe they should get work in flower shops so they don't get their sensibilities ruffled. In the meantime, SOMEBODY needs to know the facts, or else people will make their decisions based on ignorance.

No thanks. Embracing ignorance is one reason WL was able to deceive so many. Embracing ignorance is what the LR COUNTS ON.

Never again.

Ineffective analogy I think. Of course I knew I'd catch flack on here for that observation . . . and the Lord will judge maturity in Him. Ignorance is one thing, but being obsessive about it is the other extreme and is simply a distraction from Christ IMHO. Just my perspective and speaking personally of course. (and I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, on this forum, but so be it)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ineffective analogy I think. Of course I knew I'd catch flack on here for that observation . . . and the Lord will judge maturity in Him. Ignorance is one thing, but being obsessive about it is the other extreme and is simply a distraction from Christ IMHO. Just my perspective and speaking personally of course. (and I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, on this forum, but so be it)

I think it's a great analogy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But personally, I have no need to delve further (other than some sort of morbid desire to know the details of the faults of other brothers).

Better stay away from the Old Testament. There's way too much detail about the failures of others in it.

Actually it's far safer for us to learn from other's failures that it is for us to learn from others who desire to exalt a man.

[UntoHim]

In reviewing the recent discussions on this thread, I was reminded about what Dr. Hsu wrote about these matters:

From Lily Hsu's book:

Why Rake up the Old Ashes?
Many brothers and sisters at SCA witnessed the public exposure of Nee’s private life in 1956.
They clearly knew of Nee’s sexual immorality based upon the evidence. Yet, many of those who are
still alive have no interest in talking about the past. Why should we rake up the old ashes? Actually it
is far from over. Idol worship is still persistent in some of the Local Churches. The lonesome
supremacy and sectarianism are still in the flood stage. The erratic theology of delegated authority and
anti-intellectualism are still on the market.

Then, why do we have to cover it up? The issue is not whether someone likes to mention the
past; it is whether there is a need for today’s churches to learn. The New Testament churches were
imperfect, so that they had to be reminded and advised by the past history of the Israelites. Are the
current Local Churches and its affiliates perfect and without problems? Unfortunately the Local
Churches are not easy to exercise humble reflection. Not only the Local Churches, but all of us should
learn from the tragic missteps of our forefathers. The Bible does keep the old “ashes” to remind God’s
people, generation after generation. David was forgiven, yet his misdeeds and repentance are recorded.

Samson returned to God at the end of his life, yet his failure is recorded. Balak was killed (Num. 31:8)
for his evildoing; his wayward behavior are recorded, even in the New Testament (2 Peter 2:15, Jude
11, Rev. 2:14). There are multiple examples of the success and failure of God’s people recorded in the
Bible. Then, why do we have to cover it up?

Waiting Until the Day of Judgment
If we are all waiting until God’s judgment day to deal with sin, how can the church leaders and
the congregation be kept holy? The Bible said: “Be holy, because I am holy.” (1 Peter 1:1.) History
will repeat in similar patterns, and that is the reason for this book. “Wait until the Day of Judgment”
is merely a high-sounding yet deceiving excuse. After being briefly bailed out from his imprisonment,
Zhang Yuzhi, Nee’s major coworker, told his family clearly, “Although we used to look at SCA as the
most orthodox church; yet she was destroyed by God.” The attitude of “waiting until the Day of
Judgment” may lead to more serious consequence and judgment.
(emphasis added)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cal

If you cannot study history without a morbid motive, then you are not mature enough to learn from history nor to advise others based on it.

Imagine if the police couldn't investigate crimes because they were squeamish about the nature of those crimes. Maybe they should get work in flower shops so they don't get their sensibilities ruffled. In the meantime, SOMEBODY needs to know the facts, or else people will make their decisions based on ignorance.

No thanks. Embracing ignorance is one reason WL was able to deceive so many. Embracing ignorance is what the LR COUNTS ON. Never again.

In a real sense, the mission of this forum is to "police" the Recovery, since no one else has done so.

Not all people can do the investigative work of the police, because it is indeed messy and criminal at times within the inner workings of the LSM. There is danger also in knowing this unrighteousness, as we recently learned from brother Greg Casteel. But if no one ever does this work, then lawlessness just continues to run wild.

"Without a proper understanding of history, My people will perish." (Prov 29.18)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Better stay away from the Old Testament. There's way too much detail about the failures of others in it.

Actually it's far safer for us to learn from other's failures that it is for us to learn from others who desire to exalt a man.

And I love the OT (and new) for just that reason - that it doesn't gloss over all the shenanigans of men! But that is the Word of God and not just men's view on other's failures, right?

Any way, you guys just keep on going after all that. As for me, I've seen enough.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And I love the OT (and new) for just that reason - that it doesn't gloss over all the shenanigans of men! But that is the Word of God and not just men's view on other's failures, right?

Any way, you guys just keep on going after all that. As for me, I've seen enough.

Sons To Glory, you are, of course, free to read or not read whatever you like. I'm not criticizing anyone here, but you might want to rethink your position.

Do you realize that perhaps the biggest failure in the American education system is the failure to teach history, and in the absence of truthful history, today's leaders have complete liberty to rewrite history. This is what crooked leaders do, LSM included. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Perhaps this is why the oldest history book on the planet presents us with a pattern of faithful honesty, so that we can learn from the past failures. Somethings God has done He wishes us to learn from and repeat.

I did not understand what happened to the Recovery until I went back and studied Plymouth Brethren history. I believe the Lord gave me that desire. I am sure many ex-Brethren said it was a waste of time to rehash their sad history, with all the sordid details, but I'm thankful that some faithful brothers recorded it for us. Lee totally misrepresented John Darby for us. He was not a demigod, acting god, or MOTA as many thought. Likewise with Nee and Lee. Why can't we learn from both the good and the bad? We have all read about David's failures, yet we still appreciate him. Same with Peter. In my opinion, it is far more dangerous to exalt a man by hiding his sins, than it is to appreciate him despite knowing his failures.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sons To Glory, you are, of course, free to read or not read whatever you like. I'm not criticizing anyone here, but you might want to rethink your position.

Fine, and you are preaching a little to the choir here regarding knowing history in general. But no eternal profit for me, bro, and no peace to pursue LC history further. It is what it is, and this is knowledge I don't need any more of to form opinions, etc.

Besides, "He's got the whole world in His hands!" and doesn't need my help.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cal

It's in PDF form here.

http://www.lordsrecovery.us/LilyHsuBook.pdf

Any reason why the last 60+ pages are all blank lines? Do you see the same lines?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Any reason why the last 60+ pages are all blank lines? Do you see the same lines?

Not my copy. I'm not sure who put this up. Maybe it's been compromised?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cal

Not my copy. I'm not sure who put this up. Maybe it's been compromised?

Can you post your copy?

[UntoHim]

lordsrecovery.us belongs to Steve Isitt. I would suggest that someone reach out to Steve to see what the problem is.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you post your copy?

No. Mine is a Kindle book.

[UntoHim]

Ok, Cal. When you get the time, could you please take a look at what is missing at the end of Steve's copy? I think it is probably footnotes and maybe some copies of Nee's letters.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok, Cal. When you get the time, could you please take a look at what is missing at the end of Steve's copy? I think it is probably footnotes and maybe some copies of Nee's letters.
-

Steve's copy is missing some of the footnotes of Appendix 2. It is also missing Appendix 3, Nee's Posthumous Letters; Appendix 4, which is about two female co-workers of Nee, Li Yuanru and Want Peizhen; Appendix 5, which is on Chinese terms and acronyms; and the bibliography and index, both of which are extensive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Cal

No. Mine is a Kindle book.

And Kindle only allows 'fair use' and cuts it off. I reach my limit on the Lily Hsu thread long ago. Had to resort to a copy stripped of Kindle DRM's.

I could, however, post it in entirety in any format, like MS Word, or PDF. But I don't think Untohim would want copyright coming down on him.

PMing me might get somewhere. Feel free to give it try.

[Nell]

Kindle $9.99
Paperback $14.50

https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgetta...1105076&sr=8-1

Do Lily a favor and buy her book!

Nell

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee said that he left his native culture on the Pacific sea-floor when he migrated to the U.S. That is patently untrue.

Some brothers have even acted to the point that it's so palpable they think their culture is superior to mine (I'm Korean) or even the Western's. I guess this is partly because of their modern history.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Honestly folks I believed the story. I used to believe a lot of things I was taught in the Recovery. Yes, I was naive. We all were. But I suppose every one who ever lived believes a bit of hagiography about their favorite sports star, movie celebrity, religious leader, or historical figure. Some folks still believe in super heroes.

Which is more believable Lee's biography or Hsu's biography? It's a simple question. I would say Hsu's biography makes Nee appear more 3 dimensional. More human.
Those who want to discredit Hsu, go ahead. What for? Because she very could have the accounts closer to the truth than brothers would want to believe.
If one takes the argument to discredit Hsu because she wasn't there, same can be said for ones who write biographies of long passed American presidents such as Andrew Jackson and John F Kennedy.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Honestly folks I believed the story. I used to believe a lot of things I was taught in the Recovery. Yes, I was naive. We all were. But I suppose every one who ever lived believes a bit of hagiography about their favorite sports star, movie celebrity, religious leader, or historical figure. Some folks still believe in super heroes.

But let's think about Lee's story here. Was this all smoke as in "smokescreen" to keep the faithful from knowing the truth? Notice that Lee never put this tall tale in his biography of Nee, Seer ... Does anyone really think that those Shanghai elders could be so stupid and impulsive? They were appointed by Nee and shepherded the largest church in the movement. I'm sure they had confronted all sorts of moral "irregularities" dealing with diverse saints for years. Nee was their chief minister. Would they not prayerfully, carefully, and painstakingly examine any accusation against Nee?

Of course they would! Lee's fabrication of events on its face bears no credibility to honest scrutiny. Is not it plainly obvious that his brief fictional account was a diversion from the truth, carefully designed to quell suspicions? So, when confronted with lies, we are forced to consider what was he hiding? What should we not know? Why lie unless the truth is too nasty to confront. So, for me, whether or not Dr. Lily Hsu is completely accurate in her Memories of Nee is besides the point.

Which is more believable Lee's biography or Hsu's biography? It's a simple question. I would say Hsu's biography makes Nee appear more 3 dimensional. More human.
Those who want to discredit Hsu, go ahead. What for? Because she very could have the accounts closer to the truth than brothers would want to believe.
If one takes the argument to discredit Hsu because she wasn't there, same can be said for ones who write biographies of long passed American presidents such as Andrew Jackson and John F Kennedy.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Some brothers have even acted to the point that it's so palpable they think their culture is superior to mine (I'm Korean) or even the Western's. I guess this is partly because of their modern history.

In a way, it's turnabout as fair play for what happened 150 years ago. Western merchants, soldiers, and politicians wanted the riches of the East. So it's understandable that after a long period, this large and now economically and militarily resurgent society would assert itself. I get that.

But it's not God - it is "the way of the gentiles"; which variant is incidental. It's not the Way, and we shouldn't pretend it is. This a Chinese version of Romanism, complete with Chinese Pope Witness Lee I. They even said that when he died, the age had turned and henceforth there were to be no more spiritual giants! Talk about ancestral worship!

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Fine, and you are preaching a little to the choir here regarding knowing history in general. But no eternal profit for me, bro, and no peace to pursue LC history further. It is what it is, and this is knowledge I don't need any more of to form opinions, etc.
Besides, "He's got the whole world in His hands!" and doesn't need my help.

No, God doesn't need our help. However, those of us who have experienced something of this group for what it is, owe it to the next generation to speak up, that they don't similarly get sucked in. Else, what did we pass through our experience for? You have seen things that none on this forum have. You have a voice. In that regard, your witness, mine, and that of Lily Hsu all belong on the table.

Something interesting happens with multiple witnesses - patterns begin to emerge, which might not be seen otherwise. Looking at several testimonies of the treatment of nonconformity by Chinese authorities: Watchman Nee's treatment by the Chinese Communist Party and Jane Anderson's treatment by Witness Lee's Local Church are eerily similar. Charges are brought forth and immediately judgment is decreed. No defense is permitted, as a challenge to authority might disturb social order. Individuality must be sacrificed for the needs of the collective. Likewise, Watchman Nee wrote "Authority and Submission" but ultimately he had to submit to the same authoritarianism that he espoused.

[Ohio]

Reading LSM's article on Lily Hsu (note they refused to recognize her as a medical doctor) this comment was made:

In 1951, following the entry of China into the Korean War the previous October, a widespread accusation movement was launched with the aim of expelling all foreign missionaries. Propaganda campaigns consisting of trumped up charges were carried out against these missionaries based on manufactured evidence of heinous crimes, including espionage, rape, and murder. As the missionaries left, the numbers in the local churches in China exploded. In the political mindset of the CCP leaders, this posed a threat, so on April 10, 1952, Watchman Nee was arrested and imprisoned under the guise of claims of financial crimes. Internal government documents show that PRC officials wanted to curb the spread of his work and the increase of the local churches.

What honest historian would ever connect the increase in LC's due to the departure of missionaries, as if this fact brought them great blessing?

But this has long been a complaint of mine -- Missionaries sacrificed their lives traveling to the other side of the world, and then LC leaders seeing them as evil. Talk about ungratefulness.

Perhaps the blessing came from people's hearts crying out to God to save them?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Those who want to discredit Hsu, go ahead. What for? Because she very could have the accounts closer to the truth than brothers would want to believe.

I know the thread "Re: My Unforgettable Memories: Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church - Dr." is a lot to keep up with, and only God and Untohim knows what was deleted from it, but amrKelly, a rich Nee worshiper in England, swore to bring Hsu down, and was spending big money on it.

That goes back 5 years, and he still hasn't been able to do it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

But my question has been, where in 1950s China did one see a person plead not guilty in court, mount a defense, produce evidence to the contrary and cross-examine witnesses, and be exonerated and freed? Chinese justice didn't work that way. So, please don't transpose their experiences on ours. Her memories may be true, but they have limited relevance at best.

Excellent observation. Yet I would contend that the relevance that Dr. Hsu's testimony has for us today has nothing to do with that Communist show trial, but rather the relevance is in the dangers of God's people investing their entire lives, hopes and dreams in the person and work of a mere human being. History has shown, indeed the Bible shows us, that when we place our entire trust - with our bodies, hearts and minds, in the institutes of man, especially in an institute established and propagated by one, single man, severe damage, and even ruin, is inevitable.

Most of us have now realized that this is the dynamic that we see at work in the Local Church of Witness Lee. We couldn't see it when we were within the movement itself - all the distractions and enthrallment of being part of "the Lord's Recovery" blinded us to the stark reality of our precarious position and untenable condition. Now, with the revelations of Lily Hsu, I think we can see that the very same dynamic was at work 80+ years ago there in Mainland China, except the damage and ruin came from the person and work of Watchman Nee. May God have mercy.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Excellent observation. Yet I would contend that the relevance that Dr. Hsu's testimony has for us today has nothing to do with that Communist show trial, but rather the relevance is in the dangers of God's people investing their entire lives, hopes and dreams in the person and work of a mere human being. History has shown, indeed the Bible shows us, that when we place our entire trust - with our bodies, hearts and minds, in the institutes of man, especially in an institute established and propagated by one, single man, severe damage, and even ruin, is inevitable.

And this is what we (mankind) does over and over by nature. We exalt what we see (some person) instead of the unseen God. The higher the supposed revelation, the more we tend to glorify the apparent oracle.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And this is what we (mankind) does over and over by nature. We exalt what we see (some person) instead of the unseen God. The higher the supposed revelation, the more we tend to glorify the apparent oracle.

Exactly, just as Apostle Paul clearly warned us about these ones, "who change the truth of God into a falsehood, and honor and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen" (Rom 1.25)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Reading LSM's article on Lily Hsu .. this comment was made:"In 1951, following the entry of China into the Korean War the previous October, a widespread accusation movement was launched with the aim of expelling all foreign missionaries. Propaganda campaigns consisting of trumped up charges were carried out... In the political mindset of the CCP leaders, this posed a threat, so on April 10, 1952, Watchman Nee was arrested and imprisoned under the guise of claims of financial crimes."

Take that last sentence, and change "CCP leaders" for "Witness Lee" or "the blended brothers", and replace Watchman Nee's name with that of Jane Anderson or Titus Chu, and the sentence still makes sense. The problem with the LSM essay isn't that it's untrue but that it pertains to them as well. They can see the other actor in a political ploy (the splinter), and miss the beam. Their political mindset is cloaked in spiritual verbiage, but it is pretty obvious when you look for it.

Jesus already taught this. Satan keeps doing it as long as it works.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And this is what we (mankind) does over and over by nature. We exalt what we see (some person) instead of the unseen God. The higher the supposed revelation, the more we tend to glorify the apparent oracle.

It's a fleshly need. Weak faith or ignorance needs a human in the flesh. It's 100% a need of the flesh.

[UntoHim]

Beginning in 1939, I listened to the preaching of Brother Nee quite often. For a period of time I attended the Wednesday evening Youth Meetings led by him. In 1948, as a young brother devoted and yearning for the Lord, a Local Church leader recommended that I attend the coworkers’ training at the Christian Family of Ministers at Guling Mountain.

The lust for power was probably the major issue in his spiritual life. For a long period of time, many brothers and sisters worshiped, even deified him. The outcome of his influence misled us toward his own conclusion that “he was the leading spiritual authority.”

As far as I can recall, from the time I knew Brother Nee until his arrest, I never saw him attend the Lord’s Table. That was certainly true in 1948, when I stayed in the Guling Training program for several months. All the sermons were given by Brother Nee, yet I never saw him attending the Lord’s Table. The Lord’s Table at Guling was led by Brother Yan Jiale. It strongly suggested a distance and a hindrance of communication between Brother Nee and the Lord for years.
(I believe this was due to his secret sin and guilt.)
Joshua Yu
Minister & Author of The Cross and Suffering
-

[Trapped]

In listening to Cal's YouTube video today on deputy authority from shepherdingwords.com, I was reminded of a few posts on Jo Casteel's facebook thread on the subject.

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

This post will address just one line of the shepherdingwords.org website. The sheer volume of things to unpack and crooked lines to set straight on the website is so large it is prohibitive, but maybe a few examples will suffice to make the point.

In the deputy authority article, in the “Is deputy authority Biblical?” section, one line says: "In ascension He sent out apostles as His ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20; Eph. 6:20; 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10)…”

They support this statement with numerous verse references…..but let’s actually look at those verses! (In some cases I will include part of the prior verse for context):

1. 2 Cor. 5:20 - …And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

This verse is very clearly about ambassadors whose specific responsibility is to spread a ministry or message of reconciliation. Just a few verses later in chapter 6 he clearly states they are "servants of God". This is very clearly an ambassadorship to BRING people to God…..not to BE God to people. In no place is a top-down "deputy authority" type ambassadorship mentioned or implied.

All reading should note…..we now all have this ambassadorship. We all can bring and have the authority to bring the message of reconciliation to people. This is not a verse that can in any way support the “deputy authority” granted to a select group in the churches as passed off and mis-applied by the co-workers.

2. Ephesians 6:20 - 19 And for me, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known in boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in a chain, that in it I would speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Again, the ambassadorship mentioned here is to spread the gospel. It is not a top-down authoritarian situation in which those underneath must submit whether the authority is right or wrong. In these verses the ambassador is even in chains! The heavy-handed, fear-based "deputy authority" of the LSM local churches is so far from this verse it is not even funny.

3. 2 Corinthians 10:8 – For even if I should boast somewhat more abundantly concerning our authority, which the Lord has given for building you up and not for overthrowing you, I will not be put to shame.

Let’s look at how Paul talks in this chapter in other surrounding verses:
-10:1 – But I myself Paul….in person am base among you…
-10:5 – ….take captive every thought unto the obedience of Christ.
-10:9 – I say this so as not to seem as if I am terrifying you through my letters,
-10:10 – …his [Paul’s] bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible.
-10:12 – For we do not dare to class or compare ourselves with any of those who commend themselves…
-10:13 – But we will not boast beyond our measure but according to the measure of the rule which the God of measure has apportioned to us…
-10:14 – For we are not extending ourselves beyond our bounds…
-10:15-16 – …according to our rule unto abundance, So that we may announce the gospel unto those parts beyond you

This authority, as stated in 10:8, is for building up. The rest of the chapter is repeatedly clear that this is a meek, lowly authority. Just as Jesus demonstrated while on earth. This is not the deputy authority of the local churches.

4. 2 Corinthians 13:10 – Therefore I write these things while being absent in order that when present I would not [have to] use severity, according to the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for overthrowing.

Once again, authority is for building up, not overthrowing or strongarming. It is well worthy to acknowledge the prior verse 9: “For we rejoice whenever we are weak and you are powerful; this also we pray for, your perfecting.”

Concerning the phrase “…we rejoice whenever we are weak”, one Bible commentary says this – “Appear to be so, look like persons disarmed of all power and authority; the apostles rejoiced when they had no occasion of exerting themselves, and of exercising that high office, and extraordinary commission they had received of Christ Jesus:”

Does this sound like the local church deputy authority to you?

Bottom line: These verses do not remotely support deputy authority in the way it is spoken from the podium or practiced in the local churches.

[Trapped]

continued.....

(typing words to make the post longer to meet the minimum character requirement)

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

This post will address the other half of the sentence found on shepherdingwords.org, in the deputy authority article, in the “Is deputy authority Biblical?” section: “…and through them [apostles] established elders as overseers in the churches to represent Him (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:5). “

This sentence construction is deceptive. The placement of the five verse references after the phrase “to represent Him” makes it seem like these verses say something about the elders representing God, or that the elders are the acting God, or deputy authority. This is not the case in a single one of them. Let’s look at the verses:

1. Acts 14:23 - And when they had appointed elders for them in every church and had prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord into whom they had believed.

This verse merely mentions the establishment of elders and makes no mention or hint that the elders represent God or are God’s deputy authorities.

2. Titus 1:5 - For this cause I left you in Crete, that you might set in order the things which I have begun that remain and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you:

Again, this verse merely mentions the establishment of elders and makes no mention or hint that the elders represent God or are God’s deputy authorities.

3. Acts 20:17 - And from Miletus he sent word to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.

This verse made me laugh. Its only relevance is that it has the word “elders” in it….and contains no mention of deputy authority or even the appointing of the elders. Paul, an apostle, is calling the elders together, but that is not an example of "deputy authority".

4. Acts 20:28 - Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God, which He obtained through His own blood.

Here we finally see something more than just the mention of elders. But we see immediately what kind of authority these “overseers” have, and it’s about as far as the east is from the west is from deputy authority. They are overseers to shepherd the church. Everyone reading: look up what it means to be a real shepherd of real sheep. It involves care, concern, tending to the sick and wounded, pouring oil, coming alongside, keeping them healthy, constant vigilance over threats that would harm, fighting off wolves and other predators, and much, much more. No shepherd is a shepherd to have “authority” over the sheep under their care. Overseers to shepherd the church are there to sustain and preserve the life of the church.

While we are on Acts 20, it is critical to bring up the three verses after verse 28:

29 – I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 – Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
31 – So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

When Paul says “you” in verse 29, he is talking to the elders. He is actually saying savage wolves will come into the ELDERSHIP. Verse 30 says “even from your OWN NUMBER men will arise and distort the truth…”

Saints. Saints! SAINTS!!!! This very verse flies in the face of the “even when they are wrong they are right” deputy authority of the local churches. This verse tells us that in the eldership wolves will arise! This means we all have to be discerning and look to the Father and not put our faith or trust in any man. If deputy authority rests in an office, a person, or position, if a deputy authority is right even when he is a wolf, then we can devastatingly grant authority to savage wolves. This verse does NOT say to submit to them whether they are right or wrong, even though it would have been the perfect place to do so. Instead it is a warning, a caution to be on guard.

4. 1 Peter 5:5 - In like manner, younger men, be subject to elders; and all of you gird yourselves with humility toward one another, because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

Here we finally see a semblance of authority in the word “subject”; however, it is immediately tempered with the command that everyone gird themselves with humility toward one another. Ephesians is also clear that the members of the Body submit to one another. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Saints……those who need to claim, explain, demand, command, and stake out their imagined deputy authority…….well, it probably means there is a very good chance they are resisted by God and can’t even rightly claim the Biblical servant leadership modeled to us by Jesus.

Let me be very clear that I am not saying we shouldn’t respect the elders and submit to them as we do other members of the Body. But all authority rests in Jesus. He never transferred His authority over persons to any other people. We each, just as in a human body, have a direct connection to the Head. There is no Body that has Christ as the head and also has many little deputy heads sprouted off of the torso and limbs – that is grotesque, and a good picture of what it is to claim authority that isn’t ours to claim. Just because a hand can apply ointment to a knee, doesn’t make the hand a head. God is the head and there is no other. Any slight language in the Scriptures that in isolation might be used to claim deputy authority in the Body is surrounded by other language that should bring us to our knees in recognition that this responsibility is not one of being over people, but one of humility, meekness, tenderness, tears, care, and love.

[Trapped]

continued.....

(adding words again to meet minimum requirement)

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

This post will return to the beginning of the “Is deputy authority biblical?” section of the shepherdingwords.org website:

The section begins: “Deputy authority is not only biblical; it is a vital part of the divine revelation concerning God’s government among men. God’s intention to delegate authority to human beings is evident from Genesis 1:26. There God created man in His image and with His likeness and gave him dominion over the earth and all the things in it. This demonstrates a basic principle that God intends to exercise authority through men who express Him.”

Dear ones reading…..uh……I am afraid the co-workers confuse two very different things: humans and animals. Genesis 1:26 says “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” This is very, very clearly man being given authority over the ANIMALS – fish, birds, cattle, reptiles – and over the earth itself. If the co-workers want to dabble in animal husbandry because of this verse, I don’t think they would get much opposition (unless they try to pass themselves off as the Animal Husbandmen of the Age), because that is more in line with the type of authority shown in this verse. This is still not an authority to be scorned and is a great and humbling responsibility, but this verse has nothing to do with God granting deputy authority to people to be over other people, or to represent God to other people. I think we can all grant that this verse shows an amount of delegated authority through men, but the exercise of that authority is over animals, and does not support the local church “deputy authority” of humans being the acting God over other humans. This leap would be akin to saying that because God made someone a farmer, this means He meant them to be President of the United States.

The section continues: “After man’s fall, God raised up men, such as Noah (9:1-6), Joseph (Gen. 41:40-44), Moses (Exo. 3:10-18a; 4:16; 7:1), and David (1 Sam. 16:12-13), to represent His authority among His people.”

I personally have no problem with acknowledging the authorities depicted in the Old Testament. It seems clear that God raised up men to be over His people in that time and place. But all of that was for a goal – the bringing forth of the King, Jesus.

The section continues: “In the New Testament the enthroning of the God-man Jesus as Lord and Christ is a central part of the gospel (Acts 2:36). The Lord told His disciples that God had given all authority to Him (Matt. 28:18).”

The co-workers got this part right. Too bad they didn’t stop there! Why? Because once Jesus came, all the Old Testament types and figures…..yes, including those of deputy authority…..passed away. Jesus is the fulfillment of them all. God has given ALL authority to Him. All of it. And He continues to have it all to this day. Jesus never granted His authority to anyone over anyone. The apostles, ambassadors, elders, overseers, etc, mentioned in the rest of this section on the website (addressed in my earlier two posts) are NOT deputy authorities jonesing to exercise their position over the flock, but are repeatedly shown to be ones to pattern themselves after Jesus……the King of Kings who got on His knees and washed His disciples’ feet just hours before going to the cross to take away the sins of humankind. Saints – THAT is authority.

Bottom line: This whole section on biblical authority sorely fails to show that deputy authority, particularly in the New Testament age in the church, is biblical.

[Trapped]

continued again.....what is the minimum character requirement I wonder?

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

On shepherdingwords.org, in the deputy authority article, in the section entitled “How is spiritual authority expressed?” it says:

“As Ron Kangas explained in the “Crystallization-study of Numbers” (The Ministry of the Word 23:7 (July 2019): 241), those with spiritual authority are not conscious of having any authority and never exercise authority. Rather, they only live out Christ in shepherding the saints in love. Moreover, when they go before God, they humble themselves to be on the same level as others, and when criticized, they are gracious toward others (Num. 12:1-3, 10, 13).”

It is unfortunate that Ron Kangas’s name is associated with this description of spiritual authority.

1. “…those with spiritual authority are not conscious of having any authority…”

What did Ron say this summer?

“I am the co-worker. I am the one ministering.”

2. “…when they go before God, they humble themselves to be on the same level as others…”

What did Ron say this summer?

“My wife is nothing. I will never crown her.”

3. “…when criticized, they are gracious toward others…”

What did Ron say this summer?

-“…if someone who was a little girl when certain events took place, and I’m going to be quite frank, and who is now spiritually speaking a little girl…”
-“This rebellion will not continue.”
-“…the ground [can] open up and swallow them alive into Sheol…”

(Note: Jo’s letter was not a criticism. But, of course, the co-workers took it as one; thus, this shows their response when they think they are being criticized).

It’s pretty clear to me that by Ron’s own definition of spiritual authority……he is not one.

[Trapped]

5 of 6....just one more coming.

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

This post will address the next section of the deputy authority article on shepherdingwords.org entitled “Is there more than one kind of deputy authority?”

First, let’s be aware of two ways of using Scripture. One way is to make a claim (e.g. “deputy authority is Biblical”) and then use verses to back up that claim. This way unfortunately heavily biases readers and overlays a preconceived interpretation of the Scripture before it is even read. The other way is to look at the verses and discern what we are supposed to see or learn from the verses without preconception.

In this article, the co-workers use the first way of making a claim and then choosing individual verses that upon a cursory reading seem to support that claim. However, upon removing the colored glasses, we’ll see that the verses make a different statement.

The co-workers start by setting up two different types of “deputy authority” and then apply something that is Biblical about the former toward the latter that is not Biblical about the latter. It begins:

“Is there more than one kind of deputy authority? Yes. There are both positional authority and spiritual authority. In secular institutions (including human government) there is only positional authority (Rom. 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13).”

The co-workers make a claim that there are two types of “deputy authority” - positional and spiritual. They don’t cite a source. They don’t cite their reasoning. Is this true just because they say it? What is their basis for this claim?

But let’s go with it. On the secular side, they list some verse references. Let’s go to the scriptures again……

1. Romans 13:1 – Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

The Bible is clear in verse 1 – governing, secular authorities have been established, ordained by God and, as Christians, we are to submit to them. In verses 2 – 7 of Romans 13 the point is clearly made that the reason we submit to these secular authorities is to avoid the punishment that they have the power to mete out in response to any acts we commit that are against the law. It is worthy of note that in three separate places in verses 2 – 7 these authorities are called “God’s servant”. It says they have been established by God, but it does NOT say they are God’s deputy authorities, or the acting God.

2. Titus 3:1 – Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

3. 1 Peter 2:13 – Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to comment those who do right.

The Bible is also clear in these two verses – as Christians we are to submit to governing, secular authorities.

The section continues: “Among God’s people there are both positional and spiritual authority. In a family, for example, the parents have a measure of positional authority (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), but a proper Christian family has spiritual authority as well (Eph. 6:4).”

Ephesians 6:1 – Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

Colossians 3:20 – Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing in the Lord.

Ephesians 6:4 – And fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but nurture them in the discipline and admonition of the Lord.

It’s a little odd for them to say “…a proper Christian family has spiritual authority…” Do they mean to say “…in a proper Christian family the parents have spiritual authority…”? Let’s assume that is what they meant. I don’t think anyone would disagree here that parents have a God-given authority over their children. However, it is a little strange that the example they give of combined positional and spiritual authority is in a family setting, and not in a church setting.

“The same is true of the elders in a local church (Heb. 13:7, 17; 1 Tim. 5:17).”

Ah. This is why the example they give of combined authority is not in a church setting. Because it doesn’t exist. And here is where the co-workers performed their trick. They took verses that apply to secular institutions, and other verses that apply to the family, and then make a neat little leap (“The same is true…”) with a poof of smoke and try to apply that to the elders in a local church, hoping you won’t notice what they did.

Here’s the deal: the elders in the church do not have positional authority in the same way human governments do. Elders do NOT hold a position. “Elder” is not a title. It is a description of that person’s function. Elder is not a “position” that carries authority. The authority is not tied up in that person or in that “position”.

As far as spiritual authority, elders do not have authority beyond that which is written in scripture. Elders cannot put any demand on you that does not come from the word of God. They cannot exceed what is written. The word of God is the authority, and elders only have authority insofar as they are in line with the word; it is not vested in their person in the same way parental authority is. 1 Corinthians 3:5 says “What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task.”

Only servants. This is diametrically opposed to the local church teaching of deputy authority in the church, which is not in the Bible. So to say “the same [having both positional and spiritual authority] is true of the elders” is patently NOT true.

But let’s do our due diligence and look at the verses:

1. Hebrews 13:7 – Remember the ones leading you, who have spoken to you the word of God; and considering the issue of their manner of life, imitate their faith.

This verse is an exhortation to follow the pattern of the leading ones. Is there a statement or an intimation anywhere in there that the elders are a deputy authority? No.

2. Hebrews 13:17 – Obey the ones leading you and submit to them, for they watch over your souls as those who will render an account, that they may do this with joy and not groaning; for this would be unprofitable to you.

Saints……remember the two ways I described using Scripture at the outset of this post. Read this verse without the overlaid bias of deputy authority. The article is not about just general authority or responsibility, but deputy authority. No one is saying we should disobey the elders at our fancy; they bear a great responsibility to watch over the souls of the saints. But do you see anything in this verse that says God has transferred His own authority to them? Humans having authority on earth does not mean they possess God’s authority. This verse is not about deputy authority, in fact, it shows very clearly that the elders are accountable to God for their care for your souls.

3. 1 Tim. 5:17 – The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Again, remove the preconceived notion of deputy authority. Do you see that in this verse otherwise? No. Note the ones worthy of double honor are the ones who direct WELL, not just an elder no matter how he lives and acts. This supports the thought that position alone is not the basis for respect. Again, is DEPUTY authority in this verse? No!

This line of thought will be continued in the next post.

[Trapped]

Last one on deputy authority

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

This post is a continuation of the last one. With the last post in mind, let’s jump to this section of the shepherdingwords.org site, which says:

“What should be our attitude toward deputy authorities? The Lord Jesus acknowledged the authority of Caesar, that is, of the Roman government (Matt. 22:21). When Peter instructed the Hebrew believers who were suffering under persecution to “honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17), it was in the context of Nero’s reign. The apostles charged the believers to submit to all deputy authorities, without regard to whether they were good or bad (Rom. 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13). Believers are likewise charged to honor the elders in the church (1 Tim. 5:17) and be subject to them (1 Pet. 5:5).”

The first half seems incontrovertible, and I believe most would agree. But the last half is a complete misapplication of scripture that should never be done by anyone purporting to have the highest truth, be speaking for God, or be the center of God’s up-to-date move. Let’s look at the last two sentences one by one:

“The apostles charged the believers to submit to all deputy authorities, without regard to whether they were good or bad (Rom. 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13).”

The verses are:

1. Romans 13:1 – Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2. Titus 3:1 – Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

3. 1 Peter 2:13 – Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to comment those who do right.

This makes me angry. The co-workers are not stupid. They know what they are doing, and they know full well that these three verses do NOT say to submit to ALL deputy authorities, without regard to whether they were good or bad. THEY DO NOT SAY THAT. These three verses are about secular, governmental authority ONLY. ONLY. They have nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to do with the elders in a church. The co-workers themselves used these exact three verses earlier to back up their statement on secular institutions (including human government). These are not verses that speak concerning a church setting. Secular authorities are not deputy authorities to begin with, and it is never stated ANYWHERE that being charged to submit to secular authorities is a principle that should be applied to the church. Yet the co-workers do just that.

The last sentence of the section is: “Believers are likewise charged to honor the elders in the church (1 Tim. 5:17) and be subject to them (1 Pet. 5:5).”

By taking verses about secular governments that DO clearly say to submit, and saying “believers are LIKEWISE charged” regarding the elders is a twisting of scripture by the co-workers to suit their own base gain. Scripture does NOT ever say to submit to elders in the same way we submit to secular institutions, and it does NOT ever say to submit to elders regardless of right or wrong, good or evil. The verses the co-workers cite are as follows:

1 Timothy 5:17 – The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

1 Peter 5:5 - In like manner, younger men, be subject to elders; and all of you gird yourselves with humility toward one another, because God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

There is zero, and I mean zero, concept in either of these verses that the elders have authority in the way that secular governments do, and that we are to submit to the elders in the church regardless of right or wrong. To ever say that God would set up among his own people a scenario where right and wrong, good and evil are to be disregarded is to speak against, twist, and grossly misrepresent the very nature of God Himself.

This kind of subtle twisting, blurring, and misapplication of scriptures in order to put it past tens of thousands of people without question takes great skill. Do you want to follow and submit to people who twist scripture in order to claim they represent God and should be submitted to regardless of whether they are right or wrong? What could be the motivation or driving force behind the kind of people making these types of claims in the name of God?

[Trapped]

The five new articles are the worst ones yet. The one writing them has a serious chip on their shoulder. Do they think they are fooling anyone?!

"The proper way to deal with problems in the church" - here would have been a great place for them to show compassion, address abuse, say how seriously they take people's pain and suffering, but instead they fill it with comments about authority, former members reviling, shutting down questions, and sadly ending on the focus being "the work".

These sentences scream "we don't want to be accountable" and just make me so sad for people trapped in the system. These kind of statements are hallmarks of abusive systems: "There is no ground in Scripture for saints to demand that the elders give a public accounting as to how a particular matter will be, or has been, addressed. Public assaults on the co-workers or the leadership in the church are tantamount to assailing God’s arrangement for the administration of the church." These statements are also the kind made by people who have something to hide.

They also do the neat word switcheroos of talking about co-workers, then apostles, but never explicitly saying that they are claiming the co-workers are apostles. They are just never going to change. The whole thing makes me want to lose my lunch.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

These kind of statements are hallmarks of abusive systems: "There is no ground in Scripture for saints to demand that the elders give a public accounting as to how a particular matter will be, or has been, addressed. Public assaults on the co-workers or the leadership in the church are tantamount to assailing God’s arrangement for the administration of the church." These statements are also the kind made by people who have something to hide..

There is ground in Scripture for saints to demand that elders give public accounting. It is in Paul's epistle to Timothy, on managing the affairs of the assembly. 1 Tim 5:19 says, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses." The DCP writers think that we don't know what the Bible says?

It reminds me of the quote in the newspaper, where the reporter wanted to ask Philip Lee about the complaints made by many. The reporter was told, "He doesn't want to talk about it." In other words, Shut up - Big Boss doesn't want to talk about what others saw. Yet the co-workers and elders are free to continue their "public assaults" (their words) on others?

What a wonderful world they must live in, where they can "do unto others", but nothing reciprocates back towards them. Who imagines in their wildest fantasies that God is like this? That God doesn't care about right and wrong? That God only wants to prop up His deputy, irrespective of repeated patterns of unrighteous behaviour?

Originally Posted by Trapped

"The proper way to deal with problems in the church" - here would have been a great place for them to show compassion, address abuse, say how seriously they take people's pain and suffering, but instead they fill it with comments about authority, former members reviling, shutting down questions, and sadly ending on the focus being "the work".

Another thing that's ridiculous - how many times in 2019 have we heard the leaders say, when Philip Lee or Daystar or past fiascos got brought up, that this was already addressed? No, it was not addressed. It was stonewalled. Just exactly as you're doing here. Browbeating others is not addressing concerns, or dealing with problems. Your response today is a carbon copy of the response 45 years ago.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The five new articles are the worst ones yet. The one writing them has a serious chip on their shoulder. Do they think they are fooling anyone?!

I briefly skimmed through these, and it's hard to believe that LC people can remain content reading these things without demanding better answers. In regards to much of the external criticism that the LC has faced in the past, it seems like their standard response has always been to say that those people didn't know what they were talking about or that they were deliberately mischaracterizing the LC.

It's important to note that virtually all the 'turmoil' that the LC has faced in recent years has been internal. Yet these articles are written as if to imply that current and former members who have expressed concerns don't know what they are talking about. Cal brought up this point in his latest video. The 'coworkers' put out an article on their attitude regarding seeking psychological help. Anyone who has been in the LC for any length of time has likely encountered their real attitude towards psychological help. Yet the go write an article which contradicts anything people have actually experienced in the LC. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Originally Posted by Trapped

These sentences scream "we don't want to be accountable" and just make me so sad for people trapped in the system. These kind of statements are hallmarks of abusive systems: "There is no ground in Scripture for saints to demand that the elders give a public accounting as to how a particular matter will be, or has been, addressed. Public assaults on the co-workers or the leadership in the church are tantamount to assailing God’s arrangement for the administration of the church." These statements are also the kind made by people who have something to hide.

Yes, the intention of the 'coworkers' is clearly to establish some sort of protective barrier where those who are in LC leadership roles don't have to respond to any sort of criticism. Looking at their statement, it is worth asking the question - if someone brings a matter to the elders and there is no response or indication of how a matter is being handled, isn't it reasonable to demand a response or some transparency? The very reason that people are driven to speak out is because they let situations be handled in the way that the LC insists upon, and then that goes nowhere.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I briefly skimmed through these, and it's hard to believe that LC people can remain content reading these things without demanding better answers. In regards to much of the external criticism that the LC has faced in the past, it seems like their standard response has always been to say that those people didn't know what they were talking about or that they were deliberately mischaracterizing the LC.

Years ago I remember reading things that didn't seem to make much sense, e.g. the justification for suing brothers under the guise of "appealing to Caesar." But I was taught to "trust the brothers." And a good amount of group think definitely existed in those days. Besides Titus Chu had a reputation for calling out everyone, as if he and Lee alone were the only faithful brothers on earth. Who was I to demand better answers?

It was only years later that I learned from reading Speaking The Truth in Love that TC backed down to WL in order to protect Philip Lee, and then kowtowed to WL by threwing John Ingalls under the bus. That side of the story was never relayed to us.

With the strict and regimented hierarchy in the Recovery, WL really only had to control about a dozen brothers around the globe, and he could basically get away with anything. Remember the motto: "We do as we are told!" Problem was, some of these brothers followed God and not man, even though they had once believed that "following this man's vision was the same as following God."

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Another thing that's ridiculous - how many times in 2019 have we heard the leaders say, when Philip Lee or Daystar or past fiascos got brought up, that this was already addressed? No, it was not addressed. It was stonewalled. Just exactly as you're doing here. Browbeating others is not addressing concerns, or dealing with problems. Your response today is a carbon copy of the response 45 years ago.

While things are a current issue, LC leadership will tell people to drop it. Then when the unaddressed issue is raised again sometime later on, they say it has been addressed already. They can't even simply admit to and apologize for the bad decisions that were made. Maybe if they could do that people wouldn't be talking about Daystar 40 years later.

People are not just raising these kinds of issues out of the blue. It's stuff that people are really concerned about. For example, they have an article saying that LSM isn't a headquarters. That is a concern that has been raised more than once, at different points in LC history, and not just by anyone, but by numerous people who were previously associated with the LC. All the LSM/DCP do is write articles saying that LSM isn't there headquarters. It really doesn't cut it. Current members should take note.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago I remember reading things that didn't seem to make much sense, e.g. the justification for suing brothers under the guise of "appealing to Caesar." But I was taught to "trust the brothers." And a good amount of group think definitely existed in those days. Besides Titus Chu had a reputation for calling out everyone, as if he and Lee alone were the only faithful brothers on earth. Who was I to demand better answers?

Yeah, I think definitely a lot of people in the LC don't think it's their place to be asking the type of questions that really need asking. It does seem as though that people in the LC are starting to realize that things don't quite add up (whether they will admit to it or not). The shepherdingwords.com site didn't pop up for no reason. Ron Kangas didn't go on an angry rant during the summer training for no reason. The minute people in the LC start asking questions, it threatens the very existence of the LC.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Yeah, I think definitely a lot of people in the LC don't think it's their place to be asking the type of questions that really need asking. It does seem as though that people in the LC are starting to realize that things don't quite add up (whether they will admit to it or not). The shepherdingwords.com site didn't pop up for no reason. Ron Kangas didn't go on an angry rant during the summer training for no reason. The minute people in the LC start asking questions, it threatens the very existence of the LC.

These Blendeds are their own worst enemies. Ron Kangas has been blaming everybody else for decades. He aims at everything that moves. He even took potshots at his own wife. Oh the arrogance found only in Laodicea.

We heard broken promises coming out of Anaheim for decades. Don't they think people remember anything? And young people tend to move around the country for education and jobs. Don't they think that news of what they did to destroy all the Midwest LC's would be talked about? It's one thing to sue another publisher for calling them a cult, but what about when you sue your brothers in the Midwest?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

For example, they have an article saying that LSM isn't a headquarters. That is a concern that has been raised more than once, at different points in LC history, and not just by anyone, but by numerous people who were previously associated with the LC. All the LSM/DCP do is write articles saying that LSM isn't there headquarters. It really doesn't cut it. Current members should take note.

It's just laughable that LSM is not a headquarters. If not, please describe what a headquarters actually is.

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” ― adolf hitler

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's just laughable that LSM is not a headquarters. If not, please describe what a headquarters actually is.

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” ― adolf hitler

It can never be admitted that LSM/Anaheim is HQ as that would severely undercut the idea that the local LCs are autonomous!

[Nuclear]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The 'coworkers' put out an article on their attitude regarding seeking psychological help. Anyone who has been in the LC for any length of time has likely encountered their real attitude towards psychological help. Yet the go write an article which contradicts anything people have actually experienced in the LC. It's an insult to everyone's intelligence.

This article was easily one of the most ridiculous and outright false out of the ones recently posted. I have heard it time and time again in YP conferences, often from the likes of Willy Wise that mental illness "isn't real", its "made up," and "wasn't a thing when I was growing up." In meetings psychology and seeking a therapist was discouraged and if one did it was a sign that they "weren't in the spirit" or some such. The one quote supporting seeking treatment from Witness Lee in that article doesn't mean anything when through their actions they say the complete opposite.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Nuclear

This article was easily one of the most ridiculous and outright false out of the ones recently posted. I have heard it time and time again in YP conferences, often from the likes of Willy Wise that mental illness "isn't real", its "made up," and "wasn't a thing when I was growing up." In meetings psychology and seeking a therapist was discouraged and if one did it was a sign that they "weren't in the spirit" or some such. The one quote supporting seeking treatment from Witness Lee in that article doesn't mean anything when through their actions they say the complete opposite.

Yes, I saw much of the same growing up in the LC. If nothing else, there was definitely a deliberate attempt to stigmatize it. Not once did I ever see any real concern for anyone who was dealing with mental illness or had psychological needs.

[Nell]

To my observation the “Local Churches” that existed in the “early days” no longer exist. When the LSM rose to power, the churches, in effect, became franchises of the Living Stream Ministry. So, from that perspective, are the churches autonomous? No. Neither are they “churches”.

How did the LSM take over the churches? They required the churches to purchase LSM publications or risk not being in “good standing” with...who? LSM. Not the Lord. Not your conscience, LSM. A church didn’t want to be on the outs with the LSM.

What was the purchase of LSM publications based on? The Church’s phone list. They had to purchase X amount of books per name on the local Phone List.

The Churches passed on this purchase requirement to the names on the list. When I no longer could afford to buy all the stuff that was being force fed to me, the Bookroom sisters eventually just gave me what I was supposed to buy...mostly “Life Study Messages”.

Others may have examples of the practices that caused the LSM swallowing the churches. I stopped reading and just kept the messages in storage until the day I set them on the curb in boxes, not wanting to risk some unsuspecting soul of being caught up like I was.

The “Blended’s” aren’t really elders are they? Aren’t they just powerful members of the LSM Board of Regents or some such?

Nell

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These Blendeds are their own worst enemies. Ron Kangas has been blaming everybody else for decades. He aims at everything that moves. He even took potshots at his own wife. Oh the arrogance found only in Laodicea.

Something tells me that the LC collapse has already begun. They have zero ability to self-reflect, and such a system can only last so long. To me it seems apparent that they have become desperate, willing to go to any lengths to defend themselves.

Even in the past, their attacks were generally limited to prominent leaders, not the rank and file members. But recently those like Ron have shown that they will stop at nothing, even if it results in an extremely tragic outcome.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Something tells me that the LC collapse has already begun. They have zero ability to self-reflect, and such a system can only last so long. To me it seems apparent that they have become desperate, willing to go to any lengths to defend themselves.

Even in the past, their attacks were generally limited to prominent leaders, not the rank and file members. But recently those like Ron have shown that they will stop at nothing, even if it results in an extremely tragic outcome.

The Blendeds really are those "with Lee." They were with him for years, publicly and privately. By now, all of these ones are also well aged, passed on, or expelled in past storms. How can they continue with those in the lead who were with those who were with Lee?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Blendeds really are those "with Lee." They were with him for years, publicly and privately. By now, all of these ones are also well aged, passed on, or expelled in past storms. How can they continue with those in the lead who were with those who were with Lee?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "co-worker" initially mean decades ago "the brothers who were co-working with Lee"?

[aron]

Bringing this quote from another thread, as my reply is more relevant here:

Originally Posted by Freedom

When these articles get put out, they really aren't fooling anyone, including those in the LC. It is simply propaganda telling people what to believe. Whether it is out of fear or it is out of stupidity, LCers choose to believe what they are told.

I think that these articles only address the concerns of a minority, who are willing to receive what is said on face value, and "sail on", as Witness Lee urged. Most will probably look to multiple sources of information, and try to reconcile them. And as more information emerges,
from non-DCP sources, these articles are then seen as little more than brief (perfunctory) talking points.

I was interested to see, for example, an article on Eastern Lightning/Church of the Almighty God (EL) sect. DCP of course unequivocally denies any commonality whatever. But if you read this forum, someone posted here about the similarities. Deceptive recruiting practices are used in both (see the Jo Casteel testimony). Complete unquestioning submission to group leadership is expected. Etc.

Even where DCP appears to have distance, it certainly isn't as far as they wish! They write that WL "loved" the word of God, whilst EL categorically dismisses it. How could they not be more dissimilar, right?

Yet if you read RecV footnotes, probably 2/3 of the Psalms (100 chapters, a lot of material) gets dismissed out of hand as "fallen human concepts", completely at variance with NT reception of the same material. Not to mention similar issues with James, Peter, Proverbs, Job, etc.

And I remember reading that one of the slogans when the LSM entered China was, "The age of the word is over, it is the age of the spirit". Now, they will deny that, or say it was a rogue operative, but that's what was happening. Yet they deny any responsibility whatever. I doubt that. They managed the message carefully, from what I remember. People were not supposed to deviate from the script. Dong Yu Lan and Titus Chu followed Lee very closely, and their methodology was taken right from the LSM playbook.

As did, it seems, most of the Krazy Kults that LSM's efforts led to. One article reviewing 12 mainland cults, tied 8 of the 12 back to Witness Lee and LSM actions. He himself said of one, "They worship me as a god." This was the Lord Changshou Shouters. And of course he disapproved. But he could not [would not] see how his efforts had brought such catastrophes. He was Deputy God, after all. He simply could not err.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't "co-worker" initially mean decades ago "the brothers who were co-working with Lee"?

To be honest with you, I viewed "co-workers" as the older paid staff, and "full-timer" as junior paid staff. Everyone in the Recovery was "with Lee," whether in Anaheim or not.

I knew one "co-worker" who left the program and was forced to support himself working on a commission. He told me that for the first time he was living by faith.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Ohio

To be honest with you, I viewed "co-workers" as the older paid staff, and "full-timer" as junior paid staff. Everyone in the Recovery was "with Lee," whether in Anaheim or not.

The Recovery is the epitome of 1 Cor. 1:11-13; the basic factor in the Recovery is not the Bible, nor Christ, nor the New Covenant, but Witness Lee. The Recovery is about those who follow Lee, are with Lee, are of Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Raptor

The Recovery is the epitome of 1 Cor. 1:11-13; the basic factor in the Recovery is not the Bible, nor Christ, nor the New Covenant, but Witness Lee. The Recovery is about those who follow Lee, are with Lee, are of Lee.

Exactly!

But I never would have admitted that. Not until LSM excommunicated the entire Midwest over our allegiance to Lee, or should I say lack thereof.

We always heard about "storms, rebellions, etc." in the Recovery. Seems like every decade had one. They were actually PURGES. Every one of these storms was initiated by Lee or the Blendeds. "This is only a test," as the announcer would tell us. That's right, "loyalty tests." Were we absolute for Lee ... or NOT?

Choose ye this day! Are you one with the ministry? Neutral you cannot be! Take a stand for the truth!

As with every storm in Recovery history, those who merely "loved Lee" were assaulted by those "absolute for Lee." This same scenario played out in every storm. But it got worse during these recent quarantines. LSM/DCP sponsored brothers to sue their church for meeting halls and bank accounts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

As more information emerges, from non-DCP sources, these articles are then seen as little more than brief (perfunctory) talking points.

I was interested to see, for example, an article on Eastern Lightning/Church of the Almighty God (EL) sect. DCP of course unequivocally denies any commonality whatever. But if you read this forum, someone posted here about the similarities. Deceptive recruiting practices are used in both (see the Jo Casteel testimony). Complete unquestioning submission to group leadership is expected. Etc..

The EL 'article' is a perfunctory dismissal in a few paragraphs. "Nothing to see here, move along." The last thing they actually want to do is examine the issue in any depth. Living Stream Ministry and Mainland PRC - isn't that a tale to tell? But they want to wave it off, as if it were a non-issue. If you press them, they beg off, saying lives are in danger. Christians there are a persecuted people, don't give the PRC government ammunition to do more damage to the church, etc.

But they refuse to see that the problems in the PRC are simply the local church problems writ large. Just that now the bully is someone else. But it's the same secretive culture. The same, "Don't question the big boss." The same, "You are treasonous to 'attack' leadership on this issue."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The EL 'article' is a perfunctory dismissal in a few paragraphs. "Nothing to see here, move along." The last thing they actually want to do is examine the issue in any depth. Living Stream Ministry and Mainland PRC - isn't that a tale to tell?

At this point it has become quite apparent that Lee/LSM were not exporting the truth of the scriptures to Mainlamd China, but Lee-worship, Lee-idolatry. And that's what Eastern Lightning got. Of course, LSM refuses to acknowledge this, and had long boasted of millions of fruit in China from their ministry. Now, however, LSM to their shame disowns these ones. Shame on them. It's like disowning a child for not bringing you glory.

Setting aside all of his similarities to WL, Titus Chu was far more Biblically orthodox than both WL and his Blendeds. He had a genuine burden for his Chinese homeland. Who gave WL the authority to prevent him from going there? By whose authority could the Blendeds publicly shame TC in Whistler for secretly visiting China? God will judge that kangaroo court sham.

Is not the need in China far greater than the available workers? Should TC then obey God or man? Why hasn't LSM sent their workers to China to help these ones?

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

And I remember reading that one of the slogans when the LSM entered China was, "The age of the word is over, it is the age of the spirit". Now, they will deny that, or say it was a rogue operative, but that's what was happening. Yet they deny any responsibility whatever. I doubt that. They managed the message carefully, from what I remember. People were not supposed to deviate from the script. Dong Yu Lan and Titus Chu followed Lee very closely, and their methodology was taken right from the LSM playbook.

As did, it seems, most of the Krazy Kults that LSM's efforts led to. One article reviewing 12 mainland cults, tied 8 of the 12 back to Witness Lee and LSM actions. He himself said of one, "They worship me as a god." This was the Lord Changshou Shouters. And of course he disapproved. But he could not [would not] see how his efforts had brought such catastrophes. He was Deputy God, after all. He simply could not err.

Awhile back, someone on the forum posted a WL quote where WL referred to LC members in China as 'Shouters'. The DCP has an article where they state that the local churches "have no connection or linkage, formally or informally" to the EL or Shouters:
https://contendingforthefaith.org/en...oups-in-china/

So obviously DCP is not telling the truth to begin with. That's what makes it all so suspect. The LC may very well be indirectly related to the EL at a distance. That isn't so much the issue. The issue is that the linkage exists in the first place. This is where shepherdingwords.com presents a disingenuous argument.

They say other groups have spawned aberrant groups as well. That's true. But what other groups haven't done is spawn 8 different cults. It's notable that WL even saw and recognized the issue during his lifetime. Of course, he didn't take any responsibility for it, but that type of trend has existed for a long time. Even looking at the LC in the U.S. - is it really all that much different? Everything they do seems to stir up controversy. Each time a LC member comes forward to speak out, the stories are the same - high pressure, manipulation, control, fear tactics, etc. Thus, it doesn't come as any surprise what the LC is capable of producing.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We always heard about "storms, rebellions, etc." in the Recovery. Seems like every decade had one. They were actually PURGES. Every one of these storms was initiated by Lee or the Blendeds. "This is only a test," as the announcer would tell us. That's right, "loyalty tests." Were we absolute for Lee ... or NOT?

I was involved in what may have been the first of these purges, which took place in Berkeley in 1974. I was recently saved and fresh off the streets and was living in a huge old frat house that had been acquired and converted into a brothers' house. It was up on Warring Street (pronounced like "wearing"), and was appropriately called "Warring House." There were close to 50 of us in this house, many who still looked pretty wild & crazy - I had hair down to the middle of my back. At the time I didn't know this was thought of by some as just a temporary repository for the young/wild ones to facilitate transition to a more "productive life."

Warring House was led and operated by two older bros who were both named Doug. One was Doug Kreuger (sp?) and I forget the other Doug's last name. Many of us didn't have regular jobs, but the house had a little landscape and grunt labor business going. Several of us would pile into a big panel van with "Warring Brothers" painted on the side and go attack some nearby job, and the money earned went toward our housing and care. Then we would come home in the evening, have some fellowship, get into the word, sing, and have dinner (or some may have been invited out to eat with others). It was real and fresh and I loved it as did most everyone there. Many evenings there would be a large main gathering at the big converted commercial garage the church had purchased, which was down on Telegraph Ave (the craziest street in Ba-zerkly). It was called "CJs Old Garage" - ironically named that before the church got it! The meetings were absolutely alive and through the roof!

After being basically on the streets for a few years before then, I had found my home and rest forever with the brothers at Warring House, or so I thought. A few months went by and one day we were told the house was being dissolved and everyone had to move out. We couldn't believe it! Sure, there were some funky things happening with some of the brothers - like this one American Indian bro who would come home blind-drunk occasionally - but it was understood (at least by the bros living there) that this place was sort of a clinic or halfway house where the Lord could work on us until we had some mature growth and were ready to move into a more regular environment.

So there was this huge upheaval and we were all quite distressed over it. We wanted to know who had made the decision to close the house and we were told the elders decided it. But then we heard that brother Lee had thought that this house wasn't a normal situation and was not what the church was doing, so away with us all. (BTW - I had no idea who this Brother Lee was at the time . . .) I remember the angst and tears shed over all of this. Eventually the two Doug's took about 25-30 bros with them to Sacramento, where I think they had some connections with the LC there. 10-15 bros just disappeared I think, and have no idea what happened to them. (I'm not really sure about those exact numbers as we were generally kept in the dark about it all.)

I was one of perhaps only five or so brothers who stayed in Berkeley, and moved into a smaller, old sorority house right next door called "Hosanna House," where there were two couples living and a few single bros. I was told this was a much healthier environment. It was also conveyed that I needed to cut my hair, get baptized and get a regular job, which I did - but I felt like a fish out of water, to say the least! A few months later I left and went back to Ohio (eventually returning to the Berkeley LC a couple years later).

Looking back, Hosanna House was perhaps a healthier situation, but it was also tough for me. I felt like I had to conform outwardly, and I felt just plain awkward about it all. The Lord originally had miraculously led me 2000 miles to the LC there and it was so glorious, but things faded quickly within much less than a year. It was the Lord's sovereignty for me at the time, but I do wonder what might have happened if the ax hadn't been applied so abruptly (evidently via central command & control) to the Warring House work.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At this point it has become quite apparent that Lee/LSM were not exporting the truth of the scriptures to Mainlamd China, but Lee-worship, Lee-idolatry. And that's what Eastern Lightning got. Of course, LSM refuses to acknowledge this, and had long boasted of millions of fruit in China from their ministry. Now, however, LSM to their shame disowns these ones. Shame on them. It's like disowning a child for not bringing you glory.

I am reminded of the type of statements that FTTT trainers were reported to have made:
1) “There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.”
2) We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.”
3) “Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.”
4) “If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.”
5) Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.”
6) “To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.”
7) Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT.

Obviously, such statements are completely absurd, but the real issue is that the platform existed for such things to be spoken and accepted without question. The EL also makes similar types of statements, which sheperdingwords.com wastes no time in pointing out. But they make no mention of how the LC has it's own history doing the exact same thing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I am reminded of the type of statements that FTTT trainers were reported to have made:
1) “There is no need to pray about what to do; just follow the ministry.”
2) We don’t even need to think; we just do what we are told.”
3) “Follow Witness Lee blindly. Even if he’s wrong, he’s right.”
4) “If you leave the training, you’ll miss the kingdom.”
5) Our burden is to pick up Brother Lee’s teaching and way to make us all Witness Lees, like a Witness Lee duplication center.”
6) “To be one with the ministry is to be one with Brother Lee, the office, and Philip Lee.”
7) Since Christianity is in ruins, the Lord raised up the recovery; since the recovery is in ruins, the Lord raised up the FTTT.

Obviously, such statements are completely absurd, but the real issue is that the platform existed for such things to be spoken and accepted without question. The EL also makes similar types of statements, which sheperdingwords.com wastes no time in pointing out. But they make no mention of how the LC has it's own history doing the exact same thing.

Suppose some Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and John Chystostom wrote antisemitic things. Suppose Martin Luther picked up on these things, and amplified them. Suppose some of these statements then resurfaced, amplified more, during the Third Reich. How can one then say that there's absolutely no connection? One must at least pause and consider! Don't just wave it away, wishing it were not so. Because it may in fact be so, at least to some degree.

Apologists for Lee have come on this forum, saying that mentioning LSM together with the 'Shouter' off-shoots may then cause persecution of Christians in the PRC. Yet they tell also us that Lee's inflammatory sloganeering, with which we're all too familiar, spread thru that land for years, had nothing whatever to do with the multiple nuttinesses that followed hard upon? What kind of fever-dream are they living in?

The gospel of Jesus Christ is nearly unimaginable in its simplicity and raw purity, and unfathomable in its power. Yet it still requires a few preconditions to work. Jesus came out of the desert preaching, and the first thing he spoke echoed John the Baptist: "Repent". And it's the same word he spoke to the seven churches in Asia: "Repent".

Yet the Blendeds refuse to repent, but instead hide behind their screeds. This movement won't sweep over the earth, as their hymns once claimed, without a fundamental change of heart. It will go nowhere.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

Apologists for Lee have come on this forum, saying that mentioning LSM together with the 'Shouter' off-shoots may then cause persecution of Christians in the PRC. Yet they tell us that Lee's inflammatory sloganeering, with which we're all familiar, spread thru that land for years, had nothing whatever to do with the multiple nuttinesses that followed hard upon? What kind of fever-dream are they living in?

The LC is full of extremities and they fail to really recognize it or acknowledge the end effect. They waste no time distancing themselves from the Shouters and EL, yet why aren't they willing to do the same in regards to the statements made by FTTT trainers?

Maybe it's just me, but those EL statements have a familiar ring to them. Their methodologies sound all too familiar.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So there was this huge upheaval and we were all quite distressed over it. We wanted to know who had made the decision to close the house and we were told the elders decided it. But then we heard that brother Lee had thought that this house wasn't a normal situation and was not what the church was doing, so away with us all. (BTW - I had no idea who this Brother Lee was at the time . . .) I remember the angst and tears shed over all of this.

WL and the Blendeds can give endless messages and conferences on following the Spirit, but when they see the liberty of the Spirit in action, they shut it down, because it didn't originate with them and they just didn't like it. It doesn't meet their standards!

Think about what Jesus did in the country of the Gerasenes. Jesus healed a man by casting out a legion of demons. Can you imagine the chaos that caused. Thousands of swine stampeding thru town ... what a sight!

Talk about Ba-zerkly!

[Sons to Glory!]

Ha - yes! I'm sure we in that house were like a wild stampede! Probably not exactly the "good material" that was desired . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ha - yes! I'm sure we in that house were like a wild stampede! Probably not exactly the "good material" that was desired . . .

Here is one characteristic of top-down Recovery leadership: all ideas and all plans must originate with them.

Regardless of its worthiness or spiritual value, if the maximum leader does not get full credit, the plan will be nixed. That's why they put the kibosh on the Berkeley brothers' house.

And this is one rotten corollary of the MOTA or Deputy Authority teachings and practice -- the guy on top must get all the glory. All plans must originate from him so that all glory goes back to him.

[Trapped]

I got a good laugh out of this post on Jo's thread this morning:

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

This post will detour from my last post on the One Publication article to touch upon the new Hierarchy and Organization article on the shepherding words site.

One paragraph in the article states: “A hierarchical organization is a pyramid in which each level is subordinate to one above it, except for the highest level, which is supreme. Orders flow down the pyramid to the level at which they are to be implemented. Most mainline denominations have such a structure, dating back to the Roman Catholic Church with its pope, cardinals, archbishops, etc. In the Lord’s Body and among the churches in the Lord’s recovery as local expressions of the Body, there is no such thing; instead, there is the organic order of a living Body.”

I’ll just leave this hierarchical pyrami---, um, I mean diagram of an organic body here…

................/.......................\.................
.............../.......W. Lee.........\................
............../............|...............\..............
............./......Sr. co-workers.....\.............
.........../...............|..................\............
........../......Junior co-workers.......\..........
........./.................|......................\.........
......../.....Elders/leading brothers......\.......
....../....................|..........................\.. ...
..../....Responsible & learning brothers...\...
../........................|......................... ...\..
/..Saints in the local churches as a whole..\.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The LC is full of extremities and they fail to really recognize it or acknowledge the end effect. They waste no time distancing themselves from the Shouters and EL, yet why aren't they willing to do the same in regards to the statements made by FTTT trainers?

Maybe it's just me, but those EL statements have a familiar ring to them. Their methodologies sound all too familiar.

Below is a summary of LC campus recruiting, compared with EL tactics. Especially the first point stands out. "We are just Christians" - both groups have further motives, but initially hide it to make the personal connection. Once the connection's made the maneuvering begins, with the cutting of old connections, and then the control becomes more overt.

Jo Casteel's testimony affirms this methodology is now practiced. The new mark is deliberately shielded from ministry materials. They use a KJV, sing "good old Protestant hymns", and slowly build bridges. Then they cut off the person's ties to the outside with the incessant negativity and judgment. Simultaneously the ministry indoctrination begins, the 'drip-feed' as Curious called it.

Originally Posted by Peter Eagan

.Don't let them know our group, at first. We are just Christians... Christians on campus.

.Make friends with them. Pay attention to them. Listen. Connect.

.Get them to come to our conferences and trainings. Isolate them in an intense setting where they are vulnerable and open.

.Get them to see that Shouters alone have the way and the teaching. Everything else is wrong. Family and friends are the worst! Distractions from hell!

.Get them to be recruiters right away. Use them to reach other recruits. That will solidify their position in the group.

.Always pressure them for more. More time, more commitment. Constant pressure.

All this stuff looked very similar to me, to the EL recruiting handbook that I saw..

We don't know ALL the connections with the LC/LSM and the various decidedly non-Christian groups that followed their proselytizing the mainland. China's unfortunately a closed society, and those who talk are punished. But we shouldn't just blithely wave it away as DCP does, and say there are NO connections whatever!

And they refuse to acknowledge that because it is Chinese, this movement resists open, critical examination. The Maximum Leader can't be allowed to publicly lose face! Today in China, if one publicly criticizes Mao, they can lose their job. Initially, in Elden Hall, the Jesus Freaks didn't realise what they'd gotten into. But one sees StG's testimony on the Berkeley 'purge', or reads of The New Way, the Young Galileans, Daystar and Timothy Lee, then 'Philip Lee is the Office', at some point it becomes clear.

All these trends go back into pre-USA history, to Taiwan and the Philippines in the 1950s, and the Mainland before that. Then, what recent information does come out of PRC, about Three Grades of Servants, Eastern Lightning, the Lord Changshou Shouters etc makes more sense. Yes there's a connection; the only question is in the variety of details. Like with Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lan, who went 'rogue' but still use many of the same methods because they're so effective. But the connection is there.

Another noteworthy phenomenon is that, among the eight homegrown cults, aside from the Shouters, there are two additional cults that derive from the Shouters: the Lord God Sect and the Anointed King. In addition the All Sphere Church (aka the Criers or Born Again Criers), the Disciple Society, and Three Grades of Servants all certainly have a connection with the Shouters.

If this is true, six of the eight homegrown cults belong to or are associated with the Shouters, which accounts for more than half of those cults. Moreover, there are several cults that were not included among the 14 cults but are viewed as heretical sects. The Changshou Sect, the Mainland China Administrative Deacon Station, and the Eastern Lightning were all originally born out of the Shouters.

The DCP says there's no connection between LSM and the Shouters, but I personally heard WL claim Shouters for LSM and number them in the millions. So we are to assume that all those Shouters vanished, and another Shouters group also numbering in the millions appeared ten years later (2005), which then gave rise to the many cults? But there is no connection to the Shouters of the 1990s? Do you really expect people to receive this without verification?

https://www.chinasource.org/resource...anity-in-china

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I got a good laugh out of this post on Jo's thread this morning:

One of the best lines was from the FTTT during the New Way. "When others do it, it's a hierarchy, but when we do it, it's not a hierarchy". The current regime will say that those 'trainers' went rogue, but they became trainers because they could distill WL and impose him on the masses.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Weren't pyramids something they built in Egypt?

Have you forgotten LSM Maxim #17: "If others do it, it's hierarchy. But when we do it, it's not!"

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Max Springer on Facebook

................/.......................\.................
.............../.......W. Lee.........\................
............../............|...............\..............
............./......Sr. co-workers.....\.............
.........../...............|..................\............
........../......Junior co-workers.......\..........
........./.................|......................\.........
......../.....Elders/leading brothers......\.......
....../....................|..........................\.. ...
..../....Responsible & learning brothers...\...
../........................|......................... ...\..
/.Saints in the local churches as a whole..\.

With apologies to Max Springer, I have updated and expanded his pyramid:

.................................................. ...../..........................\....................... ......................................
.................................................. .../.......W. Lee.............\................................. ...........................
.................................................. ../.............|..................\................. ..........................................
..................................... ............./......Sr. co-workers.........\................................. .........................
................................................../...............|.....................\............ ............................................
................................................./......Junior co-workers.........\................................. ......................
................................................/.................|........................\....... .................................................
.............................................../.....Elders/leading brothers........\................................. .....................
............................................../...................|...........................\.. .................................................. ..
............................................./..Responsible & learning brothers....\..................................... ................
............................................/.....................|............................ ..\............................................... .....
.........................................../Brothers in the local churches as a whole\............................................ .......
........................................../.......................|.......................... .......\.......................................... ........
........................................./.....Sisters who keep their mouth shut,......\...................................... ...........
......................................../.......wear their head coverings and.............\................................. ...............
......................................./......don't have an opinion about anything.......\.................................. .............
....................................../...........................|...................... .................\................................ ..............
...................................../...Sisters who speak their mind, refuse to dress....\........................................ .....
..................................../.....like they live in mid-20th century China and......\........................................ ....
.................................../.....have the unmitigated gall to have an opinion.....\..................................... ......
................................../...............................|.................. ..........................\....................... ...................
................................./.....................Ron Kangas's wife..................................\........... ..............................
................................/.................................|................ ..............................\................... .....................
.............................../.......................Hank Hanegraaff.....................................\.. ................................ ....
............................../.....(Would have been much higher up the pyramid but he.....\......................................
............................./.....went with Eastern Orthodox instead of the Local Church)....\.....................................
............................/.....................................|............ ........................................\......... ...........................
.........................../.............Members of Poor, Poor Christianity who don't..................\.......................... ........
........................../................criticize Witness Lee or the Local Church.......................\.................... ............
........................./........................................|......... ...............................................\.. .............................
......................../...................Members of Poor, Poor Christianity who..........................\.................... .........
......................./...................criticize Witness Lee or the Local Church...........................\................ ...........
....................../...........................................|...... .................................................. ....\..........................
...................../.....................Members of Local Church Discussions..................................\.... .....................
..................../......................and Former Members Facebook Page....................................\......... ...............
.................../..............................................|... .................................................. ...........\.......................
................../..........................................UntoHim. .................................................. .........\.....................
................./....................................(after posting this)........................................... .........\....................

[Ohio]

So ... UntoHim ... Am I standing on your shoulders?

[UntoHim]

If that's your cross to pick up...go for it!
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

With apologies to Max Springer, I have updated and expanded his pyramid:

Actually when I saw his original pyramid I also had the thought that he left off the sisters as a bottom of the totem pole level and could have made a point about that. Your updated and expanded pyramid absolutely slayed me....I burst out laughing at the placement of "Ron Kangas's wife"....am still chuckling about it as I write this

Originally Posted by UntoHim

With apologies to Max Springer, I have updated and expanded his pyramid:

.................................................. ...../..........................\....................... ......................................
.................................................. .../.......W. Lee.............\................................. ...........................
.................................................. ../.............|..................\................. ..........................................
..................................... ............./......Sr. co-workers.........\................................. .........................
................................................../...............|.....................\............ ............................................
................................................./......Junior co-workers.........\................................. ......................
................................................/.................|........................\....... .................................................
.............................................../.....Elders/leading brothers........\................................. .....................
............................................../...................|...........................\.. .................................................. ..
............................................./..Responsible & learning brothers....\..................................... ................
............................................/.....................|............................ ..\............................................... .....
.........................................../Brothers in the local churches as a whole\............................................ .......
........................................../.......................|.......................... .......\.......................................... ........
........................................./.....Sisters who keep their mouth shut,......\...................................... ...........
......................................../.......wear their head coverings and.............\................................. ...............
......................................./......don't have an opinion about anything.......\.................................. .............
....................................../...........................|...................... .................\................................ ..............
...................................../...Sisters who speak their mind, refuse to dress....\........................................ .....
..................................../.....like they live in mid-20th century China and......\........................................ ....
.................................../.....have the unmitigated gall to have an opinion.....\..................................... ......
................................../...............................|.................. ..........................\....................... ...................
................................./.....................Ron Kangas's wife..................................\........... ..............................
................................/.................................|................ ..............................\................... .....................
.............................../.......................Hank Hanegraaff.....................................\.. ................................ ....
............................../.....(Would have been much higher up the pyramid but he.....\......................................
............................./.....went with Eastern Orthodox instead of the Local Church)....\.....................................
............................/.....................................|............ ........................................\......... ...........................
.........................../.............Members of Poor, Poor Christianity who don't..................\.......................... ........
........................../................criticize Witness Lee or the Local Church.......................\.................... ............
........................./........................................|......... ...............................................\.. .............................
......................../...................Members of Poor, Poor Christianity who..........................\.................... .........
......................./...................criticize Witness Lee or the Local Church...........................\................ ...........
....................../...........................................|...... .................................................. ....\..........................
...................../.....................Members of Local Church Discussions..................................\.... .....................
..................../......................and Former Members Facebook Page....................................\......... ...............
.................../..............................................|... .................................................. ...........\.......................
................../..........................................UntoHim. .................................................. .........\.....................
................./....................................(after posting this)........................................... .........\....................

Most hilarious thing I saw today. I'm pretty sure this is 98% accurate, if not 100%. Just wondering are there any former local church member Facebook pages for young people, and how do i join?

[UntoHim]

To join LocalChurchDiscussions send an email requesting membership to: LocalChurchDiscussions@Gmail.Com
Be sure to include your desired UserName.

-

[Nuclear]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just wondering are there any former local church member Facebook pages for young people, and how do i join?

There is a group on Facebook for former members, but not one for young people if I'm not mistaken, might be worth it to make one if there are enough interested.

[Curious]

'Shepherding words' tackling mental health, and the usefulness of psychiatric intervention.

I am an outsider looking in. I’m not an expert in the LC. I want to stay mindful of that and remind others on the forum too.

Additionally, I seek to limit my observations to what I’ve actually seen and experienced for myself.

With this in mind I have a comment about the topic of seeking psychological help for mental illness or mental distress of LC members.
I suspect that, regardless of the rigidity of the BB’s, and their devotion to every detail of the doctrines and writings of WL, if there’s an issue they could be forced to modify, it’s the one on mental health, and psychological care of members.

from my observations, they exert emotional stress, duress, injustice and control, as discussed also at length on this forum. They cause members to experience cognitive dissonance as they bow to the stress, pressure, injustice and control, deceiving themselves and others that this is God’s way. This causes huge internal pressure which has no resolution, and the person, especially if female, is instructed to not even discuss with anyone…..that’s a whole set of risk factors against good mental health. to be frank, cognitive dissonance is the thin end of the wedge towards DID, (dissociative identity disorder). Which is a major psychiatric disorder, (and one deliberately instilled in satanic ritual abuse). it is nasty, and highly destructive.

There will be a higher than average instance of mental health problems with LC membership, I believe. I saw enough as an observer to feel quite concerned about this. The peer pressure for those not coping, and the judgementalism, relationship breakdowns and soap-opera type dramas, with much blame-shifting, all hidden under a thinly veiled pretence that denies it all…. there’s a lot to see when you are just sitting on the side-lines, observing.

For those floundering, their helplessness is compounded from multiple directions. Trying to live up to being ‘God in life and nature’ but actually being under-resourced to even function normally is not an equation that can add to a good result. This from persons born-in, second generation LCers! They are supposed to be flagships for the cause, evidence of it’s ‘reality’!....yet another source of pressure to be a living example of a schema that just doesn’t work, because it’s not actually truth.

In my theory here, The BB’s find themselves in a difficult space. To be true to the logic behind WL’s teachings, there is no room for nurturing the soul….overcoming the soul by eating Jesus as food into the spirit is clear. Satan, (though a created being and therefore not omnipresent, somehow, nevertheless), inhabits every human SOUL. You can’t easily then say, lets fix a broken soul by healing it as the soul when all efforts are to replace the soul with the regenerated spirit. It just doesn’t work unless you ignore the logic.

Who knows how many cases have caused the need for the BB’s to try to adjust this point. They’ve made an official concession here, possibly. Maybe its still a bald-faced lie, as so much of what they say is, I’m offering another possible explanation only…they may have recognised the need to release those suffering to receive help, and found it really did help them. Now they’re attempting to wordsmith it to reconcile it to WL’s teachings, which I don’t think is possible.

that's my offering on this topic. They have a lot to answer for, (but then probably, so do I)!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Curious

In my theory here, The BB’s find themselves in a difficult space. To be true to the logic behind WL’s teachings, there is no room for nurturing the soul….overcoming the soul by eating Jesus as food into the spirit is clear. Satan, (though a created being and therefore not omnipresent, somehow, nevertheless), inhabits every human SOUL. You can’t easily then say, lets fix a broken soul by healing it as the soul when all efforts are to replace the soul with the regenerated spirit. It just doesn’t work unless you ignore the logic.

Who knows how many cases have caused the need for the BB’s to try to adjust this point. They’ve made an official concession here, possibly. Maybe its still a bald-faced lie, as so much of what they say is, I’m offering another possible explanation only…they may have recognised the need to release those suffering to receive help, and found it really did help them. Now they’re attempting to wordsmith it to reconcile it to WL’s teachings, which I don’t think is possible.

that's my offering on this topic. They have a lot to answer for, (but then probably, so do I)!

Of course Christ is the Great Physician and healer in all matters. I have certainly experienced Him healing both soul and body, as many of us have. However, He is not limited - period. Many Christians, including myself, have experienced positives coming through professionals. And I've had the sense that the Lord led me to them and used them.

I do also think that He is capable of directly healing so much more in our lives, if we had faith and let Him! Yes, many professionals abuse their practice - I've experienced doctors prescribing drugs - in an almost automatic manner - for apparent mental issues, when that was not the correct diagnosis at all (it was actually low blood sugar). But regardless, He loves us, so He can use a plethora of things and people at His disposal to help us in our need.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

................../..........................................UntoHim. .................................................. .........\.....................
................./....................................(after posting this)........................................... .........\....................

Just now saw this. Hilarious! You're always tops with me Unto!

[UntoHim]

Ah shucks, Cal. Your encouragement means more to me than you'll ever know.
-

[Indiana]

Ron Kangas

and

www.TrueWordsforTruthSeekers.com

[Trapped]

More articles have been posted

[Trapped]

I tried reading "The One Unique New Testament Ministry" but my skin was crawling so bad at the screaming lies coming off the presses that my skin crawled right off me.

Covering, Not Covering Up is just as bad.

They're all bad.

Cal, I guess you've got some more videos to do!

[UntoHim]

Were Max Rapoport and John Ingalls Forced Out?

In February 1978 some brothers informed Brother Lee that one of the co-workers, Max Rapoport, was seeking to undermine his work and ministry and to incite a “revolution” among the younger saints in the local churches. By the Lord’s leading Brother Lee did nothing to directly oppose Rapoport’s efforts or to expose his misconduct.

On July 10, 1988, John Ingalls and two other elders of the church in Anaheim went to see Brother Lee at his home and voiced “concerns” over many aspects of the direction of the work in the Lord’s recovery. They proposed to gather the leading co-workers and elders to pray, study the situation according to the Bible, and then fellowship regarding their concerns. Brother Lee agreed that the proposal was good and asked them to decide upon a date for the meeting. The next day Ingalls called Brother Lee to inform him that the three were unable to decide upon a date, but that they would do so and let him know when it would be. They never did.

Interesting. Not one mention of the misconduct of Witness Lee's "closest co-worker", Philip Lee. Not one mention of what the "concerns" of John Ingalls et al were at the time. We now know that Witness Lee was fully aware of the misconduct of his deviant and abusive son, much of it perpetrated upon volunteer sisters in the most despicable manner imaginable. No mention of the abuse of Max Rapoport's children, with Local Church kids attacking them at school and calling them "of the devil" and "aligned with Satan". No mention of the numerous times Ingalls and the other Anaheim elders pleaded with Witness to deal with his porn addicted and alcoholic son, and protect the sisters who were being abused. No mention of the last meeting that Ingalls attended and was viciously attached by the acting god, who proclaimed: "That Lee! Lee has to be famous!"
-

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Interesting. Not one mention of the misconduct of Witness Lee's "closest co-worker", Philip Lee. Not one mention of what the "concerns" of John Ingalls et al were at the time. We now know that Witness Lee was fully aware of the misconduct of his deviant and abusive son, much of it perpetrated upon volunteer sisters in the most despicable manner imaginable. No mention of the abuse of Max Rapoport's children, with Local Church kids attacking them at school and calling them "of the devil" and "aligned with Satan". No mention of the numerous times Ingalls and the other Anaheim elders pleaded with Witness to deal with his porn addicted and alcoholic son, and protect the sisters who were being abused. No mention of the last meeting that Ingalls attended and was viciously attached by the acting god, who proclaimed: "That Lee! Lee has to be famous!"
-

I'm not even sure how the people writing the articles posted on shepherdingwords.com expect to be taken seriously. Firstly, none of the authors have attached their name to any of the articles, so we don't even know if they were there, had first-hand knowledge, etc. Secondly, I don't see how they can even pretend to address these matters with just a few paragraphs. For example, there are numerous points made in John Ingalls' book that they don't even begin to address. They are going to have to try a lot harder.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Were Max Rapoport and John Ingalls Forced Out?

In February 1978 some brothers informed Brother Lee that one of the co-workers, Max Rapoport, was seeking to undermine his work and ministry and to incite a “revolution” among the younger saints in the local churches. By the Lord’s leading Brother Lee did nothing to directly oppose Rapoport’s efforts or to expose his misconduct.
-

Let me just dismantle the falsehoods here.

• WL started his "Young Galileans" move or "flow"
• WL sent Max out from Anaheim to shake up the young people in the LC's
• Max NEVER undermined Lee's work or ministry
• The "revolution" was begun by WL and Max was his agent of change
• The "revolution" stirred up the young people against their elders
• Chaos sprung up in many LC's, with the young people accusing their elders of "undermining WL's burden"
• Then Max did the unthinkable -- confronting Philip Lee for molesting a sister, having an adulterous relationship at LSM offices
• When all hell broke loose, WL needed a convenient scapegoat
• Lee threw Max under the bus to preserve his own pristine image
• As with every "storm" it is labeled by Lee as a "rebellion"
• WL used an ancient Chinese custom of attacking your opponent by shaming his wife
• WL targeted Max's wife, humiliating her publicly as the "instigator of a sisters' rebellion
• "WL did nothing to directly oppose" Max??? Nothing could be further from the truth
• WL fabricated self-serving accusations about Max and his wife to protect his own family. He undermined righteousness by "shooting the messenger"
• Max repented of all his wrongdoing, WL never did

[Sons to Glory!]

It is interesting to me that they (Blended Brothers) put these things on the internet with the assumption that people will read and accept what is said wholeheartedly. And that they provide zero format for open, two-way fellowship regarding these things. It's like, "Here's the official history, and that's how it was. No need to entertain anything else (that would be getting in your mind and is of the devil). . . now that you know you can simply accept and move on."

[Curious]

‘Shepherding Words’, subtitle ‘Covering, not Covering Up’.

Opening statement:

‘By misrepresenting Witness Lee’s teaching concerning Noah and his three sons, some have falsely claimed that he justified covering up gross sins, particularly if the sinning one occupies a position of authority. Any who appeal to his teaching on Noah and his sons to justify covering up gross sins are abusing his ministry.’


This is an extremely telling opening statement. Two things here:

1. What they left out: There is no comment given anywhere that expresses sadness, regret or concern about what pain and suffering has occurred in the lives of Jo Casteel or Jane Anderson. No expression of empathy or care towards them or acknowledgement even. They avoid showing any love or care for those who have been hurt while under their care, regardless of weather they feel any level of responsibility or not. Nothing stops them from offering a message of sympathy, (except guilt?)

2. Instead, they do the above, they suggest that Witness lee is the one being abused, or at least his teachings are. This detail is something to take careful note of, its how abusers flip the tables and confuse their victims, as over-empathising with other’s pain is an easy trip-up for an abuse victim. In place of acknowledgement, they are calling the victim card on themselves and this I call a deliberate psychological trick, and a sinister one. They could’ve just said ‘misinterpreting his ministry’, but they choose the loaded word ‘abuse’.

The whole site is a major blame-shifting exercise actually. Individual saints may abuse, users of their materials who are no longer under their authority ‘abuse’ WLs teachings, ex-members are full of ambition. But no stain on them….I do actually feel deeply sad for them.

Ok ‘shepherding words’, give us an example of where you were wrong about something and you resolved it in all the ways you describe on your site. And provide an independent person to verify that it happened as you say. You claim you don’t believe you are infallible, give us an example where you made a mistake and learned something useful through it….citing lots of principles doesn’t tell us you necessarily put them into practice.

Wounded people: watch out for ways abusers turn the tables and present themselves as the victims instead.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Curious

2. Instead, they do the above, they suggest that Witness lee is the one being abused, or at least his teachings are. This detail is something to take careful note of, its how abusers flip the tables and confuse their victims, as over-empathising with other’s pain is an easy trip-up for an abuse victim. In place of acknowledgement, they are calling the victim card on themselves and this I call a deliberate psychological trick, and a sinister one. They could’ve just said ‘misinterpreting his ministry’, but they choose the loaded word ‘abuse’.

Yes, this came to mind for me as well when I read their article. It doesn't take much searching on the internet to find all the various cases of abuse that have occurring within the LC. Even in my own experience, I had to deal with what I would call abusive behavior. Nowhere near as severe as what others experienced, but in all these different cases, there is a common pattern. They deny the abuse has occurred, they play the authority card claiming that the victims have no right to question the abusers, and they attempt to make the victims feel guilty for daring to speak out.

Before I left the LC, I expressed some of my concerns about certain patterns of abuse that I saw in the LC. I was subsequently told that such patterns were related to certain people in the LC who were "off" and had nothing to do with WL or the LC as a whole. This caused me to second-guess myself. I wondered if I was making too big of a deal about my concerns. I never saw anyone else speak out, so I figured maybe I should just drop my concerns.

The denial of the abuse is what people really should take note of. Their argument about "abusing" WL's ministry is utter nonsense. WL has been dead for 20+ years and what he taught is what he taught. He isn't around to provide any clarification on what he taught. So many people outside the LC as well as former members have arrived at the conclusion that he taught a number of questionable things. The real issue is that LSM, DCP, and the blendeds don't like the fact that people have dared to attribute certain of WL's teachings to being what has enabled abuse to happen within the LC.

[Sons to Glory!]

This reminds me of how companies get in trouble, because they have a culture in place that covertly promotes certain things (like sexual harassment, bigotry, etc.). It's not just one person - it's a whole system of thinking that's been built up over a period of time. Then certain people in a position of power just start falling into that pattern, since that's the norm and they think it's all just sort of think it's just "business as usual." They almost don't know it is happening themselves (i.e., abuse), because there's a justifying atmosphere to the whole thing within the system. And it's not so easy to prove that the whole organization is like that. If the abuse by a person of power is proven, just one or two offending people often take the hit. But the system that created the abuse is still intact, so it will likely happen again and again (until there's a serious reckoning & overhaul).

The fleshly system/kingdom that's been built up will always strive to protect and perpetuate itself. And if solid evidence of abuse by a certain person comes to light, the system will do its best to distance itself in some way (or bend/hide the truth) as a protection mechanism. Organizations (which are of the flesh) follow this self-sustaining pattern.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This reminds me of how companies get in trouble, because they have a culture in place that covertly promotes certain things (like sexual harassment, bigotry, etc.). It's not just one person - it's a whole system of thinking that's been built up over a period of time. Then certain people in a position of power just start falling into that pattern, since that's the norm and they think it's all just sort of think it's just "business as usual." They almost don't know it is happening themselves (i.e., abuse), because there's a justifying atmosphere to the whole thing within the system. And it's not so easy to prove that the whole organization is like that. If the abuse by a person of power is proven, just one or two offending people often take the hit. But the system that created the abuse is still intact, so it will likely happen again and again (until there's a serious reckoning & overhaul).

Those who are running the LC seem completely convinced that the "formula" provided by WL is going to always work for them. They don't seem to be able to take an objective look at the current state of the LC. The current controversy that the LC finds itself dealing with is related to people on the inside who spoke up. In fact, most of the past controversies have also been internal ones.

That by itself should be enough for people in the LC to want to stop, take a step back and figure out what is going on. Maybe some try to do just that. But LC leadership will swiftly block all such attempts. The whole culture that exists within the LC just feels normal to the people who are in it, especially the leaders.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Those who are running the LC seem completely convinced that the "formula" provided by WL is going to always work for them.

This "formula," even if it was right and of the Lord back then, is something of the past. Therefore it is not fresh and is not the Anointing. The fresh speaking of the Lord is replaced by the traditions of men. Flesh.

I've heard this sort of thing spoken many times while in the LC, regarding other Christian groups throughout history, as a warning of what not to do. Now it has happened to the LC and they can't see it. Lord have mercy!

[Indiana]

In one of the Shepherding Words articles it was asserted that:
On July 10, 1988, John Ingalls and two other elders of the church in Anaheim went to see Brother Lee at his home and voiced “concerns” over many aspects of the direction of the work in the Lord’s recovery. They proposed to gather the leading co-workers and elders to pray, study the situation according to the Bible, and then fellowship regarding their concerns. Brother Lee agreed that the proposal was good and asked them to decide upon a date for the meeting. The next day Ingalls called Brother Lee to inform him that the three were unable to decide upon a date, but that they would do so and let him know when it would be. They never did.

Comment: It would be good to include John Ingall’s fellowship and get both sides of a story. Throughout Fermentation no one mentioned that John Ingalls' met numerous times [16 times]with Brother Lee to fellowship about the current issues. He also met with other members of the Body to address his concerns. Many brothers were initially included in this fellowship.

http://www.ourneedtoexamineourselves...shipbyJohn.pdf

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Indiana

In one of the Shepherding Words articles it was asserted that:

On July 10, 1988, John Ingalls and two other elders of the church in Anaheim went to see Brother Lee at his home and voiced “concerns” over many aspects of the direction of the work in the Lord’s recovery. They proposed to gather the leading co-workers and elders to pray, study the situation according to the Bible, and then fellowship regarding their concerns. Brother Lee agreed that the proposal was good and asked them to decide upon a date for the meeting. The next day Ingalls called Brother Lee to inform him that the three were unable to decide upon a date, but that they would do so and let him know when it would be. They never did.

Originally Posted by John Ingalls

Godfred confirmed this by saying that he had the same realization, that Brother Lee considers anyone who criticizes him a troublemaker and will consider whether or not that one is expendable. This was indeed a most serious consideration concerning Brother Lee. But we did not care to maintain any position or standing for ourselves. We felt that for the Lord’s sake and for the sake of all the brothers and sisters, we must open our hearts to Brother Lee, no matter what it cost us.

The article from sheherdingwords.com completely mischaracterizes the issue. JI was forced out because WL was intolerant of any sort of criticism. Long before JI was quarantined, I think he and others realized the risk that they were taking in bringing their concerns before WL. They never tried to leave the LC, they tried to stick around and make things work, and that was the very thing that got them quarantined.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The article from sheherdingwords.com completely mischaracterizes the issue. JI was forced out because WL was intolerant of any sort of criticism. Long before JI was quarantined, I think he and others realized the risk that they were taking in bringing their concerns before WL. They never tried to leave the LC, they tried to stick around and make things work, and that was the very thing that got them quarantined.

Apparently Titus Chu learned this "lesson" much faster than any of the other "concerned" brothers with John Ingalls. Reading JI's account STTIL we learned that TC flip-flopped his loyalty overnight after just one meeting with WL and perhaps a few of his thugs.

On this matter, however, the BB's would not mischaracterize TC. Rather they would promote TC as an example of "covering" WL and his son Philip.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently Titus Chu learned this "lesson" much faster than any of the other "concerned" brothers with John Ingalls. Reading JI's account STTIL we learned that TC flip-flopped his loyalty overnight after just one meeting with WL and perhaps a few of his thugs.

On this matter, however, the BB's would not mischaracterize TC. Rather they would promote TC as an example of "covering" WL and his son Philip.

I can still remember like it was yesterday how big of a deal the blendeds made about TC, even though most of us on the west coast had no idea who he even was. But the blendeds did make the message perfectly clear - any detractors, dissenters, etc would be shown the door.

Fast forward to 2019 and the blendeds find themselves on the defense in regards to their past actions related to the various internal conflicts that took place. At one point in time, it was convenient for them to rationalize kicking people out, now it seems they want to pretend that they have never kicked anyone out.

All these quarantines are going to catch up to them eventually (and already have). The LC is a system that doesn't tolerate dissent. So by very virtual of such a system, they have greatly limited the people and personalities that can exist within such a system (not good for numbers). Unless they want to back away from all that, people will continue to see the LC for what it is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I can still remember like it was yesterday how big of a deal the blendeds made about TC, even though most of us on the west coast had no idea who he even was. But the blendeds did make the message perfectly clear - any detractors, dissenters, etc would be shown the door.

Fast forward to 2019 and the blendeds find themselves on the defense in regards to their past actions related to the various internal conflicts that took place. At one point in time, it was convenient for them to rationalize kicking people out, now it seems they want to pretend that they have never kicked anyone out.

All these quarantines are going to catch up to them eventually (and already have). The LC is a system that doesn't tolerate dissent. So by very virtual of such a system, they have greatly limited the people and personalities that can exist within such a system (not good for numbers). Unless they want to back away from all that, people will continue to see the LC for what it is.

I have mentioned this before, but I'll repeat. For me this seems to be the basic, underlying, and fatal flaw of exclusive systems. I saw it with the Catholics, the Amish, the Brethren, Nee, Lee, and the Blendeds.

I came across this when studying the Brethren. One of Darby's earliest tracts was this: Separation from Evil - God's Principle of Unity

At first glance it might sound spiritual, almost Biblical. Think about it. Do we have the oneness of the Spirit, or a oneness of "purity," without evil? Once we lose what is positive of the faith, we then succumb to the whims of our leader. Who gets to define what or who is "evil?"

Every schism, division, and storm among the Brethren or the Recovery was based on the leader defining "evil" for the movement. I have studied nearly all the divisions among the Brethren and Recovery, and each case was a sham. "Evil" was what the boss said it was. Max was "evil" because he confronted Philip Lee for adultery. Titus Chu was "evil" because he allowed electric guitars in the young people gatherings. I could go on and on with Brethren nonsense which resulted in their divisions.

But the root cause is their mistaken views of oneness or unity. Did not the so-called "ground of oneness" automatically condemn all Christians as evil? What is the result? All Christians are evil. Only we are holy, pure, and one, standing on the proper ground.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every schism, division, and storm among the Brethren or the Recovery was based on the leader defining "evil" for the movement. I have studied nearly all the divisions among the Brethren and Recovery, and each case was a sham. "Evil" was what the boss said it was. Max was "evil" because he confronted Philip Lee for adultery. Titus Chu was "evil" because he allowed electric guitars in the young people gatherings. I could go on and on with Brethren nonsense which resulted in their divisions.

This type of pattern is evident throughout LC history. When they get to define what is "evil" means, it provides them with the rationale for just about any action. This type of recklessness is the legacy that WL left behind.

The blendeds obviously continued in that same pattern. Like I mentioned, I think they are now stuck playing defense. It doesn't seem like it ever occurred to them what the effects of a mass quarantine in the midwest might be, just like WL didn't realize the repercussions of ousting those like Max and John.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Curious

‘Shepherding Words’, subtitle ‘Covering, not Covering Up’.

Opening statement:

‘By misrepresenting Witness Lee’s teaching concerning Noah and his three sons, some have falsely claimed that he justified covering up gross sins, particularly if the sinning one occupies a position of authority. Any who appeal to his teaching on Noah and his sons to justify covering up gross sins are abusing his ministry.’

This is an extremely telling opening statement. Two things here:

...

2. Instead, they do the above, they suggest that Witness lee is the one being abused, or at least his teachings are. This detail is something to take careful note of, its how abusers flip the tables and confuse their victims, as over-empathising with other’s pain is an easy trip-up for an abuse victim. In place of acknowledgement, they are calling the victim card on themselves and this I call a deliberate psychological trick, and a sinister one. They could’ve just said ‘misinterpreting his ministry’, but they choose the loaded word ‘abuse’.

...

Ok ‘shepherding words’, give us an example of where you were wrong about something and you resolved it in all the ways you describe on your site. And provide an independent person to verify that it happened as you say. You claim you don’t believe you are infallible, give us an example where you made a mistake and learned something useful through it….citing lots of principles doesn’t tell us you necessarily put them into practice.

Wounded people: watch out for ways abusers turn the tables and present themselves as the victims instead.

This was a great catch, Curious. The danger of abusers claiming their victims are doing the abusing cannot be overstated.

I thought it was completely ridiculous that the example the co-workers gave of Nee and Lee not being infallible was some disagreement over the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation 11......hardly a huge point in our daily Christian life.

Regarding the Noah story, what was Nee accused of between 1942 and 1948? Wasn't it a ....... gross sin?

[Indiana]

http://www.brRonKangas.com

"Love prevails. We should love everybody, even our enemies. If the co-workers and elders do not love the bad ones, eventually, they will have nothing to do. We must be perfect as our Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48) by loving the evil ones and the good ones without any discrimination. We must be perfect as our Father because we are His sons, His species. This is most crucial. How can we be a co-worker and an elder? It is by love in every way. We must love any kind of person. The Lord Jesus said that He came to be a Physician, not for the healthy ones but for the sick ones. The Lord said, “Those who are strong have no need of a physician, but those who are ill” (9:12)
(Vital Groups, Message 8, WL)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Indiana

http://www.brRonKangas.com

"Love prevails. We should love everybody, even our enemies. If the co-workers and elders do not love the bad ones, eventually, they will have nothing to do. We must be perfect as our Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48) by loving the evil ones and the good ones without any discrimination. We must be perfect as our Father because we are His sons, His species. This is most crucial. How can we be a co-worker and an elder? It is by love in every way. We must love any kind of person. The Lord Jesus said that He came to be a Physician, not for the healthy ones but for the sick ones. The Lord said, “Those who are strong have no need of a physician, but those who are ill” (9:12)
(Vital Groups, Message 8, WL)

Hey Brother Indiana, do you feel the love?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Regarding the Noah story, what was Nee accused of between 1942 and 1948? Wasn't it a ....... gross sin?

Depends on who you ask. The story I heard from WL for years was not exactly what matched the facts, or how Dr. Lily Hsu wrote about it.

One thing became certain to me. What WL told us about Nee was purely fictionalized hagiography. There was no way in the world that the Nee-appointed elders in Shanghai could be such imbeciles, excommunicating Nee on an implausible rumor.

If Lee lied and covered for Nee, what else has he hidden? If Lee's story is demonstrably false, then what was the real story? Then is Lily Hsu's record true?

[Indiana]

W. Lee:"This is most crucial. How can we be a co-worker and an elder? It is by love in every way. We must love any kind of person. The Lord Jesus said that He came to be a Physician, not for the healthy ones but for the sick ones. The Lord said, “Those who are strong have no need of a physician, but those who are ill” (9:12)
(Vital Groups, Message 8, WL)

[Indiana]

"Though I might know all mysteries and knowledge, without love I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:1

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This type of pattern is evident throughout LC history. When they get to define what is "evil" means, it provides them with the rationale for just about any action. This type of recklessness is the legacy that WL left behind.

The blendeds obviously continued in that same pattern. Like I mentioned, I think they are now stuck playing defense. It doesn't seem like it ever occurred to them what the effects of a mass quarantine in the midwest might be, just like WL didn't realize the repercussions of ousting those like Max and John.

When Titus Chu (Midwest LC's) and Dong (S. America LC's) were excommunicated, the Blendeds based all their actions and writings on what WL did and taught and spoke privately when he expelled both Max and Ingalls from their service in the Recovery. TC's Kangaroo Court during the Whistler ITERO reminds me of the impeachment hearings -- a sham without due process, distorted facts based on hearsay, biased "experts," no defense witnesses, no cross-examinations, rush to judgment, etc.

Once the pattern from the scripture is abandoned, the Recovery became like a ship floating at sea, with neither sails nor rudder nor anchor. It became painfully obvious that the chief Blendeds just hated TC, and were willing to sacrifice any and all in order to purge him from their midst. TC had become a pariah to the Blendeds much the same as Paul was to the Judaizers, willing to abandon scripture, principle, and people in order to cling to their illegitimate power.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When Titus Chu (Midwest LC's) and Dong (S. America LC's) were excommunicated, the Blendeds based all their actions and writings on what WL did and taught and spoke privately when he expelled both Max and Ingalls from their service in the Recovery.

I remember the blendeds making reference to these 'private' conversations with WL. At the time it sounded reasonable. Later on, I remember questioning their appeal to what WL did or didn't say, since it's obvious that some of that stuff will never be known. And at a more general level, people should question why what WL did or didn't say matters in the first place.

The reality of it is that so much of what the LC tries to justify is based on arguments that just don't hold up to reason whether that be faulty logic or appeals to WL statements (which don't even matter in the first place).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remember the blendeds making reference to these 'private' conversations with WL. At the time it sounded reasonable. Later on, I remember questioning their appeal to what WL did or didn't say, since it's obvious that some of that stuff will never be known. And at a more general level, people should question why what WL did or didn't say matters in the first place.

The reality of it is that so much of what the LC tries to justify is based on arguments that just don't hold up to reason whether that be faulty logic or appeals to WL statements (which don't even matter in the first place).

When studying Brethren history, so many of their so-called spiritual principles surrounding the initial excommunications of Newton and Muller became codified for further action at a later date. Darby was responsible for their expulsions, but others like Wigram also wrote extensively to demonize these innocent brothers. I once read a paper by Wigram, in the aftermath of their first schism, which went way beyond the pale, fear-mongering and inferring incredible dangers based on OT speculations.

Beloved brother George Muller, nationally revered for his passionate care for orphans, became especially reviled as the most pernicious danger in all the British Empire. Decades subsequent to his expulsion, new Exclusive converts were accepted based on how they judged Muller. It's almost unbelievable to consider this could have happened. But it did.

History repeated in the Recovery. Underlings learned from Darby much the same as BP and RK learned from WL. They then took things further. Is it any surprise that bad practices tend to worsen over time? How else do we explain how the Levitical ordinance to re-plaster leprous houses could become 21st Century justification for DCP to destroy Midwest LC's?

[Sons to Glory!]

Can someone please tell me where the term "Blended Brothers" came from? Some here locally have started to joke about it, poking gentle fun at my Tuesday men's fellowship, calling it "The Blended Bros," but no one really knows what the heck it means!

[UntoHim]

The term "blending" was, of course, coined by Witness Lee. Lee borrowed this term from 1 Corinthians 12:24 "But God has blended the body together". Most modern translations use "composed", not blended, but since it suited Lee's theology better, the translators of the Recovery Version used "blended".

Towards the end of Lee's life he earnestly tried to get all the leading LSM co-workers to be "blended" together. For the most part, I think he was quite successful in accomplishing this goal, with the notable exceptions of Titus Chu and Dong Yu Lan in Brazil. This was one of the main complaints/accusations against brother Titus - that he was not properly "blending" with the leading LSM co-workers in Anaheim. At some point these co-workers in Anaheim started calling themselves "blended brothers". I don't think that Witness Lee ever asked them, much less advised them, to use this term. But one can certainly understand how these fellows picked up the terminology. Besides, it is far less corny than "Brothers We"

The bottom line is that the term "blended", as it is used by the LSM co-workers, has no basis in the Bible, or even in church history. It's no more biblical than the man-made positions of arch bishop, cardinal or pope.
-

[Ohio]

Personally, as a rule, I prefer to base my understanding on the facts, which does require me to collect huge amounts of information over an extended period of time. My simple conclusion regarding blending is simple -- Lee used it as a tool to force compliance with his hand-picked successors.

Paul's use of "blending" was not on a ministerial level. He did not use the phrase in the beginning of the epistle, when he exposed the Corinthian tendency to be "of" any minister. Rather Paul used "blending" to display how God Himself brought the diverse members of the body together in your local assembly. The lesson to be learned is to love the members next to you, placed there by God, even though you might not be inclined to even like them.

Biblical "blending" loves those nothing like you, Recovery "blending" loves only those just like you, e.g. Ministry approved "good material."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Biblical "blending" loves those nothing like you, Recovery "blending" loves only those just like you, e.g. Ministry approved "good material."

It is to my shame that I never openly questioned this when we were told to seek "good materials" back in the 80s . . .

[Indiana]

www.sistersrebellion.com link works on PC

One sister shares her experience, including this KEY element: "some matters of unrighteousness and sin came to my attention. After prayer together with Sandee and Harriet, when we had a personal meeting with Witness Lee, I urged him to take care of what was grieving the Lord. I told him that I had seen the Presence of the Lord leave in another similar situation. His response was, "The Lord would never leave the Recovery!"
Works great on PC links to Philip Lee history on second and 3rd pages
Maybe not cell or tablet

[aron]

Originally Posted by Indiana

www.sistersrebellion.com

One sister shares her experience, including this KEY element: "some matters of unrighteousness and sin came to my attention. After prayer together with Sandee and Harriet, when we had a personal meeting with Witness Lee, I urged him to take care of what was grieving the Lord. I told him that I had seen the Presence of the Lord leave in another similar situation. His response was, "The Lord would never leave the Recovery!"

One quote in particular:

"At one point he [Benson Philips] declared that sisters didn't have any spiritual discernment, and that they were, therefore, easy prey for Satan‟s deception. He also stated his belief that sisters couldn't receive revelation from the Bible. He continued for a long period of time, informing church members about the evilness of the sisters' rebellion and stating that any evidence of such rebellion would not be tolerated"

According to LSM President Benson Philips the sisters don't have any spiritual discernment, and no capacity for revelation, as long as they're not named Jean Guyon, Mary McDonough, Peace Wang, Ruth Lee, Margaret Barber, or Jessie Penn-Lewis. Because if you go to LSM website they're selling their books.

https://www.ministrybooks.org/alphabetical.cfm?s=G

I guess, because of the situation on the ground, God gave a select few sisters some capacity for revelation on a one-time basis? Funny, though: how you Deputy Gods lay out restrictions on others yet take a pass yourselves. Just don't be shocked when someone notes your hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by aron

Else, what did we pass through our experience for? Watchman Nee wrote "Authority and Submission" but ultimately he had to submit to the same authoritarianism that he espoused.

I personally believe that writing that book and enforcing its ideas upon the flock of God was Watchman Nee's greatest mistake (from where I'm standing). God's judgment soon followed after: and it was sure, and it was severe: and it was unstoppable.

Stop to think for a moment about the 'poetic justice' of it all. You espouse 'authority and submission' and the Lord turns a whole country upside down to give you a first-hand dose of your own medicine!

I don't know how many of you here have ever had a taste of the criminal justice system, but I can tell you that there is no more clearer real life illustration of Authority and Submission than the living hell of prison life (forget the army).

If God intended to humble that young man and topple him off of his high horse and teach him in full color his own self-confessed, written and published ideals on authority and submission there was no better way to do it. Because one thing is for sure....

....for twenty years, Watchman Nee, day after day, week after week, year after year, submitted and submitted and submitted and submitted and submitted and submitted...

...and then submitted some more...

"it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews)

"and there was a dispute among them as to who should be GREATER" (Matthew)..."

" you know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are Great exercise AUTHORITY upon them. BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU." (Matthew 20:25)

"...judgment must begin at the house of God" (1 Peter 4: 17).

It is reported that when Watchman Nee was finally released from prison in 1972 he was 'exceedingly humble'...one can only imagine the' far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory' that the Lord has wrought into him! ! !

..Grace.

Hi all,

I would just like to add that what I have written above is PURE SPECULATION and is not to be taken seriously. It is simply a baseless opinion that I began to form ever since I read about Dr. Lily Hsu and the events preceding and following Watchman's trial.

I, of course, did not know Bro. Watchman Nee and, in fact, have never read his book, 'Authority & Submission'; all I know about it are other people's reactions to its contents. I am, therefore, (Ohio, this one's for you) 'uniquely unqualified' to pass judgment on Bro. Nee in regards to this book.

I also spent no time with Bro. Nee in the Chinese prison he was incarcerated in and so do not know whether or not he submitted to anybody at any time. I cannot conclusively attest to this.

And above all, I am not a member of the Godhead neither has the Lord invited me at any time to sit in council with him to advise him on any matter, least of all the matter concerning Watchman Nee's imprisonment. If at all he spent twenty years in jail in order to be taught a practical lesson on the pros and cons of 'authority and submission' is something known only to God, and perhaps, to Watchman Nee. Certainly, I was not in the loop and my post above seems almost to suggest that.

I, therefore, apologise to all of you on the forum (including lurkers) for my rash..er... 'submission'.

.. Grace..

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

I personally believe that writing that book and enforcing its ideas upon the flock of God was Watchman Nee's greatest mistake (from where I'm standing). God's judgment soon followed after: and it was sure, and it was severe: and it was unstoppable.

Stop to think for a moment about the 'poetic justice' of it all. You espouse 'authority and submission' and the Lord turns a whole country upside down to give you a first-hand dose of your own medicine!

I have not read everything available, but nothing I have read from WN's ministry after his discipline in 1942 has been healthy or beneficial.

WN left his "vision" of local assemblies administered by independent elders, and decided they needed a strong controlling headquarters, with him at the top. He left his teaching of never getting involved with politics, and began to make decisions for the entire movement in cooperation with the Communist Government's Three-Self Committee. He left his long-standing policy of offering in secret to demanding that all "hand over" their wealth to him. He left his plans for autonomous assemblies throughout China, and opted for a huge auditorium in Shanghai for him to speak.

Sound very much like what happened in the US.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

I personally believe that writing that book and enforcing its ideas upon the flock of God was Watchman Nee's greatest mistake (from where I'm standing). God's judgment soon followed after: and it was sure, and it was severe: and it was unstoppable.

Stop to think for a moment about the 'poetic justice' of it all. You espouse 'authority and submission' and the Lord turns a whole country upside down to give you a first-hand dose of your own medicine!

This is an interesting way to look at things. All speculation aside, one of thing things that I find to be most ironic about Nee's life is that he really wasn't around to see the fruit of what he taught. Well maybe a little bit, but certainly not after being imprisoned.

Despite that, however, it seems that people like Lee were fully confident in what Nee taught and continued on full steam ahead.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

I, therefore, apologise to all of you on the forum (including lurkers) for my rash..er... 'submission'.

.. Grace..

All of our posts probably need similar qualifiers. We're sinners, trying by faith in Jesus Christ to make it home to our Father in heaven. None can say, "I have laid hold" except Christ himself who is in everlasting glory.

Nonetheless, we can study, and consider, and pray, and make tentative assessments. And we can present our observations for consideration. We can "observe, deduce, postulate", as one blended LC recently told the graduating class at Harvard School of Public Health.

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

I personally believe that writing that book and enforcing its ideas upon the flock of God was Watchman Nee's greatest mistake (from where I'm standing). God's judgment soon followed after: and it was sure, and it was severe: and it was unstoppable.

Stop to think for a moment about the 'poetic justice' of it all. You espouse 'authority and submission' and the Lord turns a whole country upside down to give you a first-hand dose of your own medicine!

Similarly, Witness Lee's greatest mistake was thinking that he'd dropped his native culture in the Pacific Ocean enroute to the USA in the early '60s. Chinese Christians like Lee may tell of the lack of due process in the PRC, but overlook their own lack of due process when they control Western churches. Many have related how Matthew 18 principles were brushed aside when Lee felt his personal ''guanxi network'' was being threatened. He had no time for such trifles as due process. We were told to ignore our concerns of right and wrong, and focus on blind obedience to the Party, er, sorry, the Church.

And I repeat that Asian culture, in any form, is by no means inferior. But it's not heavenly, but earthly. It's still the way of the gentiles which Jesus warned us of.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

Hi all,

I would just like to add that what I have written above is PURE SPECULATION and is not to be taken seriously. It is simply a baseless opinion that I began to form ever since I read about Dr. Lily Hsu and the events preceding and following Watchman's trial.

I, of course, did not know Bro. Watchman Nee and, in fact, have never read his book, 'Authority & Submission'; all I know about it are other people's reactions to its contents. I am, therefore, (Ohio, this one's for you) 'uniquely unqualified' to pass judgment on Bro. Nee in regards to this book.

Since I am so "foolish and slow of heart," (Lk 24.25) can you provide some clarification Gospelicious?

And welcome to the forumGospelicious, please consider registering in the forum using your great name. Then your posts will not be delayed by vetting.

Did I ever promote myself as being "uniquely qualified" to pass judgment on WN? Would really like to hear your feedback on this.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did I ever promote myself as being "uniquely qualified" to pass judgment on WN? Would really like to hear your feedback on this.

No, to my recollection you have never promoted yourself as being either uniquely qualified or even uniquely unqualified.

But like myself (only that with me my lack of qualifications is vis-a-vis WN), I do know of an eminent 'somebody' who has been FAMOUSLY described by another equally eminent but qualified person as being "uniquely unqualified". And judging from a recent post of yours, where I was almost tempted to take you on, you clearly hold a brightly shining candle for that 'less qualified somebody'.

I thought you might get it...is all. But you survived the lion's jaws, my friend.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

No, to my recollection you have never promoted yourself as being either uniquely qualified or even uniquely unqualified.

But like myself (only that with me my lack of qualifications is vis-a-vis WN), I do know of an eminent 'somebody' who has been FAMOUSLY described by another equally eminent but qualified person as being "uniquely unqualified". And judging from a recent post of yours, where I was almost tempted to take you on, you clearly hold a brightly shining candle for that 'less qualified somebody'.

I thought you might get it...is all. But you survived the lion's jaws, my friend.

As aron has noted elsewhere, all are just "confident amateurs."

Or as Cal has asserted, perhaps better described as "sheepdogs," merely protecting the flock of God from a stray wolf wandering by.

Originally Posted by Ohio

As aron has noted elsewhere, all are just "confident amateurs."

Or as Cal has asserted, perhaps better described as "sheepdogs," merely protecting the flock of God from a stray wolf wandering by.

... Wow... talk about wry humor going awry! ! !

To make things clear, I was just taking a playful poke at your Republican politics by taking a self-deprecating and mocking stab at myself (at...myself!) by making allusion to 45 whom 44 called uniquely unqualified back in 2016. It made all the headlines around the world at the time. I remember having a heated argument about the comment with my six-year old grand-daughter at the time. She luuurved 'the Donald' (now, not so much) and so naturally was not very pleased.

So, there's no need for name-calling calling me a dog or a werewolf or whatever. I just thought I was being clever and witty after I'd just read your objections to the impeachment hearings. It was not an attack. Sometimes we forget that a lot of the time humor doesn't carry over very well online and often leads to offence. So, my apologies.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

So, there's no need for name-calling calling me a dog or a werewolf or whatever. I just thought I was being clever and witty after I'd just read your objections to the impeachment hearings. It was not an attack. Sometimes we forget that a lot of the time humor doesn't carry over very well online and often leads to offence. So, my apologies.

I don't think Ohio was implying that you were a wolf. He was agreeing with Igzy's self-identification as watching over the flock.

A lot of us on the forum don't see eye-to-eye on many things, both political and religious, but most of us "see Jesus" a la Hebrews 2:9 and it seems to be more than sufficient. Even those who don't see Jesus in the Christian sense, but rather see religious chains (which they want to break), have every right to share their opinion. Doesn't go very far sometimes, but I think Jesus taught this: If you want others to listen to you, then you have to listen to them. So we try.

"What you do unto others shall be done unto you." For the most part I see that played out here in a good way. Everyone has a voice. But I agree with the humour part - it can be very challenging to do it right. Even smilies don't help sometimes. (But when it works it's worth it!!)

(btw I apologize if my remarks on the "trinity" discussion thread were snide. I can't help myself sometimes, thinking I'm clever and sharp, and … maybe not so good.)

[Curious]

The ‘Pattern of Sin’ since Adam and Eve

I want to add the following to the comment on ‘shepherding words’ handling of their defence…..

Looking at the first story in the bible, Adam, Eve and the fall, as a pattern.

The sequence goes as follows.
1. Doubting God
2. Act of disobedience
3. Hid
4. Lied
5. Blame-shifted

Point 1, they lost trust in God, prompted by the initiative of evil.

Point 2, they disobeyed as a consequence and this action was the moment of the fall.
From here on the ‘sin nature’ governed their responses, ie the ‘pattern of sin’ commences:

Point 3, they hid. Tried to hide what they did. Hiding is our first attempt always, at avoiding accountability.

Point 4, when directly confronted, they lied as to the reason why they hid, using a partial truth. (They were indeed aware that they were naked for the first time, but that was because they had put their trust in the words of the serpent and acted on them).

Point 5, when that didn’t work, they went to blame-shifting, Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the serpent.

Let’s look at the efforts of ‘shepherding Words:’

Point 2. Acts of unrighteousness. Abuses, financial exploitation. The things being named on this forum, things that use others to gain for themselves. (Adam and Eve thought the apple would provide for them things God was withholding, in their case to gain a wisdom to know good and evil. With the LR it was to gain other things beyond what God was providing too, weather material gain or pleasure in the case of molestation etc).

Point 3. Quick, hide! Hiding the truth. Pretend that it hasn’t or isn’t happening. Name the claims as being 'in the way of myths and rumours that were addressed already, long ago….’ Etc

Point 4. Lying. Financial gifts were ‘voluntary’, ‘we handle abusive situations according to normal procedures, like any company or organisation’, employ half truths that distract from the main point. etc.

Point 5. Blame-shifting: labelling those they have harmed as ‘opposing and negative ones’ and claiming others ‘abuse’ WL’s teachings. Etc.

My point? The pattern. It plays out over and over again. It’s not complicated, everyone who does wrong and works at avoiding the consequences follows in the same sequence of responses. And so does the LRM. Its all their own words: ‘shepherding words.com!’

[aron]

Originally Posted by Curious

The ‘Pattern of Sin’ since Adam and Eve.. It plays out over and over again. It’s not complicated, everyone who does wrong and works at avoiding the consequences follows in the same sequence of responses. And so does the LRM..

To say the problem is that LRM (aka LC or LSM) is corrupt would be a misnomer. Everyone is corrupt. The problem is that they pretend that everyone else is hopelessly corrupt, and they alone are "proper" and "genuine" and "normal" and "recovered" and whatnot.

"You say that you can see, so your sin remains". And festers.

[Curious]

They have added a great layer of arrogance and pride on top of the rest, a step A&E didn't take. I didn't think about that but yes, I agree with your point whole heartedly.

My purpose here is to help build a platform for LClurkers to understand the mechanics of bad behaviour in a biblical way, to help dismantle the mental structure imposed into their hearts and minds by the LC.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Curious

They have added a great layer of arrogance and pride on top of the rest, a step A&E didn't take. I didn't think about that but yes, I agree with your point whole heartedly.

Jesus showed people the reality of what First Adam was, a reality that was thoroughly exposed by Torah. (Paul's Roman epistle hinges on this). He as Son of Man took the least place, and would not call himself "good". Rather, "I am a worm and not a man" (Psa 22). He took our sin, accepted it, and bore it. And as such an offering he was the Last Adam. Only he has this transcendent position. The rest of us should heed the call to repent. It's a call that echoes through the NT, from the beginning of the gospels to the Apocalypse of John.

Originally Posted by Curious

My purpose here is to help build a platform for LC lurkers to understand the mechanics of bad behaviour in a biblical way, to help dismantle the mental structure imposed into their hearts and minds by the LC.

It's an admirable purpose. I've noticed your repeated mentions that these cautions apply to us all. If we treat Witness Lee as the Bad Guy (or WN, or WL's Blended Lieutenants), we've fallen into the trap that snared him. It's easy to see the splinter elsewhere and miss the beam lodged within. It's too easy. It's default mode of A&E. And that's the point.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

If we treat Witness Lee as the Bad Guy (or WN, or WL's Blended Lieutenants), we've fallen into the trap that snared him. It's easy to see the splinter elsewhere and miss the beam lodged within. It's too easy. It's default mode of A&E. And that's the point.

aron,

This is a tricky way to discuss how we deal with Lee, Nee and the Blendeds here. Just because there may be a "beam v speck" problem does not mean we cannot take this on.

And I know you know that.

We are admonished to not judge, yet also admonished to judge. And the admonishment in favor of judging is aimed mainly at the household of faith, not at the world. Surely we need to ensure that we are not blinded by our own flaws, but having done that, we may find ourselves with the call to bring charge against others in the body of Christ.

It is not everyone's charge. And sometimes it isn't yours or mine. But sometimes it may be.

And the fact that we provide a read map to the errors in the LC and its leadership (past and present) does not mean we have fallen into a trap, though that could be true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gospelicious

... Wow... talk about wry humor going awry! ! !

To make things clear, I was just taking a playful poke at your Republican politics by taking a self-deprecating and mocking stab at myself (at...myself!) by making allusion to 45 whom 44 called uniquely unqualified back in 2016. It made all the headlines around the world at the time. I remember having a heated argument about the comment with my six-year old grand-daughter at the time. She luuurved 'the Donald' (now, not so much) and so naturally was not very pleased.

So, there's no need for name-calling calling me a dog or a werewolf or whatever. I just thought I was being clever and witty after I'd just read your objections to the impeachment hearings. It was not an attack. Sometimes we forget that a lot of the time humor doesn't carry over very well online and often leads to offence. So, my apologies.

Sorry. No problem. Yes I do express a few social and political views at times.

Please register. Otherwise I may miss your posts initially, and I only saw these by accident. You are free to post as a guest, of course, but must wait for the moderator to read them and approve. If he is traveling, this might be delayed. Then the post gets sequenced by time and date, often preceding newer posts on that thread. Also, the link for "new posts" doesn't catch the posts for unregistered guests. I don't know why, but it can be frustrating. Fifthly, without registering, I have no way to see your posts together in order, which would really help me to provide clarity and less misunderstanding.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did I ever promote myself as being "uniquely qualified" to pass judgment on WN?

Just so we are all clear, I am "uniquely qualified" . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . to repeatedly stick my foot in my mouth!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Just so we are all clear, I am "uniquely qualified" . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . to repeatedly stick my foot in my mouth!

Which requires a certain degree of dexterous flexibility which unfortunately I was never blessed with. Oh well . . .

[Curious]

Originally Posted by OBW

aron,

This is a tricky way to discuss how we deal with Lee, Nee and the Blendeds here. Just because there may be a "beam v speck" problem does not mean we cannot take this on.

And I know you know that.

We are admonished to not judge, yet also admonished to judge. And the admonishment in favor of judging is aimed mainly at the household of faith, not at the world. Surely we need to ensure that we are not blinded by our own flaws, but having done that, we may find ourselves with the call to bring charge against others in the body of Christ.

It is not everyone's charge. And sometimes it isn't yours or mine. But sometimes it may be.

And the fact that we provide a read map to the errors in the LC and its leadership (past and present) does not mean we have fallen into a trap, though that could be true.

I agree. It can be equally disobedient and people-pleasing to refuse to confront sin in others, as it is to do so from a judgmental or superior heart. It depends on our motivation and weather God is directing you to do that for Him or not.

So I’ve got another one of my thought-out ideas on this subject that I can’t help sharing here, maybe helpful for those who have been trained into unhealthy submission:

Matthew 5: 9 ‘Blessed are the peace-makers’…….not the peace-keepers!!
So what is the difference? actually, they are opposite of each other. Peacekeeping is doing what is necessary to keep the status quo. It is avoiding discomfort and conflict, submitting to the fear of being rejected or disliked, and taking no lead in addressing things; no responsibility of doing what one is able, to change a bad situation.

A peacemaker does the opposite of that list, with right motivation.

In other words, back to Ohio’s post, once we have dealt with the log in our own eye, God may require that we address the speck in our brothers, its not just that we earn the right to, it may be our moral responsibility to. But we do so with the humility of knowing our own fallibility, and the desire to rescue the guilty as well as the victims. This does not inhibit us from doing so with confidence and assertiveness. Confidence and assertiveness can be easily read as being proud and controlling, but they are not the same thing either.

I once avoided confronting something very important in my own life out of selfish motives….not wanting the hassle of conflict, the energy it takes, and some confusion about if it was right to. I got burnt for my inaction, and I regret it.

Being too timid can be a bad thing. Being ‘nice’ is not automatically being ‘good’ or ‘right’. (Though it can secure the approval of those in authority whose favor can meet one’s emotional needs…a hook.) I think it important to separate these things out.

So having spoken strong words in favor of being willing to confront I will also add the following to those leaving or recently left the LC:

Most who have been damaged and wounded in their ‘personhood’s from within the LC need to withdraw and heal first before taking this on. Let others shelter you while you take the time to heal and gain distance from the past. Let others speak up on your behalf till you feel you are ready. This forum is doing that for you, and others, God has organized this so your grievances have a voice. Don’t lash out in anger as they will have you then. Be aware of your emotional vulnerability, if you have been significantly hurt, (and you may not realise the full extent of that straight away).

Then whenever you feel called and ready to speak out you will do so from a place of calm and strength and you’ll be able to continue to think clearly even under provocation. Those are the tests… and the biggest test: if you can feel Jesus’ shield between you and anyone attacking you with words or hooks that have had a debilitating effect on you in the past. that's a real big one.

Give yourself time but also find ways to keep moving forward. It’s been a long journey for me, taken many years. Others may make it much faster but
don’t feel under pressure to get there quickly…its a step by step journey. that's my advice, for any to whom it may resonate.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Curious

...once we've dealt with the log in our own eye, God may require that we address the speck in our brothers, not just that we earn the right to, it may be our moral responsibility to. But we do so with the humility of knowing our own fallibility, and the desire to rescue the guilty as well as the victims. This does not inhibit us from doing so with confidence and assertiveness... which can be easily read as being proud and controlling, but they're not the same thing either. ..

Being too timid can be a bad thing. Being ‘nice’ is not automatically being ‘good’ or ‘right’. (Though it can secure the approval of those in authority whose favor can meet one’s emotional needs…a hook.) I think it important to separate these things out..

Well put. I'd only add to your stress on clear thinking, that maybe some have to thrash through muddy thinking first, to get to clarity - and we may do so publicly and it may not be pretty. But Jesus is there & it's okay. It's a process. But yes the goal is clear thinking. Look how Jesus could reduce the whole of human existence to a few principles! (The key is, to find the right ones, whose consistancy remains and endures).

The key is, I don't have to be clear today. I can muddle forward into clarity. I don't have to be perfect - I can muddle forward to good. As long as I grant this grace to others, I have confidence that the Lord will similarly treat me. He promised this. And he is the King - the Law-giver.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by aron

Well put. I'd only add to your stress on clear thinking, that maybe some have to thrash through muddy thinking first, to get to clarity - and we may do so publicly and it may not be pretty. But Jesus is there & it's okay. It's a process. But yes the goal is clear thinking. Look how Jesus could reduce the whole of human existence to a few principles! (The key is, to find the right ones, whose consistancy remains and endures).

The key is, I don't have to be clear today. I can muddle forward into clarity. I don't have to be perfect - I can muddle forward to good. As long as I grant this grace to others, I have confidence that the Lord will similarly treat me. He promised this. And he is the King - the Law-giver.

Yes aron I totally agree with you. Being safe to even be on a messy journey but be real with self, others, and God is the way forwards. A safety not provided in a controlling group.

My point was focused on the need for emotional safety for members and ex members. Only that they are safe from backlash that they may not be strong enough to cope with. If they are a person who can thrash it all out in a public forum, more strength to them too.

Clay and mud are sticky, and thrashing around in it is messy, and it holds on to us, doesn't let go easily. I like the visual of the dry firm rock I think a perfect metaphor for what you are expressing. The clear simple principles jesus gives us allow us to not just stand, but jump for joy, dance even, uninhimbered on that beautiful firm clean rock! (Haven't got the Scripture reference to hand).

Your statement above, 2nd paragraph, is the closest I know to a 'perfect' understanding of theology! Dare I be cheeky enough to say that!!

[Curious]

Psalm 40:2-3 in fact.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Curious

Psalm 40:2-3 in fact.

When you touch the Psalms you perk up my interest. To me, they represent the experiences of the obedient, righteous, suffering servant, then exalted to glory. The whole thing, seen through a particular interpretive lens, is about resurrection. And I believe it's the lens Christ used. The passage where he explains his experiences to the dumbfounded disciples whom he met on the road to Emmaus is illustrative but by no means the only example.

So I, muddy sinner, see Christ on the solid rock and join him. His faith becomes mine. His experiences become mine. His clarity and surety become mine. I see the Exemplary Believer (He trusted in God, let him save him now) and vicariously am transferred to faith. His faith becomes mine, his joy, his song of praise to the Father leads the assembly.

If ever there was a solid rock it is this.

Now I tread more tenuously, to speculative ground. It seems to me that the whole NT narrative is about resurrection. Jesus is of course the Firstborn from the dead, and designated Son of God (This day I have begotten you), but the issue predated Jesus. Remember that the gospels say that the schism between Pharisees and Sadducees was largely on this issue, or at least greatly exacerbated by it. Paul made his great declaration in Acts 23.

Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead."

If you look at Jesus' thought-world, it liberally overlaps but does not belong. He shares the Essenian Son of Man eschatology but rejects their legalism, of which the Baptiser practiced. He shares the Sadducean critique of the Pharisees adopting "traditions of men" but otherwise has nothing with them that I can see. Of course he shares the Pharisees' hope in resurrection (as did Paul) but otherwise little else.

But my point is this: Isaiah may reveal the Suffering Servant, but the Psalms illuminate him with unmistakable (to me) detail. "When I awake, I (the Son) shall be like Him (the Father)". The light of the glory of this gospel overwhelms me, and my sufferings, which seem unbearable at times, become the crucible of resurrection. But it is his victory, his resurrection. Always, it is his.

[OBW]

In the newly released article, “A Christian’s Attitude Toward Reforming Society,” the following paragraph includes quotes from Nee:

What, then, should be our attitude and practice today? Brother Nee counseled the saints to render help to others but not to get swept up in social action movements. These movements, no matter what their orientation, are like tides that carry people away from God’s purpose. Involvement in them compromises the testimony of the church’s heavenly calling (Heb. 3:1; see Messages (3), 916-917). This is consistent with the pattern of the Lord Jesus and of the New Testament apostles, especially Paul. Just as the Lord Jesus never sought to reform the corrupt social system of the Roman Empire, neither did the apostles. Of the apostle Paul, Brother Nee commented, “Never once did he try to change the social order. He came only to solve man’s spiritual needs and settle the spiritual problems of the church” (179-180). Thus, Paul charged the Philippians to “be blameless and guileless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine as luminaries in the world” (Phil. 2:15).

And here, in one paragraph, they set aside the entire command to “justice” and try to steer their flock away from such things. The say that it carries “people away from God’s purpose.” Earlier in the article they declare that . . .

[t]his does not mean that the Lord is indifferent to the evils of human social systems and institutions. He will solve all the problems of human society—when He comes again to establish His kingdom.

So what was Jesus saying in Mar 9, verses 36 & 37 when he declared that

Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.

This means that as long as we are doing it “in His name,” it is the opening of oneself to both Christ and the Father. It would seem that this is most important in this are as it ushers in a present fellowship with the Father and the Son. And anyone who is refusing to take such actions because they think it is carrying them away from God’s purpose is actually denying God’s purpose and not inviting the Father and the Son.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

When you touch the Psalms you perk up my interest. To me, they represent the experiences of the obedient, righteous, suffering servant, then exalted to glory. The whole thing, seen through a particular interpretive lens, is about resurrection. And I believe it's the lens Christ used. The passage where he explains his experiences to the dumbfounded disciples whom he met on the road to Emmaus is illustrative but by no means the only example.

But my point is this: Isaiah may reveal the Suffering Servant, but the Psalms illuminate him with unmistakable (to me) detail. "When I awake, I (the Son) shall be like Him (the Father)". The light of the glory of this gospel overwhelms me, and my sufferings, which seem unbearable at times, become the crucible of resurrection. But it is his victory, his resurrection. Always, it is his.

Brother aron, you really should consider collecting all your inspirations and insights on Psalms, and writing a book.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

This means that as long as we are [receiving the little ones] “in His name,” it is the opening of oneself to both Christ and the Father. It would seem that this is most important in this are as it ushers in a present fellowship with the Father and the Son. And anyone who is refusing to take such actions because they think it is carrying them away from God’s purpose is actually denying God’s purpose and not inviting the Father and the Son.

I agree whole-heartedly. Whatever you do "to the least of these" you do to Christ. Should this doing unto others come in another age? Or today? I mean, think about it for a second.

I find this quote to be noteworthy:

Originally Posted by ShepherdingWords

Just as the Lord Jesus never sought to reform the corrupt social system of the Roman Empire, neither did the apostles. Of the apostle Paul, Brother Nee commented, “Never once did he try to change the social order. He came only to solve man’s spiritual needs and settle the spiritual problems of the church” (179-180). Thus, Paul charged the Philippians to “be blameless and guileless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine as luminaries in the world” (Phil. 2:15).

"Never once did he try to change the social order"???? Everything he did changed the social order. He didn't try - he did it - went to the wretched, the lost, the castoff, the demon possessed, the ones with no money and no means to repay. People with suppurating sores got touched, healed. Everything he did spoke revolution. Real revolution. Not just a new [political] Caesar, but Satan's kingdom gone and the Kingdom of God ushered in. And this continued in the Acts, and let's not pretend it didn't. They didn't gather and give life-study messages on obscure texts, puffing themselves up over abstruse "truths". No, they made tunics for the widows who had no means to pay for them.

Wake up, people.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by aron

"Never once did he try to change the social order"???? Everything he did changed the social order. He didn't try - he did it - went to the wretched, the lost, the castoff, the demon possessed, the ones with no money and no means to repay. People with suppurating sores got touched, healed. Everything he did spoke revolution. Real revolution. Not just a new [political] Caesar, but Satan's kingdom gone and the Kingdom of God ushered in. And this continued in the Acts, and let's not pretend it didn't. They didn't gather and give life-study messages on obscure texts, puffing themselves up over abstruse "truths". No, they made tunics for the widows who had no means to pay for them.

Wake up, people.

This is one of the things that the LC just gets completely wrong. Throughout history, Christianity has always been involved in social causes and reform. It wouldn't even exist without that.

One example that comes to mind is MLKJ leading the civil rights movement and using his platform as a minister to do so. According to the argument in the shepherdingwords article, he shouldn't have done that, and all those civil rights issues would have been resolved when the Lord returns. That is how absurd their line of reasoning is.

Well things just don't work that way. There are all kinds of social issues needing immediate action. That's not to say that Christianity needs to be involved in every single of of those issues. But certainly there are some issues where it is appropriate to be involved. I think the real issue is that those leading the LC realize how ineffective their movement has become and want to find a way to conveniently excuse themselves from having the kind of impact on society that normal churches have.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

This is one of the things that the LC just gets completely wrong. Throughout history, Christianity has always been involved in social causes and reform. It wouldn't even exist without that.

Titus 2.13-14 is outstanding on this point:

Our great God and Savior Christ Jesus gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness, purifying to Himself a special people zealous of good works.

This verse identifies the very reason Jesus redeemed us.

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother aron, you really should consider collecting all your inspirations and insights on Psalms, and writing a book.

I agree. There is much conversation I would like to engage with aron's post on psalms, but it is off topic from this forum!

But to be breif, it seems nuts that God appointed David to be King then abandoned him to hide in caves, terrified night after night that Saul would find him and kill him. How cruel!.... Yet the faith David developed there is what enabled him to turn to God for direction every time thereafter, and not bow to the pressures of people, as Saul had. And let's be frank, as most of us would too.

This is real dying to self. Letting go of our own efforts to preserve our own lives and status therein, to hold to Him. We need real circumstances in our lives in order to forge this faith as our reality, like David. And Job, and Joseph. They all three had very dark and lonely times where their faith and strength was forged.

[OBW]

Unfortunately, at some level, too much of Evangelicalism — especially those more closely aligned with fundamentalism — have been almost as disdainful of "good works."

No, works do not cause us to be saved. But after that, they are paramount to continued fellowship and, I would assume, that salvation that is "worked" out with fear and trembling.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Unfortunately, at some level, too much of Evangelicalism — especially those more closely aligned with fundamentalism — have been almost as disdainful of "good works."

No, works do not cause us to be saved. But after that, they are paramount to continued fellowship and, I would assume, that salvation that is "worked" out with fear and trembling.

If the book of Acts is trustworthy then works of the disciples were paramount. Why did the widows weep so copiously when Dorcas died? Because they had no means to pay her, and could only pay with tears of gratitude, joy, sorrow, and love. And look at the term "daily dispensing" in Acts 6:1 (RecV). Dispensing of what? Outlines? Directives from HQ? No, real, actual, physical food, to those same widows.

And the people who laid their offerings at the apostles' feet, where did this go? Soft pillows for their wives? Expense accounts for their children? No, it was "wasted" on those poor widows, just as Jesus had already "wasted" himself on us. When Peter told the gentiles in Acts 10:38 that Jesus "went around doing good" that was central to the gospel message as he understood it. Now, if we think that Peter had a "low gospel" and we should move on, that's another conversation. But let's not pretend that the record doesn't exist.

We're saved by Jesus' righteous act, not our own. By faith in his righteousness, it's imputed as ours. But once that question's settled, there's another: what next? What shall we do? Passively sit in LSM-approved meetings and "absorb God" in their grace-on-steroids programme? Or shout slogans at one another, as if this constitutes reality itself? That doesn't align with the record of scripture.

No, what we should do is follow Jesus. We see the pattern he laid (Acts 10:38), and we follow.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

If the book of Acts is trustworthy then works of the disciples were paramount. Why did the widows weep so copiously when Dorcas died? Because they had no means to pay her, and could only pay with tears of gratitude, joy, sorrow, and love. And look at the term "daily dispensing" in Acts 6:1 (RecV). Dispensing of what? Outlines? Directives from HQ? No, real, actual, physical food, to those same widows.

And the people who laid their offerings at the apostles' feet, where did this go? Soft pillows for their wives? Expense accounts for their children? No, it was "wasted" on those poor widows, just as Jesus had already "wasted" himself on us. When Peter told the gentiles in Acts 10:38 that Jesus "went around doing good" that was central to the gospel message as he understood it. Now, if we think that Peter had a "low gospel" and we should move on, that's another conversation. But let's not pretend that the record doesn't exist.

We're saved by Jesus' righteous act, not our own. By faith in his righteousness, it's imputed as ours. But once that question's settled, there's another: what next? What shall we do? Passively sit in LSM-approved meetings and "absorb God" in their grace-on-steroids programme? Or shout slogans at one another, as if this constitutes reality itself? That doesn't align with the record of scripture.

No, what we should do is follow Jesus. We see the pattern he laid (Acts 10:38), and we follow.

James 2:14-25 https://biblehub.com/bsb/james/2.htm addresses what aron is talking about. Show me faith without works and I’ll show you dead faith. Yet never once in TLR was I encouraged to do good works, in fact it was discouraged.

Speaking of Christians getting involved in social issues, Christians were instrumental in finally getting it abolished http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-ab...y-john-coffey/.

Once again Nee as the founder of TLR spouted off in ignorance, Lee, and Blendeds continued the message and tens of thousands of local church saints followed such dead faith. Time for the madness to stop!

[UntoHim]

https://shepherdingwords.com/twistin...kangass-words/

Original Quote by Kangas:
I am so thankful I have my companion, my wife, to travel with me wherever I go, but I am the co-worker; I am the one ministering.
She is nothing. She is no one. She is just my wife. I will never crown her. I will never exalt her. To do so would be to damage her.

Response by ShepherdingWords.Com:
Context and balance are critical to evaluating words fairly. Recently, a short excerpt from a message given by Brother Ron Kangas was mischaracterized as his demeaning his wife in front of thousands of people. This misrepresents Brother Ron’s attitude toward his own wife and toward marriage in general; moreover, it neglects the context of his speaking and the point he was making.

To excerpt and re-contextualize all or part of the last paragraph, which is less than 1% of the entire message, conveys two false impressions: 1) that the ministry in the Lord’s recovery demeans females; and 2) that Brother Ron specifically demeans his own wife. Both are absurd.

When it is read in context, Brother Ron’s point in mentioning his wife in his message on Miriam was not to denigrate her but to illustrate that his role in serving the Lord as a co-worker does not bestow any status in the Lord’s work upon her. In saying this, he was warning leading brothers not to assume that their wives share in their role in the church, for this will cause damage both to their wives and to the church. This is equally true of husbands whose wives serve the ministry or the church in some capacity. Suppose a married sister serves in Living Stream Ministry (LSM). Her service gives her husband no standing to touch any matter related to LSM. Were he to presume otherwise and interfere with the service of LSM, he would likewise cause damage.

Wrenching quotes from context and presenting them in an unbalanced manner is a common tactic used in attacks on the leadership in the ministry and the work in the Lord’s recovery. Our hope and prayer is that no one will be stumbled by such a deceitful and reprehensible practice but will understand the spirit in which the words were ministered and be perfected by the biblical insights they convey.
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by CoWorkersInTheLordsRecovery

Shepherding Words: We hope that people will understand the spirit in which the words were ministered and be perfected by the biblical insights they convey.

I was in the meetings and understood the spirit in which the words were ministered. I was sitting there, and heard Ron say, "Sometimes I think the only thing worse than a rebellious brother is a spiritual sister." I don't remember the paragraph before or after, but a chill settled over the crowd. It was like a dark thing flew out of his mouth in front of us all. "Sisters, know your place." That was the spirit. We all understood the spirit in which it was conveyed.

Now, how to reconcile that with the lauding - or in Ron's words "exaltation" - of "spiritual sisters" like ME Barber, J Penn-Lewis, J Guyon etc etc? No effort is ever made to balance the two extremes. What do you think it does to the souls of the flock, who are asked to simultaneously hold two radically discordant positions? It's not healthy, folks. Sorry, if that's an "attack" well that's what I saw. I was in the meeting, and heard he words. Anyone in any of the conferences or training meetings heard similar words. The quote supposedly "wrenched from context" was not a one-off. They say that stuff in most of the meetings. Somewhere along with all the spiritual speaking, they slip in a few phrases just so everyone knows - "this is how it really is."

The real problem for LC leaders is that these kinds of speakings, which have been given all along, now are being reported to the public. Twenty years ago, it didn't make it to the glossy, "polished" printed material. So now they're having an image problem.

And if the DCP & Shepherding Words want context, they have been repeatedly given the opportunity to explain how they sell a book by Mary E McDonough on "God's Plan of Salvation" and how it's quoted in their literature as supplying Nee with revelation on the "parts of man", and then the next thing they say is, "Sisters can't teach - it's in the Bible."

Go to LSM's book sales page, and look under letter "G" and there's McDonough's book.

[Ohio]

It's truly incredible the amount of work saddled on their ministry wordsmiths to clean up endless gaffes. Kangas would know, he was Lee's chief wordsmith for decades.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by RonKangas

https://shepherdingwords.com/twistin...kangass-words/
She is nothing. She is no one. She is just my wife.

I think many of us have seen the video of this message. We could hear with our own ears the degrading, haughty spirit with which Kangas spoke these words. Sorry co-workers, there is NO CONTEXT in which a man should speak about his wife with these words. The words "She is nothing" mean something. The words "She is no one" mean something. The words "She is just my wife" mean something.

Originally Posted by Nell

Here’s what Ron and his defenders should have said:
I’m sorry. I was wrong. We were wrong. My words toward my wife were harsh and incendiary and I totally understand why they were received as they were. I/We now realize that, historically, with such speaking and indeed treatment of women, those of us in Leadership have cultivated a culture of abuse in the churches. To all of you, men and women, I offer my sincere repentance for this terrible misrepresentation of God’s Word and God’s heart toward all of those for whom he gave his Son.

-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think many of us have seen the video of this message. We could hear with our own ears the degrading, haughty spirit with which Kangas spoke these words. Sorry co-workers, there is NO CONTEXT in which a man should speak about his wife with these words. The words "She is nothing" mean something. The words "She is no one" mean something. The words "She is just my wife" mean something.
-

RK didn't tell this nonsense to his wife at home during a heated discussion for which he later apologized. With tears. And then some more.

Ron Kangas said this publicly. He spoke as a so-called "god-man." Supposedly he got perfected by the ministry of WL. He is elevated as an example to all LC leaders and members. He writes the outlines for all of the trainings. This is how a "god-man" treats his wife? Everyone in the meeting heard this. It was recorded. More folks heard this.

And then LSM wordsmiths defended this by saying that we "took this out of context." Hellloooo! Was not the context here the Casteel letter? And that Casteel letter was soundly condemned for citing abuses in the LC?

Oh the arrogance! "Do you see a person here wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. (Proverbs 26.12)

[Trapped]

More articles are up on shepherdingwords.com.



It looks like they roll around sites and forums looking for what's being talked about in order to know what to write about.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Trapped

More articles are up on shepherdingwords.com.



It looks like they roll around sites and forums looking for what's being talked about in order to know what to write about.

They would never admit that they read these forums, but they make it pretty obvious that they do. Sometimes when I post here, I like to think of them the primary audience reading these posts since everyone here is anonymous anyways.

[Freedom]

One of the new articles is titled Being Overcomers with a Vision, Not Idealists with a Dream. In that article, there is an excerpt from a message that Ron gave. He states: "Related to the church, there is a difference between a visionary and an idealist. An idealist has an ideal of what the church is supposed to be, and when they first come into the church life, they think they have found utopia. But gradually they discover that the church with all the saints is not a perfect place." This is a perfect example as to how the LCM works to misconstrue the legitimate and valid reasons that has led former members to leave.

First of all, whether we were raised in the LC or joined later on, I think most of us were told at some point how things were "supposed to be." This was the "vision" that we were supposedly following. The cause for concern came about when the environment didn't match the so-called vision. So in reality, what Ron is really doing here is blame-shifting. The simple fact is that the LC has failed its members. Anyone who has dared to point that out is attacked as being disillusioned, critical, too idealistic, etc.

[UntoHim]

My Post from 9/23/2019:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

2) "Through fellowship with the apostles". WHO ARE TODAY'S APOSTLES? NAME THEM. The apostle Paul named himself as an apostle: (1 Timothy 1:1) The apostle Peter named himself as an apostle: (1 Peter 1:1) The Acts of the apostles names the apostles. Presumably, some or all of the Blended Brothers consider themselves as today's apostles. Hard to say since they are constantly exercising, enforcing and reinforcing apostolic authority WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES BY PERSONAL NAMES.
-

Apparent response from "The Co-Workers in the Lord's recovery in North America":
"Some have misguidedly demanded a list of apostles in the Lord’s recovery. The notion is unbiblical and absurd. There is no precedent in the Bible, and it is clear from the New Testament that leadership in the church is not a fixed office, as it would be in a hierarchy."

No one is demanding a list. What we are doing is asking that those who exercise apostolic authority among the churches do what all the apostles in the New Testament did - They named themselves. Paul named himself as an apostle. Peter named himself as an apostle. Many apostles were identified by name in Acts. (The Acts the Apostles) The notion that men who exercise apostolic authority be known by name is neither unbiblical nor absurd. As far as leadership not being a "fixed office", well that is an invention of Witness Lee, pure and simple. (A rather ironic concept, since Lee's position among the Local Churches was about as fixed as a leader in a movement could possibly be!)

From these new batch of articles, we can see that the authors claim that not all workers and co-workers are equal. Some function as senior co-workers and others are under their authority and function as junior co-workers. Sounds reasonable. But it still leaves one in the dark about who is who. Again, the biblical, New Testament way is for those who take the position of leadership be known by name. How else can the members of the Body discern and test the qualifications of these men?

Many of you out there may be familiar with the "cessationism versus continuationism" debate, which has been raging in the Christian church for nearly 2,000 years. Basically, one side posits that the function or office of an apostle ceased to exist after the first generation of apostles passed away. The other side contends that the function or office of an apostle has remained down throughout church history, and continues to this present day. Apparently the Co-Workers in the Lord's Recovery movement are continuationists. That's fine - many noted and reputable Christian teachers, scholars and apologists fall into this camp. But the issue of being personally identified remains. There is still a need for the Body to be able to discern and test such a one.
-

[Trapped]

Totally. They are calling completely rational things "absurd". How is it absurd to be told to bring serious problems to the co-workers but then be told it's an absurd request when you ask who the co-workers are?

It's not a fixed office? You better believe the co-workers in TLR have been so for quite some time.

Are they just so used to being able to say whatever they want without questions they think meaningless statements made the grade?

What a picture of the extreme result of an echo chamber.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Totally. They are calling completely rational things "absurd". How is it absurd to be told to bring serious problems to the co-workers but then be told it's an absurd request when you ask who the co-workers are?

It's not a fixed office? You better believe the co-workers in TLR have been so for quite some time.

Are they just so used to being able to say whatever they want without questions they think meaningless statements made the grade?

What a picture of the extreme result of an echo chamber.

I remember reading some of the writings that emerged during the Midwest quarantine. The LSM officials published some writings and only identified themselves as the "blended coworkers." It was questioned as to just who the "blended coworkers" were. I don't think they ever gave a straight answer to the question.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I remember reading some of the writings that emerged during the Midwest quarantine. The LSM officials published some writings and only identified themselves as the "blended coworkers." It was questioned as to just who the "blended coworkers" were. I don't think they ever gave a straight answer to the question.

The ridiculous thing is if Witness Lee put things in the hands of these guys, they obviously know who they are. If these guys need to have meetings before certain training meetings start, they get notified somehow.

They just want to keep an arms length when it comes to accountability, as well as keep things shrouded in mystery and fear.

What a sad realm they've carved out for themselves.

It's just dumb.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No one is demanding a list. What we are doing is asking that those who exercise apostolic authority among the churches do what all the apostles in the New Testament did - They named themselves.

For over 20 years, since Lee passed, brothers (at least in the Midwest) have been asking who are the Blendeds? Which brothers are Blended? Who composes the Blended brothers? Who's in charge at LSM?

The only answer was nonsensical, like "the Blended brothers are those brothers who are being blended." We also heard cutesy sayings like, "Nee, Lee, We."

Reason? None of them were qualified to lead. What qualifications did Ron Kangas have? Chief book editor! Also, by not naming the blendeds, none of them needs to be accountable to the member churches.

In the New Testament, all of the genuine apostles were identified. Some of their testimonies were provided. We knew who they were. On the other hand, the super-apostles and the Judaizers, those who claimed to have great authority, went nameless.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Also, by not naming the blendeds, none of them needs to be accountable to the member churches.

Under normal circumstances, no one in their right mind would willingly submit to a group of unnamed leaders. People in the LC probably have a general idea as to who the top leaders are, but even then, I don't know that anyone would be able to come up with a definitive list.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who composes the Blended brothers? Who's in charge at LSM? . . . . The only answer was nonsensical, like "the Blended brothers are those brothers who are being blended." . . . . Reason? None of them were qualified to lead.

Too true. But the question that they still do not ask is, "were Nee or Lee actually qualified to lead?"

Of course, if they actually asked that question, they would have realized the answer and wouldn't be worrying about who the Blendeds were anymore since they would no longer be part of that organization. It would be left for the blendeds to turn off the lights as the last ones leaving.

[Indiana]

https://shepherdingwords.com/questio...s-questionings


http://localchurch.web.fc2.com/PDF/P...eeAccounts.pdf
.
Question to an elder Dick Ingram 2001

Reports of Moral Violation and an Eyewitness Account

I recently (2001) phoned a brother in Redding, CA, Dick Ingram, about a certain
matter and we got into a discussion about the problems of misconduct at the Living
Stream Ministry office in the late eighties. This brother, an elder, stated that he thought
that all the talk back then about the business manager’s immoral behavior was just
hearsay. Since I heard from others that it was definitely not hearsay, but true, I sought to
talk to an eye-witness. This whole matter of Philip Lee’s serious misconduct and his
being allowed to continue on in the capacity as manager of the LSM operations, working
with sisters, without discipline from Brother Lee or the elders over a long period of time
was a primary driving wedge between the saints and a major contributing factor to the
turmoil and division in the recovery.

[Freedom]

Well it looks like shepherdingwords.com is switching gears a little bit:
https://shepherdingwords.com/pdf/Let...%20English.pdf
https://shepherdingwords.com/pdf/COV...s%20032120.pdf

I'm not sure how coronavirus ties into the stated purpose of their website, unless they think it is another "attack" on the LC. These letters that they posted do raise a couple of questions in my mind though:
1) Why do the so-called coworkers feel the need "affirm" and reiterate information that health and government officials have already made known?
2) Do they have reason to believe that LCers won't take the virus seriously until they issue the "final word" on the matter?
3) Does LC leadership perceive a global pandemic to somehow threaten their movement?

[Curious]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'm not sure how coronavirus ties into the stated purpose of their website, unless they think it is another "attack" on the LC. These letters that they posted do raise a couple of questions in my mind though:
1) Why do the so-called coworkers feel the need "affirm" and reiterate information that health and government officials have already made known?
2) Do they have reason to believe that LCers won't take the virus seriously until they issue the "final word" on the matter?
3) Does LC leadership perceive a global pandemic to somehow threaten their movement?

I'm gonna have a shot at an answer here.

I see two possibles:

1. Its really important for their interests right now that they seem benevolent, reasonable, neutral and helpful. They can't address the issues that have been raised against them here and elsewhere on the internet, because the longer it goes, the more obvious it becomes that their position is indefensible. They have failed to swing the debate to their advantage. Their methods of arguing work only on their thought-controlled members, and can't hold weight in the real world. So to align themselves with the topic of the moment, (unrelated to any topics of controversy), and harmonise with the authority of the land, the Government, is the manipulative way to back into a place where they seem trustworthy and in line with whom is universally accepted as the authority, to seem totally reasonable and neutral, by inference, by association.

2. They are trying to be the source of critical information distribution with the hope it will limit people's free exploration on the internet looking for information.....the longer people spend moving around on the internet, uncontrolled, the more risk that they may tap a few buttons and find themselves learning information in forbidden territory!!

The situation is unstable, as their members are unable to have their regular top-ups of their 'programming', with all the meetings in person stopped. This poses a major risk, almost all of their members being stuck at home and bored, with time and opportunity to have a good think about things. My guess is it must be a scary time for the top ranks of the LR at present.

Those are my instincts as to why. I think it is very possible this pandemic does threaten their methods of controlling their members, thereby threatening their movement. As they rely so much on filling people's time with meetings, for the purpose of keeping them busy, keeping their thinking under control as well as fostering social dependence. It's never been in the plan to let that be stopped, so it is out of their control, they have to be careful not to look too authoritarian, as they are being 'watched'. They can't hide from 'us' on the internet very easily, they have good reason to be nervous, and so they should. The situation does NOT play into their hands, on several levels.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Well it looks like shepherdingwords.com is switching gears a little bit:
https://shepherdingwords.com/pdf/Let...%20English.pdf
https://shepherdingwords.com/pdf/COV...s%20032120.pdf

I'm not sure how coronavirus ties into the stated purpose of their website, unless they think it is another "attack" on the LC. These letters that they posted .....

How comforting to read letters telling us how we should be feeling and what we should be doing during a stressful time, written by people who won't identify themselves and who call it absurd to ask who they are

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Well it looks like shepherdingwords.com is switching gears a little bit:
https://shepherdingwords.com/pdf/Let...%20English.pdf
https://shepherdingwords.com/pdf/COV...s%20032120.pdf

I hafta say that in reading through these two documents, I find little wrong with them - it appears they are trying to be helpful and reaffirm good information to the saints. I guess I'd rather not categorize it and read ulterior motives into it . . .

[UntoHim]

You make a good point Sons to Glory! However I think I'll have to defer to the better point made by Trapped - Right message, given by the wrong messengers.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Freedom

3) Does LC leadership perceive a global pandemic to somehow threaten their movement?

Besides Curious' two good reasons, I see another.

Recovery survival is all about meetings. Meetings to meet friends and meetings for members to also speak. At least this was a serious motivator for me.

LSM's "Feasts" held throughout the year offered great opportunities to connect and re-connect with friends around the country. Linking up at the local restaurant or hospitality during breaks was a great motivator. It was the reason for many to sacrifice their vacation time for another sort of "vacation." During those long-winded and boring messages in the meetings, I learned how to take naps while pretending to take notes. I learned how to do that in college. Sometimes I took notes just to stay awake, but I never napped during the beginning and end of the meetings.

Secondly, for the more serious members, we always came ready to speak something in the meeting. We had to. I loved to prepare, and discover something inspiring in the Word of God. The anointing Spirit would provide great strength and encouragement via this constant practice. This is the part I miss the most.

All that is over because of the corona virus. For good reason, the LC leaders realize their survival is in jeopardy. Not meeting together is far more dangerous than negative internet websites. LC members will not endure those same long-winded and boring messages watching some tasteless podcast on a computer screen.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Curious

So to align themselves with the topic of the moment, (unrelated to any topics of controversy), and harmonise with the authority of the land, the Government, is the manipulative way to back into a place where they seem trustworthy and in line with whom is universally accepted as the authority, to seem totally reasonable and neutral, by inference, by association.

Yes, this is true. It's an easy opportunity to take a favorable stance on a issue.

Originally Posted by Curious

I think it is very possible this pandemic does threaten their methods of controlling their members, thereby threatening their movement. As they rely so much on filling people's time with meetings, for the purpose of keeping them busy, keeping their thinking under control as well as fostering social dependence. It's never been in the plan to let that be stopped, so it is out of their control, they have to be careful not to look too authoritarian, as they are being 'watched'. They can't hide from 'us' on the internet very easily, they have good reason to be nervous, and so they should. The situation does NOT play into their hands, on several levels.

The LC has such a hold on their member's time that this situation is definitely a threat to them. I think it becomes a question of what are they all going to do suddenly having a bunch of extra free time. It could easily translate into more of them browsing sites like LCD. Another possibility I see is that suddenly some of them start to spend some time doing some thinking and realize that maybe their time wasn't so balanced going to meetings every night of the week.

[Nell]

This was interesting...encouraging the faithful to use technology. That’s a first?

“ Even though we may be unable to gather physically, we must not forsake our assembling together but rather meet often with the help of modern technology.”

N

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Indiana

https://shepherdingwords.com/questio...s-questionings


http://localchurch.web.fc2.com/PDF/P...eeAccounts.pdf
.
Question to an elder Dick Ingram 2001

Reports of Moral Violation and an Eyewitness Account

I recently (2001) phoned a brother in Redding, CA, Dick Ingram, about a certain
matter and we got into a discussion about the problems of misconduct at the Living
Stream Ministry office in the late eighties. This brother, an elder, stated that he thought
that all the talk back then about the business manager’s immoral behavior was just
hearsay. Since I heard from others that it was definitely not hearsay, but true, I sought to
talk to an eye-witness. This whole matter of Philip Lee’s serious misconduct and his
being allowed to continue on in the capacity as manager of the LSM operations, working
with sisters, without discipline from Brother Lee or the elders over a long period of time
was a primary driving wedge between the saints and a major contributing factor to the
turmoil and division in the recovery.

Questions versus Questionings....another manner to say having it both ways.
For those ever summoned to the fellowship room, how can that not be in itself labeled as questionings?
"The brothers" have their assertions and I have mine. How is any history related to Phillip Lee "covered" and not "covered over"?
Most certainly it had been covering over. Regional respected brothers knew and did nothing. Currently this article had been carefully crafted to sidestep any assertions about LC history.

https://shepherdingwords.com/covering-not-covering-up/

[Trapped]

New articles up as of a few days ago.

Just the titles of the articles make me roll my eyes....honestly. The more they write defending themselves, the more they will be without excuse.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

New articles up as of a few days ago.

Just the titles of the articles make me roll my eyes....honestly. The more they write defending themselves, the more they will be without excuse.

Never is an author listed, rather the generic "coworkers."

I'm surprised they even date the articles, since these are such timeless "truths" which we all hold to be "self-evident."

[UntoHim]

To "The co-workers in the Lord’s recovery in North America"

Regarding the following public posting on ShepherdingWords.Com:

"To say that once a church is established the apostles, that is, the leading co-workers, should never 'interfere' in that church’s affairs"

#1 Please identify by name all "The co-workers in the Lord's recovery". Christian leaders and co-workers of any Christian ministry should not be anonymous. This is neither scriptural nor ethical. Even secular corporations list the names of the board of directors. How much more is expected of a Christian ministry? You say that you are "in the Lord's recovery". Well brothers, it is time for you to "recover" the biblical, New Testament principle of publicly naming "the Co-workers in the Lord's recovery". The apostles all named themselves. Many workers and local church leaders were publicly named. Even the evil spirits knew Paul's name! "But the evil spirit answered them, Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?" Acts 19:15

#2 Please identify by name who are the current apostles in the Local Church movement/Lord's Recovery. Also list all the local church elders that have been appointed by these various apostles. None of the apostles in the New Testament expected to be anonymous, and neither should you brothers. You owe this to the brothers and sisters who contribute their hard-earned money and time to the various local churches, and to the Living Stream Ministry. You owe this to the Christian public, and to the Body of Christ at large.
-

[Curious]

It's called 'Shepherding Words' because that's all they are good at.... Wordsmithing words.

Its called 'Shepherding Words' because they don't have Shepherding Hearts. Just empty words that go round in circles pretending they are defending their nonsense.

The latest lot on their attitude to the rest of Christianity is so full of contradiction and hints at their judgement of the rest of the church clearly enough, that it's evident just by reading it! They might as well have been more forthright about their 'superior' position.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Curious

It's called 'Shepherding Words' because that's all they are good at.... Wordsmithing words.

Its called 'Shepherding Words' because they don't have Shepherding Hearts. Just empty words that go round in circles pretending they are defending their nonsense.

The latest lot on their attitude to the rest of Christianity is so full of contradiction and hints at their judgement of the rest of the church clearly enough, that it's evident just by reading it! They might as well have been more forthright about their 'superior' position.

I read the quote on the Forum front page from "Shepherding Words" and the last sentence said, "This crucial matter relates to God’s administration and therefore to the headship of Christ, so it is important to read both the Bible and the ministry carefully and thoroughly without bias, self-interest, or any other impure motive."

This crucial matter, acc to SW, needs the reader to be careful and thorough, not with bias or self interest or any other impurity. But how can they say that Witness Lee was careful, or thorough, or had no bias or self interest? After he put his son in charge of his business office, and left him alone with vulnerable women, who then had non-consensual sexual relations with him? I say non-consensual because of the power imbalance - Philip Lee preyed on them just as Harvey Weinstein did with his actresses under contract. Was Witness Lee careful when he put Philip Lee in charge?

Wasn't there self-interest when a minister puts his son on the payroll, when the son flouts all human decency not to mention Christian values, then railroads the witnesses? Wasn't there self-interest when he got the Church in Boston to hand over $100,000 to his son Timothy's Motor Home business? Or when WL called TC: "You just bought 1,000 chairs". No self-interest? Hardly.

When Sal Benoit called Witness Lee and wanted to know where the $$ went, Witness said, "Now, Sal, you know this is none of your business." Self-interest. Same with Dong Yu Lan - when a church member who had give up his career, and traveled around the world promoting DYL's church and ministry and vision, suddenly noticed that DYL's children were running the business, and got suspicious, and asked to see where the money was going, he was told, "DYL's money is a black box". This has all the appearances of self-interest.

For the wordsmiths of LSM to lecture others about selfishness and self-interest and bias is hypocrisy. If they want to correct others, they should be open to correction. If they say others lack care, and have bias, they should admit the same. There is only one Judge. ~James 4:12

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I read the quote on the Forum front page from "Shepherding Words" and the last sentence said, "This crucial matter relates to God’s administration and therefore to the headship of Christ, so it is important to read both the Bible and the ministry carefully and thoroughly without bias, self-interest, or any other impure motive."

Let me translate this ministry double-speak into plain Koine English:

Since none of you pissants are totally free from "bias, self-interest, or any other impure motive," none of you is the least bit qualified to question what we wrote.

And besides, none of you peons were there when WL instructed us how to lead the Recovery, so get in line and shut up.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

I read the quote on the Forum front page from "Shepherding Words" and the last sentence said, "This crucial matter relates to God’s administration and therefore to the headship of Christ, so it is important to read both the Bible and the ministry carefully and thoroughly without bias, self-interest, or any other impure motive."

Thus says the people who:

1. claim a non-pareil MOTA status that doesn't exist
2. claim a deputy authority that doesn't exist
3. claim to be the only true ("genuine") church and then lie about their own belief

Talk about bias, extreme self-interest, and impure motive on the part of the very people threatening others not to do that same thing!

BTW, if you google "God's governmental administration".......far and away the majority of the results of the first two pages are LSM/LC related. They usually threaten "God's government" and "God's administration" when they want to steamroller their readers into a state of fear and unquestioning reception.

This is a cult fear-tactic. Hopefully readers and lurkers will take note.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Curious

The latest lot on their attitude to the rest of Christianity is so full of contradiction and hints at their judgement of the rest of the church clearly enough, that it's evident just by reading it! They might as well have been more forthright about their 'superior' position.

I read a little bit on one of the "assailing" articles regarding the ground of locality......you are right, it is full of contradiction and "plot holes".

For example:

"Those who insist on a merely universal concept of oneness discount the need to practice that oneness with believers in their own locality."

Um.....if you have a universal concept of oneness, then that by definition produces a oneness with those locally too. Universal is universal and does not exclude any believer. This would easily cover the believers in your own city. The wordsmithing co-workers set up a false claim in order to give themselves something to blame other people for.

This kind of nonsense from them is all over the place.

Also this:

"Hence, the church of God and the churches of God (1 Cor. 1:2; 11:16) differ only in their extent. While the church of God is universal, the churches of God are local. And while the church of God comprises all regenerated believers in all places and at all times (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 10:32), the churches of God comprise only those regenerated believers in a particular city at a given time (Rom. 1:7; 1 Thes. 1:1)."

Verse references are nice and all, but let's take a look.

1 Cor. 1:2
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

1 Cor. 11:16
If anyone is inclined to dispute this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

So, if we go along with what they are saying, clearly from these verses "the church of God" is local (in Corinth), and "the churches of God" are universal. Clearly.

But the co-workers claim the exact opposite. And it's not just a typo either, because their second sentence digs it in even further. "The church of God comprises all regenerated believers in all places and at all times"?? Nope. "The church of God" in the verses they provided are very specifically about only the church in Corinth at that particular time. And vice versa on the latter half of that last sentence.

They can't even keep their own convoluted doctrines straight.

Praise Him for His mercy! I'm so glad to not be trapped (hah) in their constant lies anymore.

Edit to add: I was reminded of some of the lyrics to "Glorious Day" by Passion:

You called my name
Then I ran out of that grave
Out of the darkness
Into Your glorious day

I know that is supposed to be a song about salvation, but boy, it sure feels like it applies to being saved from the LC too.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Talk about bias, extreme self-interest, and impure motive on the part of the very people threatening others not to do that same thing!

Was Witness Lee being careful, or rather being cavalier, when he appointed his admittedly 'unspiritual' son into authority at the LSM office? And kept him there for years, even when it became plain what was happening? Was he pure in motive when he held onto his ministry with an iron grip while the churches were subsequently imploding with "storms" and "turmoils", and the faith of many was swamped?

And then, we're to suppose that this careless man became careful, and this impure-hearted man became pure, when he sat down in front of the Bible to interpret God's government? Especially, when he was selling this interpreted word via books, trainings cassettes, CDs, calendars, to the very people that he was telling, "You just bought 1,000 chairs"?!

We don't know how many millions this 'ministry' re-directed into the Lee family coffers, and into the hands of intimate cronies. (If one church yielded $100K, it was in the millions.) But we'll never know, because it was all Lee's personal business, as he told Sal Benoit. The Phosphorous and Overseas Christian Stewards shell companies were probably little more than money-laundering rackets for his guanxi network.

And then we're supposed to think that his scriptural interpretations, supporting and buttressing these predatory relations, were on the up-and-up? I think of the thread on this forum titled, "Was DayStar poor judgment or fraud?" It really doesn't matter if WL's biblical interpretations were poor judgment, or hasty, or careless, or impure, or ignorant, or biased, or what combination of all of the above. It really doesn't matter.

[Trapped]

Also, the co-workers are woefully out of touch with much of what is happening in current Christianity today. Their harping on the religious system of Christianity that keeps people's mouths shut while exalting their own Lord's Recovery fallen system stinks of the vomit pile that it is.

"Here in the local church, each one has!"

Oh sure, where "each one" can open their mouth to....

-recite a hymn (written or re-written by Witness Lee)
-speak a word of instruction (by Witness Lee)
-recite a revelation (from Witness Lee), or
-propagate an interpretation (of only Witness Lee, or else)



(Am I misremembering that there is a vomit emoji on this forum? oh well, "gag" will have to do for now).

[UntoHim]

So, co-workers in the Lord's recovery, I see that you had to dig way back 55 years to get a quote from Lee concerning apostles. So that's the latest reference you fellows could come up with? Really? I guess that should tell you about what kind of weak ground you guys are on, now shouldn't it.

I've got a much later quote from Witness Lee. It's a quote from his deposition in one of the many lawsuits Lee & Co. filed against a Christian author. Actually I'll have to give a close paraphrase: "I DO NOT REFER TO MYSELF, OR CONSIDER MYSELF, AN APOSTLE, AND I HAVE ASKED MY FOLLOWERS NOT TO REFER TO ME AS AN APOSTLE"

Actually this corresponds with my 20+ years of hearing Witness Lee in person - HE NEVER, EVER REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS AN APOSTLE IN PUBLIC. IN FACT, ON MORE THAN JUST ONE OCCATION, HE STRONGLY AND CLEARLY ASKED HIS FOLLOWERS TO NOT CALL HIM OR REFER TO HIM AS AN APOSTLE.

And now today you brothers not only refer to Witness Lee as an apostle (actually you refer to him as a super-apostle - "the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age") you brothers are now saying that some of you are to be referred to as apostles.

Apostles have names. What are your names? Also please list your qualifications for being an apostle.
-

[Trapped]

I believe there are probably on the order of 60-ish "co-workers" (give or take). They know who they are. It is the height of absurdity that they would all band together in agreement to publicly hide their names. This alone should send a stir through anyone reading, and tell us all that these are not genuine "apostles".

About the sidebar quote:

From the co-workers in the Lord’s recovery in North America
The Ongoing Relationship Between the Apostles and the Local Churches
"Whether a full-time co-worker can be an apostle depends solely on whether or not he has the ability to lead the churches. If he is not capable of leading the churches in an overall manner, he is only a full-timer who participates in the work; he is not qualified to stand in the position of an apostle. This kind of full-timer has a share in the work, but he should not intervene to touch the elders in the affairs of a local church, as an apostle does." (Collected Works of Witness Lee, 1965, vol. 4, 190).

"Ability to lead"? That's the SOLE thing? No other qualifications? No other contingencies?

Ability to lead means they can lead the churches......but right to hell. Ability to lead means there are numerous other critical character traits that are not a factor.

And hang on, I thought there are "no positions" but only "functions"? What is this "position of an apostle" stuff?

Also, Witness Lee pretty obviously thought of himself as the MOTA too. It's not just the co-workers who started calling him a MOTA. Lee steps onto the pedestal of MOTA-hood of his own accord in "The Vision of the Age".

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Co-Workers

"Accusations that Living Stream Ministry exercises authority over local churches or has orchestrated legal action against any former member or group of members of a local church are false."

I wonder what the brothers and sisters in the Great Lakes and Toronto Canada would have to say about this statement.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I wonder what the brothers and sisters in the Great Lakes and Toronto Canada would have to say about this statement.
-

I believe that LSM was very active behind the scenes, secretly training and funding, so that it was only locals who actually filed lawsuits. Not sure if any directly involved, who still monitor this forum, could verify.

LSM was willing to support any local dissidents, but the only actual lawsuits that I am aware of were in Mansfield, Columbus, and Toronto. They were successful in Mansfield and Columbus. When it comes to nasty lawsuits, spiritual brothers will always lose, since their focus is on spiritual and not business matters. Here is a public news brief from back in the day:

COLUMBUS NEWS BRIEF

Religious Suing Saga Continues: After learning from past experiences suing Christian publishers, it was only a matter of time before followers of the Living Stream Ministry began solving disputes against churches in the same way. Columbus-based followers of the Living Stream have sued the church in Columbus, the local fellowship of which they were a part. The group alleges unfair treatment in being told by church leadership that they had to leave.

Recently, the Columbus church issued a statement clarifying that they did not view themselves as part of the Living Stream network of churches and would not follow its policies and agendas. They felt the beliefs being promoted sounded cult-like and had produced a hostile environment within the congregation. Said Columbus elder Mike Puskas, “The Living Stream group among us had become a separate church within our church, receiving directions, values, and goals not from local leadership, but from their headquarters in southern California. No church can survive such a thing. When it became a choice between letting these people stay or seeing the church become increasingly dysfunctional, we chose not to let them stay."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Co-workers

"Accusations that Living Stream Ministry exercises authority over local churches or has orchestrated legal action against any former member or group of members of a local church are false."
-

Again, this is just deception on their part (what a shock). The truth is that the overlap of the LSM board with the co-workers is that there is no way to separate them. If all the co-workers agree on something, it by default means that the LSM board (a subset of the co-workers) agrees on that same thing. There is not co-worker Ron and LSM Ron. There is just Ron. Ron (or whoever) may come in word as a co-worker, but he is also inextricably of LSM, representing, propagating, teaching "the ministry of the age" ONLY, which is the ONLY thing LSM produces and which ONLY LSM produces.

LSM is the practical source of "the ministry of the age". If you want to "get the ministry of the age", you hook your belt to what LSM put or puts out. This is indisputable. This same ministry says that if you don't follow that ministry, then your service isn't accepted by God. To fully receive what LSM puts out by default means you are controlled by it. It is a ministry of oppression.

What deception they spread.

[Nell]

The Relationship between Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches
Some have persisted in accusing Living Stream Ministry of controlling the local churches. The accusation is absurd. Each local church answers directly to the Lord and is under the oversight of local brothers. It is up to these brothers whether and to what degree the church will use LSM materials or participate in LSM-sponsored gatherings. Living Stream Ministry has no organizational, administrative, or financial control over the churches. At most LSM asks the churches to follow its standards and procedures for such things as ordering printed materials and registering for and conducting its trainings. It does so as a means to facilitate its ongoing service to the churches. Accusations that Living Stream Ministry exercises authority over local churches or has orchestrated legal action against any former member or group of members of a local church are false.

PROTESTING TOO MUCH WEAKENS YOUR CASE!!!
Am I the only person who thinks ‘Well they must be guilty then!’ when the LSM says 'the accusation is absurd" or "LSM has no ... control over the churches" or "no legal action against any ..." or denies they have perpetrated some misdeed...???

We were there. We know better. We lived it. They have created a website which exemplifies "protesting too much." For this we thank you. Thank you ShepherdingWords.com for publishing, in a way that no one else could, the "Collected Failures of the Ministry of Witness Lee."

Nell

[Trapped]

The Relationship between Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches
Some have persisted in accusing Living Stream Ministry of controlling the local churches. The accusation is absurd. Each local church answers directly to the Lord and is under the oversight of local brothers. It is up to these brothers whether and to what degree the church will use LSM materials or participate in LSM-sponsored gatherings. Living Stream Ministry has no organizational, administrative, or financial control over the churches. At most LSM asks the churches to follow its standards and procedures for such things as ordering printed materials and registering for and conducting its trainings. It does so as a means to facilitate its ongoing service to the churches. Accusations that Living Stream Ministry exercises authority over local churches or has orchestrated legal action against any former member or group of members of a local church are false.

Originally Posted by Nell

PROTESTING TOO MUCH WEAKENS YOUR CASE!!!
Am I the only person who thinks ‘Well they must be guilty then!’ when the LSM says 'the accusation is absurd" or "LSM has no ... control over the churches" or "no legal action against any ..." or denies they have perpetrated some misdeed...???

We were there. We know better. We lived it. They have created a website which exemplifies "protesting too much." For this we thank you. Thank you ShepherdingWords.com for publishing, in a way that no one else could, the "Collected Failures of the Ministry of Witness Lee."

Nell

Totally agree. When I saw that sentence "the accusation is absurd" that stuck out as a gigantic red flag of a lie. The co-workers also say it is "absurd" to ask who the names of the so-called apostles are, even though it's actually completely biblical.

So we can know that, for "the co-workers" in "the Lord's recovery", true and biblical things are absurd.

And for them to say "Living Stream Ministry has no organizational, administrative, or financial control over the churches"??? The co-workers completely leave out the fact that LSM has behavioral, informational, thought, and emotion control over the churches and the individual elders and members, which is the truth they conveniently omit. LSM's whole shtick is infused with threats, fear, and heavy-handed teachings, which are precisely a form of control.

I mean, hang on. The live trainings are put on by LSM. The main speakers have for a very long time been LSM board members. The messages they speak are then published by LSM and sold to all the local churches. Their own teachings say that if you don't follow what they say ("the ministry of the age", which is only freshly released at LSM events, spoken by LSM employees, and sold by LSM itself) then you are toast before God. Explain to me again how LSM has zero control over anything?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Totally agree. When I saw that sentence "the accusation is absurd" that stuck out as a gigantic red flag of a lie. The co-workers also say it is "absurd" to ask who the names of the so-called apostles are, even though it's actually completely biblical.

So we can know that, for "the co-workers" in "the Lord's recovery", true and biblical things are absurd.

And for them to say "Living Stream Ministry has no organizational, administrative, or financial control over the churches"??? The co-workers completely leave out the fact that LSM has behavioral, informational, thought, and emotion control over the churches and the individual elders and members, which is the truth they conveniently omit. LSM's whole shtick is infused with threats, fear, and heavy-handed teachings, which are precisely a form of control.

I mean, hang on. The live trainings are put on by LSM. The main speakers have for a very long time been LSM board members. The messages they speak are then published by LSM and sold to all the local churches. Their own teachings say that if you don't follow what they say ("the ministry of the age", which is only freshly released at LSM events, spoken by LSM employees, and sold by LSM itself) then you are toast before God. Explain to me again how LSM has zero control over anything?

Way back when, I was in charge of updating and printing the phone list. They were careful to make sure names of those no longer attending meetings were removed from the list. Many objected to this, because the phone list was their prayer list.

Why, you ask? Based on the phone list, LSM issued a standing order for books and literature which the churches were required to purchase in order to remain in "good standing." (Franchise fees?) This "standing order" was passed along to the saints, whether they/we wanted it or not. I could never pay that much and I didn't read all that stuff anyway. I had such a backlog that one time they just gave me my order without paying. The "standing order" just "went away" one day without fanfare.

I don't know if they still do this kind of stuff, but it was pretty sleazy while it was going on. And now, for them to build a "WHO ME??" website shouldn't surprise anyone. I'm trying to avoid saying "absurd" :-) .

Nell

[Ohio]

Accusations that Living Stream Ministry exercises authority over local churches or has orchestrated legal action against any former member or group of members of a local church are false.

Notice that this did not say, "Accusations that Living Stream Ministry exercises authority over local churches or has orchestrated legal action against any existing local church are false."

It is a matter of historical record that operatives from LSM have orchestrated legal action against local churches using using disgruntled members of that LC. They attempted this in many, many Midwest LC's, but definitely orchestrated legal actions thru these disaffected members in Toronto, ON, Columbus, OH, and Mansfield, OH.

To say otherwise is just deception.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Why, you ask? Based on the phone list, LSM issued a standing order for books and literature which the churches were required to purchase in order to remain in "good standing." (Franchise fees?) This "standing order" was passed along to the saints, whether they/we wanted it or not. I could never pay that much and I didn't read all that stuff anyway.

I too spent way too much time making phone lists, thinking they were merely a means of shepherding and communication, only to learn later on that they were politicized.

I think Texas leadership must also have agreed with Philip Lee at LSM to automatically "enroll" members on the standing order. In the Midwest, it was voluntary, but still became quite burdensome over time. I do know, however, that Cleveland was saddled with huge volumes of unsold books every month, and completely unable to shut them off. Obviously Cleveland was on a quota. TC's reputation was on the line.

The church phone list was used in other ways to establish "quotas," whether or not they were official or not. There were quotas and attendance records for the semi-annual trainings, both live and video. Quotas for FTTA. Quotas for elders' meetings and ITERO. Quotas for donations to DCP. Quotas for the massive LaPalma Campus purchase.

[Nell]

2006, October - A Warning and a Quarantine
Read it online...still active on "afaithfulword.org"
Posted on the Bereans Forum January 12, 2007

Regarding Titus Chu
See attached

...but it's not a lawsuit!

[Nell]

Maybe the Shepherding Words, the Cow-Orkers, et al, could profit from this little booklet "The Elders Book of Cherishing".

Contents:
2 Ministry Excerpts On Shepherding the Saints. Here are a few examples:

1. “The condition of a church depends upon the eldership in that church. The proper
eldership is one in which all the elders contact people daily, weekly, regularly, and
consistently. The number of people the elders contact is the deciding factor of the
condition of the church in their locality.”

102. “Of course, I noticed that many of the elders are very careful not to offend the
saints or make them unhappy. This is good. But if the parents are always so good to the
children and do not correct them, the children will be spoiled. I am saying this to point
out that eventually the perfected saints will be grateful to the elders who care for them
properly.”

116. “We love people. We love the opposers, and we love the top rebels. I really mean
it. We love them and do not hate them. Who am I? I am not qualified to condemn or
hate. Am I perfect?”

Isn't that special?

13 Minoru Chen - Icemen in the Lord's Recovery (He needs a hug.)
15 Not Through Rebuke

This little gem is an anonymous (of course). It also is not copyright protected so maybe I won't get sued. Maybe I compiled it. I don't think I did, but it could have been me, or UntoHim or Ohio.

Here is the last paragraph:

“The problems in a church are often related to the elders, and most of the problems related to the elders arise from the elders’ negative spirit, attitude, and tone toward others. It is very difficult not to have a negative spirit. Our spirit, attitude, tone, and gesture may all offend people.” - Witness Lee, 1991, Elders’ Training Book 11, p. 23-26.

I feel better already.

Nell

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Nell

Maybe the Shepherding Words, the Cow-Orkers, et al, could profit from this little booklet "The Elders Book of Cherishing".

13 Minoru Chen - Icemen in the Lord's Recovery (He needs a hug.)

Crazily enough, Minoru's word here is fairly good. I sense a desire for real care in what I read in that portion.

Boy, this just makes it all the harder to square up the bad side of things with the good side of things. How can a warm word like that make any sense when cloaked in so many horrible actions we know have occurred? I still just can't wrap my head around it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by shepherdingwords.com

A proper understanding of the term Lord’s recovery is needed to understand our relationship with our fellow believers who do not meet in the local churches. The Lord’s recovery is not our name, nor does it describe an elite and exclusive fellowship of believers on the earth today. It does not refer to any kind of organization. The ministry presents the Lord’s recovery as being the work initiated by God Himself for the accomplishment of His eternal purpose.

"The ministry presents the Lord's recovery......"

Wrong. Don't talk to me about what the ministry says. Where the Biblical backup, guys?

And their "explanation" makes no sense anyway. They are saying that God "recovers" some of His children and doesn't bother to recover His other children.

And now those other children are "fellow believers", not "spiritual fornicators"?

When Ron stands on stage booming "I'm so glad I'm in the Lord's recovery", even if you pretend that he's talking about "the work initiated by God Himself" as they try to pass it off, that still inherently describes an "elite and exclusive fellowship of believers on earth today", which is what the co-workers deny in this very quote.

As usual, their own teachings are self-contradictory.


No, seriously, isn't there a "throwing up" emoji on this site, or am I imagining it?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Crazily enough, Minoru's word here is fairly good. I sense a desire for real care in what I read in that portion.

Boy, this just makes it all the harder to square up the bad side of things with the good side of things. How can a warm word like that make any sense when cloaked in so many horrible actions we know have occurred? I still just can't wrap my head around it.

That's always the problem for me too. How can you trust a hypocrite? Also, Monoru shared his Iceman thing in 1998...21 years ago. When will the cherishing start?

Nell

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by CoWorkersInTheLordsRecoveryNorthAmerica

We ask those believers who disagree with our stand to afford us the freedom to follow the Lord according to our conscience. Similarly, we allow other Christians the freedom to do the same.

"We allow other Christians the freedom to do the same"? Wow, how generous of you CoWorkersInTheLordsRecoveryNorthAmerica! You know, I'm sure all the millions and millions of genuine Christians in North America can now relax! We were all on pins and needles and holding our breaths until you Local Church of Witness Lee brothers gave us the OK to teach and practice the Christian faith according to our conscience, the same way that we have been doing for about 2,000 years now.

Disagree with your stand? Why we wouldn't dream of it! Why on earth would we disagree with a stand that says we are all "christless", and the daughters of the Great Whore? Let's face it, we poor, poor Christianity moo-cows are just grateful to be getting the table scraps from the rich ministry of the One Minister with the One Ministry for the Age!
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by co-workers from shepherdingwords.com

We should not restrict how God communicates to man. Rather, we should receive God’s speaking in whatever form it takes. The Bible shows that God speaks to man by four principal means—through creation, in Christ, in the Scriptures, and as the indwelling Spirit of reality. Now the Lord as the Spirit of reality has joined Himself to our spirit, making us one spirit with Him . It is by the mingled spirit as a spirit of wisdom and revelation that we can know God’s unveiling of Himself and His economy in His Word.

Co-workers: "we should not restrict how God communicates to man."

Also co-workers: "we must be restricted in one publication. Witness Lee only. All others are poison."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Co-workers: "we should not restrict how God communicates to man."

Also co-workers: "we must be restricted in one publication. Witness Lee only. All others are poison."

This is so typical. I would daresay that every topic we ever discussed could find WL on both sides of the discussion.

Who is the real WL?

Many times I have stated this: After WL died and the Blendeds took over, TC had all the Midwest workers and leaders reading thru the books of WL on numerous contentious topics. His goal was to sit down with all the leaders in the Recovery, including Midwest brothers, and hash out some reasonable consensus going forward, all based on WL's direction. The compilation work was extensive. Volumes of quotes from every ministry book were assembled together and TC hand delivered them to Anaheim for their review. I have no doubt this work ended up in the dumpster.

Why? Because WL was often all over the place. His written ministry did not match his spoken ministry. His later ministry did not match his earlier ministry. RK knew this. He was responsible for "cleaning up" all of WL's messages, public and private. The written word of old during the Life Study era was much closer to scripture, though not always what most would call "orthodox." His spoken ministry of late was what Anaheim strictly followed. The Blendeds knew WL directly. TC and the Midwest mostly knew his messages and books.

[Trapped]

I mean.....honestly I am chomping at the bit to write some more about the recent articles, but after reading the "Our Attitude Toward Other Christians and Their Work Part 2: The Vision of the Lord's Recovery Being Contrary to Today's Christianity" article......I just.....feel like I almost can't imagine another group that has so carefully and painstakingly built such a thick, foreboding wall of doctrine that is easy to see through but is so riddled with error that responding to it takes herculean amounts of effort.

I mean, it is SO unreal, it is SO arrogant, it is SO elitist, it is SO snobbish, it is SO divisive while claiming to be "in the name of oneness", and it is SO self-contradictory and hypocritical, that reading their stance just makes me sad, but it's like pulling a 2,000 foot extension cord out of the garage and knowing you've got probably a solid two hours of messing with an incredibly heavy wound-around-itself-mess-of-a-cord to have a chance of getting it unraveled.

I mean, just one sentence: "To realize why the Lord’s recovery is incompatible with today’s Christianity, we need a clear vision of the central truth in the New Testament."

And with just 24 words, they have literally written off the entirety of Christianity but themselves.

This. Screams. Aberrant. Group.

And later on in the article they state what their vision is:

"What is our vision? Our vision is that God so loved the world that He gave His Son to die for us to redeem us, the sinners, in order that we can have the life of Christ and be regenerated by Him to be God’s children, enjoying the riches of the Triune God to become the Body of Christ. In practice, the Body is expressed as the local churches in various localities, practicing the Body life in a practical and proper way. This Body, the church of God, is the focus of God’s economy. (Witness Lee, The Vision of the Age, 79)"

Uhhhhhh......they start out with quite literally the most well-known verse in the Bible and act like they alone have read it. I don't think hardly any Christian on the planet would disagree with their first sentence (save the Triune God part in some instances, I have learned). And so what that leaves is the rest of their "vision" which is just their own divisive practice of being "local" churches. Anyone reading with half a brain can see through what's going on.

And look at that...."enjoying the riches" and "the Body" are the stated focus of God's economy. None of that "eternal life is to know God and Jesus" stuff. Zoinks.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

And look at that...."enjoying the riches" and "the Body" are the stated focus of God's economy. None of that "eternal life is to know God and Jesus" stuff. Zoinks.

"Enjoying the riches"... James said, "If you are enjoying your riches, and your brother goes by, hungry and cold, and you say, 'Be blessed, be warmed and filled', what is your enjoyment, really? Empty rhetoric." (cf Ja 2:16).

And then, John, "You say, 'I am rich, and need nothing', but you are destitute" (Rev 3:17)

And then, James again, "Howl, you rich... your riches burn you like fire" (cf Ja 5:1,3).

All this 'enjoyment' is to me just empty rhetoric. It precludes any issue, it is held as an end of itself, bringing God. In fact any issue, any work, is dismissed as "dead works", somehow obviating the grace of God. Yet that is nowhere stated in Paul's epistles, that we no longer need to heed Jesus' admonition to give to those who can't repay us, that our reward will be great in heaven.

Somehow with "enjoying the riches" we can ignore Jesus' repeated admonitions to be generous, and not to be selfish, because of Paul's epistle to the Romans stresses faith, and WL sussed out for the Body of Christ to be built up by repetitive chanting and shouting. That's the enjoyment - heel-rocking, neck-rolling, fist-pumping, sing-song cadence. And "love your neighbour" is nowhere to be found.

I see no riches whatsoever. Just dust.

[UntoHim]

FACT CHECK:

The Minister of the Age, Not Infallibility

"Not since the time of the early apostles has the vision of God’s New Testament economy been so clear,
a vision that encompasses the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation
and that inherits all that the Lord has recovered through His servants throughout the centuries."

Is this statement demonstrably true or demonstrably false? It cannot be partially true or partially false. Since the authors of this statement are hiding behind the nebulous "The co-workers in the Lord’s recovery in North America" we have no way to question them directly. Of course, since followers of Witness Lee have never answered serious questions, I guess we wouldn't be getting any answers from these fellows anyway.
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by co-workers on shepherdingwords.com

To say that a certain man is the minister of the age does not mean that this man is infallible. Noah was a minister of the age, but he was clearly not without mistakes. The same could be said for Abraham, Moses, Peter, and even the apostle Paul. Any mistakes Brother Nee and Brother Lee may have made do not nullify the vision or the ministry according to that vision that we have received through these two brothers. Not since the time of the early apostles has the vision of God’s New Testament economy been so clear, a vision that encompasses the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and that inherits all that the Lord has recovered through His servants throughout the centuries.

Noah was a minister of the age, co-workers? Really? Show me. Show me from the Scriptures. Where was his ministry? Who did he minister to? What was the topic of his ministry? What "vision" did he stand on stage and release to God's people?

It of course isn't there. He built an ark with instructions from God (not a "vision") and when the flood was over, he tended a vineyard (also not a "vision"). There is no record of him being a minister, or of having a ministry.

These guys literally just open their mouths and say whatever they want, true or not.

And the issue is not that Nee and Lee made mistakes. We all know mistakes alone don't disqualify anyone from teaching the Word (gross or immoral ones aside, I would personally say). It is what they DID following those mistakes that nullifies who they claimed to be.

Man, I'm so sick of the stream of the black, double-tongued lies and manipulation that come from the co-workers. I do like, however, that the lies are all consolidated in one place so they can be so easily seen.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Noah was a minister of the age, co-workers? Really? Show me. Show me from the Scriptures. Where was his ministry? Who did he minister to? What was the topic of his ministry? What "vision" did he stand on stage and release to God's people?

It of course isn't there. He built an ark with instructions from God (not a "vision") and when the flood was over, he tended a vineyard (also not a "vision"). There is no record of him being a minister, or of having a ministry.

I don't know about Noah being a "minister of the age." That's an interesting title that I don't even remember that being used in the LC back in the 80s when I was there last. Must be something since then, right?

I think we can certainly and accurately say Noah was God's man on the earth at that time, but "minister"? Hmmm . . . I suppose it could be how one defines what being a minister is. One definition is "one who ministers to needs." Other definitions point to someone in authority in either clergy or government. In any case, Noah was God's man for that time and gave himself to perform God's will on the earth before and during the flood, but calling him a MOTA, well that's a manmade title and no more.

[Trapped]

More articles are up.

Riddled with bad interpretations of the Bible.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Excerpt From: Some Questions and Answers Regarding Deputy Authority

What if a deputy authority is wrong? If a deputy authority is wrong, we should still submit (Dan. 3:19-21; Acts 16:20-25), though we cannot obey if the authority insists that we act contrary to God (Dan. 3:16-18; Acts 5:29). In the church a failure by the deputy authority should be handled through proper fellowship. For example, a failure in the eldership should be handled through fellowship with the apostles (1 Cor. 1:10-11; 5:1, 13; 1 Tim. 5:19-20).
(emphasis supplied)

"Through fellowship with the apostles". WHO ARE TODAY'S APOSTLES? NAME THEM.

I have one question.
Brothers who consider themselves as apostles, what miracles have you performed?

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by aron

"Enjoying the riches"... James said, "If you are enjoying your riches, and your brother goes by, hungry and cold, and you say, 'Be blessed, be warmed and filled', what is your enjoyment, really? Empty rhetoric." (cf Ja 2:16).

And then, John, "You say, 'I am rich, and need nothing', but you are destitute" (Rev 3:17)

And then, James again, "Howl, you rich... your riches burn you like fire" (cf Ja 5:1,3).

All this 'enjoyment' is to me just empty rhetoric. It precludes any issue, it is held as an end of itself, bringing God. In fact any issue, any work, is dismissed as "dead works", somehow obviating the grace of God. Yet that is nowhere stated in Paul's epistles, that we no longer need to heed Jesus' admonition to give to those who can't repay us, that our reward will be great in heaven.

Somehow with "enjoying the riches" we can ignore Jesus' repeated admonitions to be generous, and not to be selfish, because of Paul's epistle to the Romans stresses faith, and WL sussed out for the Body of Christ to be built up by repetitive chanting and shouting. That's the enjoyment - heel-rocking, neck-rolling, fist-pumping, sing-song cadence. And "love your neighbour" is nowhere to be found.

I see no riches whatsoever. Just dust.

1Tim. 3:17Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

[Bible-believer]

FACT CHECK:

The Minister of the Age, Not Infallibility

What is our vision? Our vision is that God so loved the world that He gave His Son to die for us to redeem us, the sinners, in order that we can have the life of Christ and be regenerated by Him to be God’s children, enjoying the riches of the Triune God to become the Body of Christ. In practice, the Body is expressed as the local churches in various localities, practicing the Body life in a practical and proper way. This Body, the church of God, is the focus of God’s economy. (The Vision of the Age, 79)

You see, that's their vision- the church of God is the focus of God's economy. Their "vision", what about the biblical evidence of this "vision?" None. That's Lee's teaching, his vision, and became "their vision”，and they defined the vision as "the focus of God's economy".
They admit their vision is not infallible, yet they said their ministry is the only ministry. Why should we take a "not infallible" vision as God's focus?

[Ohio]

You see, that's their vision- the church of God is the focus of God's economy. Their "vision", what about the biblical evidence of this "vision?" None. That's Lee's teaching, his vision, and became "their vision”，and they defined the vision as "the focus of God's economy".
They admit their vision is not infallible, yet they said their ministry is the only ministry. Why should we take a "not infallible" vision as God's focus?[/QUOTE]
After hearing about "the vision" for decades, not just the official published party line, but the daily vernacular, like when someone leaves the LC it is said they "lost their vision," I concluded that "the vision" simply meant that you would remain in the LC no matter what happened. These were merely high sounding code words for members who remained, and were willing to put up with any kind of nonsense mandated by LSM. It was then said, "you were faithful to 'the vision'." You were not faithful to the Lord, or to the truth, or to bring the gospel to the nations as Paul defined the vision he was obedient to, but merely a faithful member of LSM.

[Trapped]

I was just thinking......the co-workers have really shot themselves in the foot with shepherdingwords.com. I mean, it's one thing to go along not knowing what offense people have with you, or to unintentionally not face issues.

But with shepherdingwords.com, there is a hard, public record of the co-workers:

1. being explicitly aware of the issues
2. showing understanding of the issues
3. and yet evading, manipulating, twisting, lying, and avoiding them.

And that last point - the knowing evasion, manipulation, lying - that's what God hates. The hardened heart. The unrepentant sin. The protection of darkness. Jesus showed much mercy to truthful sinners who showed godly sorrow. But no mercy and a lot of anger to hardened, manipulative, haughty people. The co-workers can't feign ignorance to God or man. God knows the hearts......and now He can show them a printout of their own website too!

[HERn]

Quote from Trapped.

“ The co-workers can't feign ignorance to God or man. God knows the hearts.....and now He can show them a printout of their own website too!”

Good one!!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by HERn

Quote from Trapped.

“ The co-workers can't feign ignorance to God or man. God knows the hearts.....and now He can show them a printout of their own website too!”

Good one!!

We should download all their .pdf’s before this website is “disappeared.”

Nell